But, let's talk about moochers, shall we?  Ever heard the term "corporate welfare?"  Perhaps not, because I don't see anywhere in your comments any discussion of the federal and state handouts that go to corporations, for example, nor do I see any discussion about corporate welfare's friend: federal tax laws that disproportionately benefit highly-compensated individuals.

For fun, try reading this, from the Cato Institute, and here's some additional discussion from Think By Numbers:

About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.

[snip]

However, the largest fraction of corporate welfare spending, about 40%, went through the Department of Agriculture, most of it in the form of farm subsidies. (Edwards, Corporate Welfare, 2003) Well, that sounds OK. Someone's got to help struggling family farms stay afloat, right? But in reality, farm subsidies actually tilt the cotton field in favor of the largest industrial farming operations. When it comes to deciding how to dole out the money, the agricultural subsidy system utilizes a process that is essentially the opposite of that used in the social welfare system's welfare system. In the corporate welfare system, the more money and assets you have, the more government assistance you get. Conversely, social welfare programs are set up so that the more money and assets you have, the less government assistance you get. The result is that the absolute largest 7% of corporate farming operations receive 45% of all subsidies. (Edwards, Downsizing the Federal Government, 2004) So instead of protecting family farms, these subsidies actually enhance the ability of large industrial operations to shut them out of the market.

There's more, and there are some nifty charts at both main links and lots of other info at the embedded links.

Talking points like yours, happily disseminated by a corporate-owned media, are why there are so many people willing to believe that all of our economic problems would vanish if we would just stop enabling the lazy, just-want-to-do-drugs-and-have-babies crowd and make them stand on their own two feet.  And why stop there?  How about old people?  If we'd take away the incentive of Social Security and Medicare, we'd force people to make better financial decisions during their working lives, and they wouldn't need the government's help, right?  

But no one talks about the billions that go to the corporate sector, do they?  No one wants to talk about the sense of entitlement the wealthy have to non-stop help from the government that allows them to keep growing their wealth - and worse, no one wants to talk about at whose expense that happens.  

Those dollars end up coming out of the pockets of average people, so, while you object to paying for welfare queens and baby daddies; I object to paying for CEOs and corporations.

But not to worry; regardless of which party wins the White House, we're going to be headed in the same direction, it's just a question of how fast we're going to be moving.

EG: free college, but only if they'll give up their drugs.

A matter of focus, isn't  it?  It is one thing if a system/program is so suspect, so self-defeating that everyone or near everyone games it.  We've seen that kind of self-aggrandizement approach in recent years...in the Wall Street hyperbolic hedge-fund practices, in the golden parachute practices that became common practice for failed executives at the largest corporations, and more.  What about the little guy, the average Joe & Jill?  Are those down-on-their-luck or needing a little extra help trying to scam the system for big  parachute-like bucks or pension scamming, huh?  

when they think no one is filming, there's a better chance of some truth slipping out