This leads us to one of the tragic things about politics: there have been thousands of debates like this the past, I don't know, 100 years, but what neither side seems to understand is that everyone wants more or less the same thing. Us socialists are all for making it as difficult as possible for freeloaders, we don't like them either. We just want to take care of those who truly are worse off, not those who choose to be, and I do think most of us do want to help those people, those who really do need it. It's just that us socialists think it's worth it to have some freeloaders until we fix the loopholes, whilst other people would rather wait spending money until everything is loophole-free, so that just those who need help, get help.
I understand and fully agree to the argument that we have to be careful about to whom we give money, because if we spend an unnecessarily large sum, to people who don't need it, then that hasn't really solved anything. We've just created new problems. There will always be idiots who want to throw a lot of money around without paying much attention to who gets it, just like there will always be heartless bastards who think that everyone who's worse off deserves living on the street, but it's vital to understand that the idiots are just as misrepresentative for socialists, as the bastards are for liberalists.
I might be wrong, but at least that's my experience.