> Dispensing charity on the local level, rather than the federal, reduces fraud and gets the funds directly in the hands that need it most.

SNAP is not charity, its a public benefit program (while charities may overlap with public benefit programs in what they do, they aren't the same thing.)

Also, SNAP is distributed at the local level. Its funded at the federal level (IIRC, actually it is funded in part at the federal level, and there is a cost sharing arrangement), which gets resources from where they are to where they are needed.

> And there is a lot of fraud in the food stamp program.

That's actually a separate point, from the one it is included with; please quantify "a lot", and explain why this justifies throwing the baby (legitimate beneficiaries) out with the bathwater (fraudsters).

> One of the biggest problems the US is facing currently is the inability to pay for entitlement programs.

The long term costs of the major entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare) is an issue, true. OTOH, SNAP (in total) is a negligible cost compared to those programs (SNAP has on the order of $80 billion in total costs, Social Security alone has around $1.3 trillion.)

> Food stamps are essentially cash. Even when spent properly, they're usually spent on processed poor quality food because that's the cheapest stuff around. Take the funds and spend them at soup kitchens that can leverage their purchasing power and buy high quality fresh food at a discount.

That would be a relevant point to debate -- not to say that I agree, but it would be at least a legitimate subject of discussion relevant to the desirability of the action -- if the House bill transferred the funds from SNAP to "soup kitchens". As it does not, the idea that the money would be better spent that way is irrelevant to the legislative action actually at issue.

> Any entitlement programs reduces the incentive to work and become self-sufficient.

Entitlement programs also increase the capacity to become self-sufficient, whatever effect they have an incentives.

Incentives without capacity are meaningless.

(And the actual structure of SNAP generally places sharp limits on benefit duration if you aren't actually engaged in work or job training programs.)

> Having been on food stamps myself, I can tell you right off the bat, it's absolutely degrading. At the time, they didn't use any kind of cards, you had actual food stamps. There you are, paying with stamps, while everybody else pays with cash. It's like wearing a sign saying "look at me, I'm poor!" and it's humiliating. A more discrete way of distributing help would be far more humane.

As you note in this very paragraph, a more discrete way of distributing benefits than what you experienced is what SNAP is now, since they no longer use stamps. (Of course, to extent that this point retains any legitimacy, it also contradicts point #4 -- being degrading creates an incentive to get off of it, financial incentives aren't the only kind that exist; money, after all, is just a proxy for utility which, at its most fundamental level, is "having experiences you prefer and not those you do not prefer", and degradation is clearly a form of disutility.)