Have I mentioned Megan's fundamental dishonesty lately?

Megan shares a poignant story of the cracks in the system screwing over real, live people posted in the comments to an old post of hers, in a manner suggesting it just goes to show what she'd been saying. Curiously, she doesn't link to the post, but we'll get back to that in a moment. To this tale Megan adds

I think this illuminates several aspects of the debate over food stamps:

1) The poor really are not living lives of joyous leisure on their frantabulously lavish benefits.

There's more, and I'd respond myself, but I think I'll just quote the original post by Megan whut the comment came from, titled Why not food stamps?.

1) The poor don't need more food. Obesity is a problem for the poor in America; except for people who are too screwed up to get food stamps (because they don't have an address), food insufficiency is not.

There's plenty more bullshit in the older post, but that's enough to make my point. Megan, fuck you.

Update:

Megan replied to my posting the link to her original post in the comments. Let's see whut she said

I wasn't ashamed of that post, Brad; I just pulled the comment from the app interface rather than the web page, so I didn't post a link. I stand by my assertion: what the poor in America most need is not food.

The reason that a poor college student can't provide for his mother is the way the benefits are structured. If he is legally living with her, she'll lose not only cash, but Medicaid, and probably a bunch of other services like home heating assistance; I assume the same is true of family income, which may be why she's getting low child support payments. For someone with a really expensive and uninsurable condition, this means they have to keep their income very low, even if they could work a little more--I know someone with a debilitating and probably fatal lung condition who cannot work at all because of this, even though she would like to do piecework as able. She also could not get legally married, because her boyfriend was a freelancer who buys his own health insurance, and the marriage would have rendered both of them instantly broke and without healthcare. This is not a good system.

I'll ignore the reassertion, shit, at least she's standing by a widely reviled opinion for once. Let's just get to the second part.
In a sense, Megan is right, the restrictions the student whose comment she posted faces are simply stupid, and counter-productive. Thing is, they exist because of people like Megan and their opposition to helping people in the first place, at least in part. Of course bureaucracies have their own built in inefficiencies, but the system is restrictive because of apocryphal stories like Reagan's welfare queen making the public want tight controls.
Why are conservatives so fond of pointing to the flaws they introduce into systems as proof those systems don't work?