Very good article. i clicked on links to a couple of other articles, and they were good as well.
What is so sad about this situation is that any young couple today who get married and have a child are actually making a stupid choice from a strictly economic point of view. It's cataclysmic when taking care of yourself and those you love becomes a "stupid" choice.

OA has said it all.
Is there anyone outside of this forum who'll listen? It seems to me that more and more people every day have become comfortable with our ever increasing welfare state. It's as if they accept it as the price that must be paid for the largesse of what they perceive as our form of government. Freedom? They haven't a clue.

Great find! Its on my FB page now.Spread the word to the unwashed masses.

O.A., we are proving the principle that, in a "democracy,"
when the people can vote themselves a free ride, they will. -- j
.

The worst program, in my opinion, is AFDC (aka TANF), which subsidizes those on welfare to have babies out of wedlock, and even rewards teenagers who get pregnant with the chance to move out of their parents' home when they're 16.

The kids thus produced have no role models and no real hope of a future, other than existing on welfare their whole lives like Mommy. (Or crime.) And they are 30% of all births in the US.

And this is where Obama got most of his voters. It's got to stop before we're overrun, if we aren't already!

Even the appalling numbers presented are not all encompassing. Virginia is listed at number 37 with $14,870 per year in theft-generated funds. That is for a single piglet. However, their litters are usually large. This is a list of thefts that can be collected by a single swine with 3 sucklings (compiled from a detailed questioning of a social worker in VA several years ago. The amounts are likely to be higher today):
Apartment /housing 1500
Utilities 400
Food 400
WIC 100
Med 500
Cable 30
Cell phone 30
Home phone 25
Car repair 50
Entertainment 75
Clothes 100
Child care 1500
Additional for children 500
All of the above are tax free/exempt. How stupid does one need to be to work, unless it’s under the table?

OA we are not going broke we are broke. The manufacturing base in the usa is at a low because of the government rules etc put on the books say from 1960 on and that has been the driver to send manufacturing off shore. It is not coming back so those who are coming here from where ever only know that they are supposed to have an opportunity to improve themselves in the usa while those who were born here in the ghetto environment have no incentive to work so everyone of them gets something from the government because that is how the government employees want and like it. Your observation is very clearly accurate. I am sure you know the answer to the question.

I think that we must define the term:
"Highest paying entry-level-job".
If sitting around watching TV, eating McDonald's, drinking my 40 on the stoop and having sex is a "job" then our country is in real trouble!

A well written exposition. If I can add a comment: It's a contradiction in terms to claim there are those who support the welfare state. Those who receive the benefits cannot support it in a financial sense. Those who work to benefit those recipients cannot support it in a moral sense (how can these who believe in work condone the receipt of benefits for not working?). That leaves those who support it from a moral perspective and who pay the benefits. But the last is impossible because the concept is included in charity. Thus, who is left to support the welfare state? Only those who claim that the moral outweighs the financial? Yes and no, because these are two groups: those who claim it is another's moral obligation to provide for others and those who claim it is immoral to provide financial support to those who have not earned it. The latter: it is clear these would not support the welfare state. The former: it is clear duplicitousness, which is the hallmark of the statists. The crime is perpetrated when those who claim moral support outweighs and/or directs the financial then use confiscated financial assets to provide a "moral service". What "moral service"? The socialists, the communists, the statists believe financial assets should be abolished. What value is financial support to those who believe in its abolition? Would a 1920's abolitionist attempt to show drinking is wrong and that others should not drink by giving each stolen bottle to alcoholics? The carcass on which these political elements feed is the lie of altruism (achieved through coercion).

Because I am in construction and do a lot of traveling I have the opportunity to speak to many transients and the homeless. They often surprise me with the answers they provide regarding their status. Most suffer from some type of mental illness, some are alcoholics. Many have made poor choices over time that make it difficult to impossible to obtain employment or keep a job. I've asked them why they aren't on welfare. Oddly many look at it as charity and they won't take it, the most surprising answer I received was...I don't want the government in my business. Once you sign up for welfare your life isn't your own and I don't like people telling me what to do. Now when a transient hits me up for a couple bucks, I give if I have it. At least they are honest in the request and it's my choice to hand over some coin.

A related article I wrote a couple years ago - http://4thestatemedia.com/?p=226

amen to that!!!

Proud to see my state at #51.

If you remove the "safety net" these people will fill those much need positions in farming and other fields. My question is how do you convince the gov. to start reducing the welfare payouts? It must be done. but it should be done gradually or the zombie apocalypse will begin