The definitions of welfare are curious because they are in some ways opposite. One definition is Welfare-good-fortune, health, happiness, prosperity etc. Another is Welfare-a government agency that provides aid to people in need esp. people unable to work.
I personally don't think welfare is what the people who envisioned it thought it would be. For one...just in the definition-'unable to work'. I'd say the majority of people I see who are on welfare are capable of working. More than capable of working, they chose not to. Then, because they can gain greater 'prosperity', they do what they can to get it, it's almost a job to them. Have a few more babies...get a little more $$$.
And, in my opinion, there is no way that government welfare can lead to 'good-fortune, health and happiness'. I believe that part of being a happy person is being a productive person. I think that there is more to being a productive person than having children that you can't support without the means of 'welfare'.
People who chose a life on welfare are almost choosing NOT to live. The money they do get is not enough to support themselves and their children. How discouraging it must be to try to have any quality of life for your child or yourself on the pittance that welfare pays. Welfare seems like a viscous cycle of degradation that is perpetuated in future generations. People who want a better life nearly have to claw their way out of the whirlpool of welfare dragging them down, cause I think welfare is self perpetuating. I don't think they really try to help people get off welfare. I have so much respect for people who use welfare for what it is meant for....to help in times of need, then to get back on their feet. I have an equal amount of disrespect for people who see welfare as a career. Especially people who have at least $40 manicures, starbucks coffee, cell phones, chunky hi-lights and kids without shoes that fit, and 'no money' to get OTC tylenol for their childs mild fever.
I could go on, but I may save that for another time....