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.
Actually, the food in the case of government surplus has already been paid for, and possibly more than once. Agricultural price supports include government guarantees to farmers and farm corporations that the government will buy any surplus food produced above quota.
So when Reagan gave away that cheese, it saved the taxpayers millions of dollars in the cost of refrigerated storage. And yet, the price of retail cheese didn't go down, so it didn't hurt the cheese producers.
The only thing we could have done is what we usually do: throw it out when it rots.
Agribusiness and government food subsidies and programs are several college majors, because of all their linkages. But the bottom line is a very human one: do you give food to people, knowing that many of them don't deserve it, though some do; or do you throw it out because if you feed them you will somehow "corrupt" them?
The latter choice just cannot be justified. It is Swiftian, but without the humor. That is, "The Irish keep making so many babies, and yet they starve. They should eat their babies, and solve two problems at once."
And yes, in "the good old days", during the first part of the great depression, people *did* starve to death. And even then, some people objected to feeding them.