The existence of welfare states was motivated by helping people. Unfortunately, the correlation between social expenditure and economic performance is little, to say the least. For instance, California's struggle to deal with homelessness in 2022 cost about $42K per homeless while immigrants were actively hired for low-qualified jobs; in addition, in 2016 there seemed to exist many "young Muslim men who ... don’t want to work. Why would they, when welfare checks are normally 70% to 80% of their income?" Is it misinformation or a signal that welfare transformed into coddling?
That article has no source, neither primary or secondary ones, it just made a lot of assertions. I wouldn't rely on it[1]. Because of how low quality it is, I find it even more annoying that you asked readers to fact check, rather than finding more information yourself.
Still, even assuming that there is indeed groups of people who are only relying on social welfare to survive and do nothing else, the trade-off is that cutting social expenditure would in fact harm the other groups of people who genuinely need it. What percentage of homeless in California are Muslims who also consciously decide to not work? Maybe you know about this number, but I don't and you didn't mention it so it seems to me that you are generalizing way too much. (A quick search tells me the base rate of Muslims in US is 1.1%). Welfare also consists of many policies, it is entirely possible that some policies are good while others are bad.
In general Investor Business Daily also seem quite unreliable for non-investment news. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/investors-business-daily/