I'll take the even more aggressive tack than the other people who have replied to you: it actually is still a social safety net. Even people who (supposedly) bilk social safety programs have dependents, and those dependents do not deserve privation because you disapprove of their guardian's behavior.

Have a little perspective and focus your ire on our ridiculous military budget (which is also a welfare program, mind you) instead.

Great, let's get those people off of it. Any company that doesn't pay their employees a living wage should have their taxes balloon to offset that safety net.

I think we disagree on the definition of social safety net. Social safety nets “improve lives of vulnerable families and individuals experiencing poverty and destitution.” Sure, temporary assistance is a subset, but duration isn’t part of the definition. For example, pensions are part of the social safety net as is social security. Both (in theory) continue in perpetuity to fund ones “lifestyle”

I think "people who stay on it as a lifestyle" (how many is that, really?) are far less of a concern than the people who are stuck on it because even working 2-3 jobs isn't enough to climb out of poverty. Kroger and Walmart employees rely heavily on the social safety net, for example, and some of them are even homeless despite working (https://www.businessinsider.com/1-in-7-kroger-workers-homele...)

the good old welfare queen argument?

Welfare queens are a rounding error. Manufacturing a persistent underclass is the problem.

There are tons of potentially productive members of society languishing because if they made any serious progress toward improving their lives they'd lose their benefits. The outcomes for children born into such households are... not great.

God forbid, we help 10 truly needful people at the cost of 1 person taking advantage.