This story is not necessarily 'reflective' of all 'welfare' recipients; however, there are some truths within that do chap my hide... as well as others.
There are two thoughts that do go through my mind...
this is a story by the Washington Post, a traditionally 'liberal' news organization so you do have to consider their motivation in publishing the article. Yes, I did research, briefly, the contributors/authors and well... maybe you should look to.
Was the article designed to 'divide' us as a nation in determining 'solutions' to the 'welfare state' problem?
Was the article designed to take our eyes off of what the 'wealthy' are doing?
So... many of us recognize that governmental intervention may be necessary but also comes with 'dependency' and, therefore, how best to consciously meet what many of us believe in "I am my brother's keeper" while reconciling with the 'limited resources' at hand, not to mention the perception by certain politically charged groups that this group is 'lazy' and WANT to feed off of someone else's work.
So... what is the answer?
Completely gut ALL welfare and eliminate 100% of it? (btw, I think earned income credit IS a form of welfare)
Throw even more money at the them (disregarding were the money is going to come from)
Balance the two by recognizing many children are 'caught' within the crossfire of 'lazy' parents and greedy employers not wanting to pay well enough.
i suggest a set time frame to extracate oneself from welfare (ie 3 or 5 years) coupled with linking a higher top tax rate, with credits thereby lowering the tax rate, to how well an employee is paid, benefits and long-term employment.