[thoughtomator]

It stops when there's no more taxpayer money to throw at it.

[stopem]

Maybe it would stop when a Republican CONSERVATIVE is voted into office!

[T.Smith]

"It stops when there's no more taxpayer money to throw at it."

Translation: When Atlas shrugs.

[Kozak]

It stops when there's no more taxpayer money to throw at it.

In other words never.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. -- Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -- Thomas Jefferson

[Hank Rearden]

It stops when there's no more taxpayer money to throw at it.

Or it stops when taxpayers throw out the Republican and 'Rat politicians doing the throwing. Why the hell are we letting these parasites (in D.C. and at the welfare office) steal our money?

[CmonMan101]

I have witnessed many welfare recipients since 1975. There is no way I could categorize them to all fit in the same cubbyhole definition as for why they are there.
What I would like to add to this conversation is that no matter the reason they were there - there was no incentive to rise up out of it for those I was personally involved with. In every single case I witnessed - if they got a job - the majority of them would have to give up sure survival for a job that
A: Barely paid more
B: Had no guarantee of being there like the Govt check has
been
C: Spent at least 24-40 hrs a week to earn that money that they didn't have to before. Which also led to..
D: Now I have to find a way to take care of my kids while at work. - Another burden for only an even trade - at best - in money.
Truly no incentive built into the system, actually ends up pressuring them to stay there, but what strikes me about it is that as soon as someone is ready to break through to a new level of salary - the Govt money is yanked. It really comes across to those I knew as a big negative event - almost like a punishment for trying to pull themselves up. When I saw that the mouths of their children would and could suffer a food shortage I couldn't blame them for staying on the dole. After all, It would be my burden to bear at that point just from having knowledge of a need within my reach for helping even though I had my own family to feed too. In other words: The pressure on them was felt by me too.

My suggestion:
Continue paying the welfare for something like 3 years when they get a job. Have half the money that comes from the Govt go into something like a savings account - albeit an untouchable one for this 3 year phase. Definitely keep the subsidized housing during this phase, too. This way there is an incentive to get a better paying job - a Mega Raise in spendable income when you first become employed but a 3 year countdown to getting off is started, with a nest egg for that home, condo, whatever - at the end of it. Then we have one more off welfare and doing well. Invariably the real victims I saw go on welfare were intimidated to let go of a certain check for a not so certain job. Also, classes in successful money management should be required in all schools - even elementary.
Lastly: If there is any Fairness Doctrine stuff happening I'm suing all colleges to have half their professors be RNC-approved conservatives. That's where our real problem is coming from.