Luvscure1 wrote an article that was very articulate even though I totally disagreed with it (which is why I featured it -- I wonder if Luvscure1 has anything to do with my favorite musical group, "The Cure" but that's a different subject).

Amount of sympathy I have for people on welfare: 0.

There are only two things you have to do in life to stay off of welfare statistically:

1. Finish high school.
2. Don't have any children until age 25.

While it won't guarantee you never being poor, it makes it exceptionally unlikely that you will be poor. That's it. In Luvscure's article she talks about her friend with 2 children who is just not able to make end's meet on welfare. She's going to school and her solution, I suspect, would be for welfare to be high enough such that she could afford to live decently (above poverty) with child care provided for so that she could go to school and get a degree to make a better life for her and her two children.

Sure sounds reasonable doesn't it? I mean, just a little helping hand, just a little compassion and someone would be able to turn their life around. How can you object to that? What kind of heartless bastard would want a woman and her two small children to live near poverty?

Of course, that's a strawman argument. No decent person wants anyone to live in poverty. What people want are for people to show some personal responsibility.  I'm not the brightest bulb out there, and having grown up quite poor myself, I know the type of lifestyle her friend is currently experiencing.  But even when I was a teen I had enough sense to know that a) having children too young was a ticket to the poor house.

The other problem with most welfare people I've met over the years is that they are amazingly UNresourceful. In Luvscure's article, she mentions her friend's kids have holes in their shoes. What? Purple heart and tons of other charities will gladly provide children with free shoes. Me suspects that that the woman is insisting on purchasing new shoes at the store. Sorry but that ain't the way to go about it. In fact, many things that Luvscure brings up just highlights the experiences I've had with welfare people - her friend also is having a hard time living in the city. Duh. How about moving OUT of the city where you can get low income housing that's much less expensive.  How about taking advantage of discount clothing places (Which is what my mother, a beacon of resourcefulness, did when we were poor).  What about taking advantage of bulk food services. Welfare can pay the bills if one is reasonably resourceful.

But that aside, the best way to get out of welfare is not to end up in a situation where you're in it in the first place.  Show me a welfare mother and I'll show you someone with at least 2 small children. Do these people not know where babies come from? First time around, okay. But as my mother demonstrated, you can successfully stay off of welfare if you only have 1 child. My mom didn't have the  luxury to go back to school and get a degree. So she worked her rear end off to make ends meet. She now owns a beautiful home that she owns (i.e. it's paid for) and has a pretty good standard of living all through common sense budgeting and wise planning over time.

But... have two children and things get a lot tougher. Expenses grow dramatically on that second child. But there's little excuse for it. How are we supposed to feel sorry for people who lack the common sense to avoid having two children they can't afford? How is it society's responsibility to subsidize immensely unwise people? 

I'll repeat it because it bears repeating: Finish high school AND don't have any children until you're at least 25 (or financially stable) and you will almost certainly not find yourself in poverty or on welfare.

The problem isn't the welfare system. The problem is people expecting the government to be mommy and daddy. If you're not grown up enough to be able to take care of yourself, you're not grown up enough to have children.