Poor ≠ lazy, though. There's a relationship there, sure, but to say they're the same is a gross oversimplification that invalidates every single mum working three jobs to stay afloat in an economy designed to trickle upward
My dad was really poor growing up, his parents worked on their farm, had 3 other jobs, starved to send him and his 2 sisters to boarding schools. When they died over 30 years after my dad and aunts graduated they found out that my grandparents were still in debt. Dad and his sisters have worked hard every day since to repay their education and are now all middle class.
The poor are not the problem and much of the privilege that comes from being upper class hugely goes by unnoticed; working to support family instead of doing homework; grades falling with privilege gets a tutor and extra help; standards and expectations are different in terms of grades at school, pursing higher education, jobs they'll get; the recommendation from parents and friends to get into a good job etc.
I don't see the middle class blaming the poor. I see the middle class blaming the rich (example a: this post). Unfortunately, those that think the rich are the problem clearly don't understand basic economics.
A growing and sustainable economy is based around the premise of money constantly changing hands and trade occurring. This circulation of currency promotes wealth and growth for not only the people but the economy as a whole. Rich people are the cause of economic decline because as they stockpile vast amounts of money, that money is being taken out of circulation, reducing economic growth. The basic premise of a successful economy is that by spending money it will eventually come back to you, however the rich do not let the money leave their hands, resulting in trillions of dollars in economic loss.
So if more money were in the hands of the middle class, say, through increased income, that would be a stimulus to the economy because they would spend a larger share of their income than their employer/shareholders? If this line of reasoning is true, it should also be true that income inequality is harmful to economic growth, since more income is in the hands of wealthy people who are less likely to spend it. While there is a well documented negative correlation between income inequality and economic growth in developing countries, the opposite is the case for developed countries. According to research from Harvard economist Robert Barro, “higher inequality tends to retard growth in poor countries and encourage growth in richer places.” http://www.nber.org/papers/w7038 There are also several studies which have confirmed this finding.
The poor are not the problem and much of the privilege that comes from being upper class hugely goes by unnoticed; working to support family instead of doing homework; grades falling with privilege gets a tutor and extra help; standards and expectations are different in terms of grades at school, pursing higher education, jobs they'll get; the recommendation from parents and friends to get into a good job etc.