Logic isn't going to carry much weight with people that have a hate-on for the poor.. Why blame greed and the "american way" of spend spend spend, when you can blame the most disadvantaged for your problems instead? Many of those blamed actually have jobs, but at sub-poverty level wages are unable to meet their basic expenses , even after they're encouraged to apply for welfare subsidies by their employer to top up their wages (such as Walmart, who do this as a matter of practice) . The rest likely couldn't actualy obtain work if they had to anyways. There's an argument that just *might* hit them where it hurtds though. How's this? Would you just roll over and die if you had no way to feed yourself and your family? Perhaps you ought to take a lesson from where I live. After the government introduced the moximum term of 2 years to collect help for food, or rent, people suddenly were unable to recireve even a $10 voucher for groceries, and no help with shelter either.. effectively forcing them and their families out onto the street. After this the homeless population quadrupled within months, and since nobody will hire someone living on a street corner, emergence medical expenses (paid for by the taxpayer) skyrocketed.. crime and policing costs (paid for by the taxpayer) skyrocketed, the streets changed from the safest in Canada to the most dangerous almost overnight.. costs of implementing this new social policy nearly bankrupted the government, so taxes (hidden and property) went way up.. and conditions are still so bad they are now irreversible. The government in quesation is long gone now though, so they don't have to accept responsibility. All it was, was the old trick of transferring costs from clearly visible ones, to buried ones so nobody could discern where they went. Social support was never invented, originally, as a "compassionate" measure by the "bleeding hearts", but rather, as a wise security buffer by the wealthy, trained in Keynesian classical economics, to keep their assetts secure. Knowing, after all, that unless the bottom 10% have minimal food and shelter, that the economic ramifications trickle up all the way through the chain, eventually dangerously impacting the top 10%. The fraudulent incompetent teaching called "neo-classical" economics changed all that.. Anyways, that's just my 2 bits here..