Right because only a few (like three or four) welfare recipients have used their welfare money for unnecessary expenditures.... and of course deflecting onto an unrelated problem absolves you from recognizing this one.
I do agree that to some extend there is a new found "McCarthyism" in regard to the poor and being lazy and irresponsible but it is more then a few and it is a problem.
The world is full of idiots both rich and poor but the problem with the poor idiots is that they are being idiotic on the taxpayer dime.
If as a child my mom give me $20 to buy a pair of shoes and instead I decided to buy candy and porn with it should I not feel some sort of backlash?
Yet we should not criticize the poor for misappropriating government issued funds because... they have it tough enough already?
It's not deflecting, it's a natural continuation. Abuses of the mortgage market led to the 2008 crash in a big way. If you're prepared to say that abuses of a system that cause harm should be more heavily regulated, such as camoor eluded to, then why are you in favor of increased regulations in only this one particular area? Furthermore, it was the idiocy of those same rich people who largely led to the crash. Has the welfare system caused our entire economic system to collapse? So really, who has caused more damage to our economy, the rich, or the poor?
Am I to really to understand that because some people, of which neither one of us conceitedly has concrete numbers, have abused the system of welfare we have in place that you are in favor of completely wiping out the welfare system as a whole?
Or, are you in favor of reform and regulation of the welfare system? Fact of the matter is, you were the one who assumed that because I support welfare I was one of those "bleeding hearts" who fought for them to be able to use the money for strippers and liquor, I never said I completely opposed regulating welfare.