This mealy-mouthed politically correct excuse for stating unpleasant facts made reading the remainder an exercise increasing blood presure and little else.
There are no jobs because a treasonous bastard ran for president, and businesses large and small were not willing to risk what could clearly happen (and in fact has happened) if he was succesful.
Does this author actually believe that 49% of american residents of working age are looking for work? Yes, most ARE abusing the system.
Substantially more than half of those abusing the "welfare" system are doing so fraudulently, or simply because they can do so successfully and it takes a lot less effort.
Politically, it is also a permanent benefit to our elected criminal class.
The article author is a moron, but he does have a valid point about food stamps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzspsovNvII
What happens when you give the government the power to determine what one group of people eat?
Why, of course, they will want to regulate the caloric and nutritional intake of everyone.
Don't want to go there.
However, it seems more than a little strange that someone who appears to be so prosperous is on "relief", and perhaps someone should be pursuing fraud charges.
Don't hold your breath, because case files are the life's blood of the entire social services bureaucracy, the more caseload, the more important the case worker, the more important the case worker, the more likely to get a promotion, which means a raise, which means better retirement...et cetera.
That's assuming they aren't signing up their possee for bennies to 'get over on the man'.
So, here's my solution.
You sign up for welfare, the clock starts ticking. Benefits get reduced, by 10% a year, with no penalty against your reduced benefits for making money in gainful employment up to the poverty level. (You can fill the gap, but you have to work).
No COLA type adjustments to benefits. You stay at the level you signed up, minus deductions for time in grade. (yes, inflation might add another effective deduction, but that's the cost of printing more money to pay for relief).
No, but life isn't fair.
Stop right there. The answer is 'NO', regardless of what follows.