Under the slogan of "ending welfare as we know it," then-President Bill Clinton reorganized the United States welfare system 10 years ago with a system that made it much harder for people to freeload off the welfare system. But many argued that it went beyond tough love designed to get people off the welfare rosters and onto employer's payrools. Indeed, Clinton managed to ruffle the feathers of fellow Democrats, including his wife, with the strict and controversial reform measures.

What upset them the most was Clinton's decision to place a five-year limit on eligibility for welfare payments. His more apocalyptic-minded critics warned of an emerging new underclass in the major cities, one that would develop into a threat to public safety. But while the murder rate is currently rising dramatically in many US cities, that has little to do with the social condition of the people living there. On the contrary: It's better than it ever has been. In those states where the state government is responsible for issuing welfare checks, the number of welfare recipients has sunk by 60 percent as a result of the reforms. More than 60 percent of the single mothers for whom the money was originally intended are now working and receiving a paycheck that is about 25 percent higher than what they were getting on welfare.

But the decrease in unemployment isn't just due to the US's steady economic growth -- it has also been the result of government measures such as the earned income tax credit for low-wage workers. As Clinton took people off welfare, he also pledged to promote them in society. That promise hasn't been neglected, either. Even though limits have been imposed on welfare eligibility, the federal government has not slashed the welfare budgets of the states -- meaning that those states now have more money to pay for support measures such as job training programs.

There is, however, at least one major problem with Clinton's reforms: About 10 to 15 percent of former welfare recipients have dropped out of the welfare system entirely and depend on charity organizations or relatives for support.