There is a myth that people in the US are economically homogenous. Even looking at those that receive food stamps as a few groups, rather than a single generic group, you start to see the problems inherent in "cutting them off for their own good".
1) First and (hopefully) one only timers. There are people who are in need for just a few months. Truly "between jobs", they will be buying their own food in short order. However, a problem arises for many if they get laid off a *second* time, as many States prohibit getting food stamps "twice". These are often young couples with children just starting out.
2) Disabled and/or undergoing medical care. This is a real dilemma for a family with a single breadwinner. Often middle class, injury or illness can impact for months or years. How do you feed your family if you can't work? They may also be facing many future years incomes to pay off enormous medical bills.
3) Too old. With his double-digit inflation Jimmy Carter impoverished hundreds of thousands of people who thought they were on track to have a nest-egg for their retirement. There are only so many "greeters" jobs to be had at Wal-Mart. Add to them those who have lost (had stolen) their retirement through corporate mismanagement, those hit with catastrophic illness, and the huge number who had been wage employees, now trying to live on only a Social Security check. Many regularly choose between food and medicine.
4) Regional downturn. When several major employers fire tens of thousands of employees at once, it can have a domino effect in an area, which means a large percentage of people will have to relocate for employment. Many who stay and many who go will be reduced to working minimum-wage jobs that barely pay their rent. They are SOL until the regional economy improves. Perhaps a year or two. These can be well paid blue or white collar people.
5) Military junior enlisted personnel families. Though wartime bonuses have improved this considerably, many military personnel have long been food stamp receipients, easily qualifying as "below poverty level."
6) Longtime unemployed. Uneducated. Unhireable. Too dumb, unmotivated, felony criminal record, drug & alcohol addiction. Basically rock bottom, and they aren't climbing out. Yes, while the others might be sympathetic, these aren't. But they are part of the group.
You can't just throw up the worst imaginable hypothetical hard-luck examples (a typical method used by those who built our highly destructive welfare state). You need to do better than that. Since you are advocating that the federal government seize money from taxpayers to provide these benefits (nothing is "free"), the burden is on you to show that your hypotheticals bear any relation to reality. In other words, you need to show that these hard-luck cases are typical of those who obtain this aid. You can't just assume that this is the case. You are also making the common mistake of welfarists (again without evidence) of simply assuming that these folks are helpless to fill these needs through mutual aid, private aid, etc.
Finally, I recommend again that you study American history before the rise of the welfare state which shows that the poor are not quite as "helpless" and clueless as you make them out to be. They can do perfectly well, that is assuming that some bureucrat isn't constantly pressuring and guilt tripping them to throw aside their "outmoded" pride in being self-reliant, pro-active, resourceful, and independent.