Freedom means freedom to make poor decisions, but when that money was given to you by taxpayers and is specifically earmarked to feed your kids, not spending it on your kids makes you a bad person.
In short, it talks about how in US poor people are being judged as moral failures. Buying "display items" like expensive handbags makes them look less poor. So it is an investment because when they look less poor, others treat them better. Others being predominantly people with power over them - bureaucrats, managers and so on.
(the article also discusses racism)
EDIT: and you see this at all levels of wealth too - there's certain expectation of a lawyer arriving in Mercedes or BMW, otherwise some people will think them incompetent, for example.
If the system is effective for the vast majority and the cost of those abusing the system is less than the cost to prevent the abuse then that's generally a win. (Of course you have to be careful of second order effects and unintended consequences. If people can easily get away with abuse will abuse of the system grow?)
In other words, you don't need to convince people that abuse of the system isn't wrong or that it is impossible, i.e. the "don't judge" comments, you need to convince them that the system is effective in both costs and outcomes.