Flawed Logic

 I've recently seen a meme running around conservative circles on Facebook, saying something along the lines of 'This is why the government shouldn't provide food aid.  The government that provides food can also take it away.'  The statement is ostensibly referring to how SNAP benefits are in danger of being interrupted due to the government shutdown.  I submit for your consideration that the logic in this statement is flawed.

While the statement is technically factual, it overlooks a couple of facts, which I will quickly point out...

-The government isn't exactly taking away food aid.  It's more accurate to say there's a lapse in aid during the shutdown.  To use a crappy analogy, it's kind of like having two angry parents in a heated argument, meanwhile the kids are in the living room, really hungry and waiting for dinner.  It's not like the parents plan to stop feeding the kids permanently, they're just being stupid and focusing on their petty argument.

-The logic of the original post implies that it's less offensive for the government to let people starve than it is to provide sustenance for the hungry, because later on the government could take it away sometime down the line.  I don't know about you, but if I'm hungry, truly hungry, I don't care where the food comes from.  Whoever came up with this concept has quite obviously never had to worry about missing a meal.

-As an extension of the same logic, maybe I should stop my charitable giving, because that puts me in a position of power where I could stop giving.  Oh wait, that's circular logic.