A straw-man argument is a misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Which is precisely what you do.

Your straw-man argument is to say our (my) position focuses on welfare fraud, which, in your words, is just a "few hundred dollars". To begin with, it's actually billions of dollars a year. But that's besides the point. You miss the forest for the trees: our government has been spending way, way behind its means. Welfare fraud is but a tiny part of that.

So you take an ancillary point -- billions of dollars but relatively small compared to trillions of dollars of debt and ongoing deficits in excess of a trillion dollars a year -- falsely claim that it is less than it really is and point to corporate corruption as a much bigger problem. Talk about mixing topics.

BTW, just who do you think accepts a goodly portion of the alleged $1 trillion in yearly worldwide bribes? Per chance, do you think it could be government officials?