The meme misses that there was a much broader purpose to Jesus feeding the masses. But aside from the theological reasons behind his feeding them, Jesus wasn’t providing social welfare. There had been gathered a large group of people to whom he was preaching. Nothing about the passage suggests those in attendance were poverty stricken and that Jesus was providing their nutrition for them.
Notice also that the fish and bread given to the masses was provided by Jesus himself. He didn’t look to someone else or some other entity to provide the meals at his behest. The political left tends to find a cause that “someone needs to do something about” then uses the government to tax the employed to reallocate their money. In other words, the people in attendance weren’t given fish and bread that was taken from productive fishermen and bakers.
I’m OK with drug testing for government assistance even if the cost isn’t offset. Studies I’ve seen show about 2% of applicants tested fail the drug tests. To the political left, this translates to a witch hunt on the poor. However, I think it is just as reasonable, if not more so, that prospective applicants who know they’ll fail don’t even apply which accounts for the decrease in enrollment numbers. Although, rather than testing every applicant, I think you could achieve the same desired results by random drug screening using a lottery system using birth dates or Social Security numbers.
However, I think it’d be more productive, though more cost prohibitive, to test for tobacco and alcohol. The daily costs of cigarette use and the frivolous non-essentiality of recreational alcohol use is enough cover the supplement they receive from the taxpayer. The average cost of a pack of cigarettes is more than $6. The average smoker smokes at least a pack a day ($180 in a month) that doubles with multiple smokers in the home, which is very common. Nearly a third of those in poverty, and thus receiving taxpayer funds, are smokers.
Opposing drug testing for welfare recipients is politically expedient, not caring.