WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,092
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #61
But the size of California’s welfare rolls is disproportionate when you consider the state has only 12 percent of the nation’s population. Some of it has to do with the benefits being more generous than in many other states, but experts also point to various economic and social factors.
The benefits are more generous. . . I understand the lingo, but the more proper terminology would be: the bureaucrats are more rapacious. It is not their money.
These statistics provided in the article were deeply disconcerting:
• Pays out one of the highest maximum monthly cash grants to the average family on welfare, $638.
• Continues aid for children even when the parents lose eligibility.
• Provides benefits even to some who find a job and helps with child care and transportation while attending school or training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits are more generous. . . I understand the lingo, but the more proper terminology would be: the bureaucrats are more rapacious. It is not their money.
These statistics provided in the article were deeply disconcerting:
• Pays out one of the highest maximum monthly cash grants to the average family on welfare, $638.
• Continues aid for children even when the parents lose eligibility.
• Provides benefits even to some who find a job and helps with child care and transportation while attending school or training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------