Ronin, mon ami, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. That's why I asked a clarifying question. First, I think that we're all in alignment with the desired goal, to reduce the numbers of people on government assistance and reduce the amount of money that the Feds and States spend on government assistance. I do see that there's some disagreement as to the efficacy of suggested methods. For one, I disagree that there are jobs out there for welfare recipients, as there aren't enough jobs out there for people who want to work. I'd would surmise that of the minimum wage jobs that are out there that a substantial percentage are not full time, to avoid having to provide benefits to employees. For single parents on assistance, the cost of childcare while working can be a disincentive to work outside of the home. We'd also have to change the laws that allow someone to earn up to $1000 per month and still collect welfare to reduce overall costs.
Regarding the lifestyles afforded by welfare and by minimum wage jobs, it's true that no one is entitled to earn a comfortable living, at any time. Both lifestyles are poverty level, and by definition those are uncomfortable lifestyles. There are those who are self-directed to work hard enough to escape the generational poverty trap, and we applaud those people who succeed, but those numbers are low enough that there is no significant impact on the numbers who continue on. If we want to reduce government assistance and end up with an enhanced workforce, we have to find ways to teach the majority during childhood, how to escape that trap. We also need to follow through on employment once adulthood is reached