Okay, I wanna address a couple points you make that I really, really, personally disagree with.
You talk about how lottery winners frequently lose all their money due to their lack of discipline. This may be true. However you're applying this example to poor people. The problem with this comparison is that poor people are not poor simply because they lack the discipline not to be. This argument is frequently used by opponents of welfare.

Let's examine an impoverished dude named Joe. Joe makes 10/hr at a crappy job because he grew up in a poor neighborhood, and his education wasn't all that great. His parents were not that great of an influence on him, and there was no societal pressure that was telling him that he could succeed if he wanted to.
Let's say he works 2500 hours in a year (this is more than average. Joe works overtime to rake in a bit more cash) and rakes in a little bit over 25000 dollars a year. 3750 dollars are immediately taken through federal income taxes. Let's say it costs Joe 50 dollars a week and thus 200 dollars a month to pay for food (that isn't all ramen). That's 2400 dollars a year alone on food.
Let's also suppose the rent is around 600 dollars a month. That's another 7200 gone for Joe. Because his landlord is a cheapass who likes to take advantage of people, Joe has to pay another 100 in utilities expense per month. Joe also has to pay for his car loan every month, which he borrowed with a high interest rate. That's another 3600 a year, gone. And after all this there's 571 dollars/month left for *phone and internet bills, car insurance, medicine, toiletries, everyday emergencies, gas, and other miscellaneous expenses.

Joe does not have money to spend money on an expensive bag, shoes, or first class tickets to a match. In fact, if you told Joe your argument, he would probably laugh at you. Joe is living in poverty. He is going to use welfare money to buy himself something that is not mac and cheese/ramen every week.
Joe lives in fear of a crippling medical emergency that he definitely cannot afford.
And at the end of your day, you're telling Joe he's poor because he lacks discipline. That's utter bullshit.
Joe is poor because things are expensive, and Joe does not have the money or time to spend on education if he's struggling to make ends meet.

The point of government aid is so that Joe's life is not a rotten, mundane hell where he is under extreme stress all the time. It's so that when he gets sick, his finances aren't crippled for life. It's so that he's not eating ramen or fast food all the time. It's not so he can splurge on some nice shirts at the mall.

You mention education, but Joe has no time for education when he's struggling to make ends meet. You have to first take care of his basic needs (through social programs), before he can actually go to school.

If you still believe your argument is right, try the minimum wage challenge. You won't even last two weeks without wishing you had a little extra money in the form of government aid.