Do you think it's ethical for a couple to deliberately have a baby or babies that they can not afford to support ?
What I mean by not afford is that they are in extreme poverty and malnurished themselves, or they're so poor that they rely on government assistance just to survive.

If they are on government assistance then why are they malnourished? :shrug:

Are you aware that the gov't will dole out more money if there is a child?

If they are on government assistance then why are they malnourished? :shrug:

Are you aware that the gov't will dole out more money if there is a child?

That's why I said "or", they're on government assistance.
There's poor malnurished people in some countries that don't get government assistance, and yet have babies. Then there's poor people (not necessarily malnurished) in countries where the govt. does give welfare of some sort.

So that's why I used "or" in the sentence.

Do you think it's ethical for a couple to deliberately have a baby or babies that they can not afford to support ?
What I mean by not afford is that they are in extreme poverty and malnurished themselves, or they're so poor that they rely on government assistance just to survive.

no, i do not.

Don't think it's a good idea, but if you can find a way to take care of them then who am I to say anything?

No.

You should only choose to have a child if you're 100% ready and fit to look after them.

No.

You should only choose to have a child if you're 100% ready and fit to look after them.

so there should be no children in ethiopia (or other african nation of choice) except for those from the ritch dictators who are raping the country?

so there should be no children in ethiopia (or other african nation of choice) except for those from the ritch dictators who are raping the country?

You must admit Asguard that the example outlined in the OP doesn't mirror that of African nations where there isn't even a welfare system. If you have a nation that is compromised by war and or famine, disease etc then you will encourage childbirth regardless of the poverty. On the other hand there are efforts to try and get some African countries to encourage birth control so that they don't overstretch their limited resources, in those cases limiting the number of children born to a family could mean a families ability to afford child care and education without it taxing the family too heavily. I believe that the OP regards Western or developed nations not developing nations where there's a different paradigm.

That's why I said "or", they're on government assistance.
There's poor malnurished people in some countries that don't get government assistance, and yet have babies. Then there's poor people (not necessarily malnurished) in countries where the govt. does give welfare of some sort.

So that's why I used "or" in the sentence.

Those people that are in some countries that are malnourished can't afford food, let alone forms of birth control. We really can't judge them for this.

I understand the government assistance, but there are many reasons some are on government assistance. Some, loss of job, loss of home due to things that are out of their control, or a family member going through an illness. In these cases, having a child during that time to me is OK. They don't plan on being on government assistance forever, just going through a rough patch.

There are people who make a career out of being on welfare. To me that is wrong. I actually overheard a woman say it was time to get pregnant again because her case was about to be up. I almost choked.

There is a woman, (I cringe calling her that), that I know of that has had 9 children and lives on welfare. She only has custody of two. The others live with other family members, in foster care and 3 have been adopted. She makes a person believe in having the government step in and tie up those tubes. Yet, that would be a violation of rights. So, she can continue having these babies,give them away, and have them taken away from her. Disgusting.

You must admit Asguard that the example outlined in the OP doesn't mirror that of African nations where there isn't even a welfare system. If you have a nation that is compromised by war and or famine, disease etc then you will encourage childbirth regardless of the poverty. On the other hand there are efforts to try and get some African countries to encourage birth control so that they don't overstretch their limited resources, in those cases limiting the number of children born to a family could mean a families ability to afford child care and education without it taxing the family too heavily. I believe that the OP regards Western or developed nations not developing nations where there's a different paradigm.

Whether you're in poverty in Africa and can't afford to have a baby, or you're in a western nation in poverty and can't afford to have a baby; either way you're going to put a burden on the child, yourself, and society.
I suppose for some people though it provides comfort that in a western society, for a child born into poverty, it's survival is dependant on the taxpayers.

so there should be no children in ethiopia (or other african nation of choice) except for those from the ritch dictators who are raping the country?

Great answer. Yes, it's okay to have babies that parents supposedly can't afford. Isn't it the poor who has the most children? I think God gives more children to the poor, because the rich people who could most "afford" them, make the most pathetic excuses to not have more children.

What's wrong is government welfare, which ought to be considered an oxymoron, because government has nothing to give that it didn't take from the fruits of other people's labor. Welfare should be private individuals and groups, and VOLUNTARY, so as to hold it accountable for wise use of the funds.

The father should work to support their children, but I see no specific clearly measurable definition of this. If there are no jobs to be found, a family still has their God-given right to Life and to procreate children. There's no obligation of married people to practice any form of contrary-to-nature "family planning."

It doesn't make sense to make a prerequisite that babies be "affordable" before they are conceived, because look how the evil politicians twist things. What's to keep them from saying you must make at least $250,000 a year, before being allowed to conceive a baby, then get taxed through the nose for making "too much" money?

When you are poor, children don't cost much, as poor people make more of what they use, and buy less. Somehow I see "affordability" quotas soon morphing into "family size" quotas, according to the perceived needs of the socialistic machine awful state. Let's not go down that path, and leave it to God or the billions of breeder parents to decide how to enjoy their liberty.

BTW, I advocate large families worldwide, so that far more people may experience life, so understandably, I have to be a bit "flexible" on the "affordability" measure. Not that there aren't other good reasons to reason against an "affordability" measure. Having a job, any job, minimum wage, almost anything ought to count towards babies being possibly affordable to the frugal parents who love children.

Or poor people could just stop having sex? Ah, didn't think so.

They say of poor people, that children are their only wealth. Sometimes it is also noted, that having sex is about the only recreation they can afford? If a family can't afford electricity for their little hut, what else is there to do at night in the dark to stay warm, than to make lots of babies? I wouldn't expect poor people to afford the nasty unnatural anti-life "birth control." And they say that people who use the "natural" method of rhythm, perhaps because it is free, are usually called PARENTS, joking that it doesn't really work very well. So why not use the most natural and free method, the NO METHOD method. It's the most pro-life and consistent with God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

Lack of affordability is an economic condition quite often caused by the bad policies of corrupt politicians. What wouldn't be affordable, if people were allowed to keep the fruits of their labors, and we could get the politicians out of our pockets and out of our business? No need to blame the innocent babies for such things.

No, people should not have a child if they cannot afford to give them every opportunity to succeed in life. Ethiopia is not always poor, they only starve if there is drought or war.

The fact is, evolution has caused us and many other mammals to do just the opposite (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727692.100-die-young-live-fast-the-evolution-of-an-underclass.html). When times are tough, we need to have more children, because more of them die. We have them earlier in life, and we tend to engage in riskier behavior because things are desperate.

Only if you are MOMCOM (http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/07/stockholm-syndrome-on-steroids.html) and your child is named a war. :shrug:

No, it is not ethical.

In fact, many people have more children just to get more welfare.

The hope for many is that their offspring will be able to do better than them and help them as well. Many people have a good job when they have a child or two but then they lose it, divorce happens and then little income is left for the children.

Don't think it's a good idea, but if you can find a way to take care of them then who am I to say anything?


I agree with this.

If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

Agreed.

Apparently very few people think it's okay.

Of course, I suppose, a passerby shouldn't simply neglect them for the idiocy of the parents. But if you know you can't care for so many children, don't punish them by bringing them into poverty.

I was going to wonder about what Pronatalist would say, but naturally, it has already spoken. Predictably. It assumes that everything is always rosy.

They say of poor people, that children are their only wealth. Sometimes it is also noted, that having sex is about the only recreation they can afford? If a family can't afford electricity for their little hut, what else is there to do at night in the dark to stay warm, than to make lots of babies?

A strange fixation I have noted that Pronatalist seems to have about a man and woman in a one room hut, banging away as it is their only form of recreation.
Free porn for the children? Do the children, at some point... ah, never mind. :scratchin:


Lack of affordability is an economic condition quite often caused by the bad policies of corrupt politicians. What wouldn't be affordable, if people were allowed to keep the fruits of their labors, and we could get the politicians out of our pockets and out of our business? No need to blame the innocent babies for such things.

No need to blame the innocent babies, indeed. I assume you have control over these corrupt politicians? So when can we expect this corruption to cease?
Enjoy the suffering while it lasts, I suppose.

Whilst having babies you can’t afford is not an ideal situation, to put any kind of control on this i.e. to be means tested for permission to have a baby, could only take place in a horribly authoritarian fascist society. Poor people having children may be unfair on the children and it may be a burden on the state, but the alternative is far worse.

I do not believe that having children is a right, as many claim. Yet it is not a privilege for only the elite either.

Sometimes it is also noted, that having sex is about the only recreation they can afford? If a family can't afford electricity for their little hut, what else is there to do at night in the dark to stay warm, than to make lots of babies?.

What on earth are you talking about… Do you presume that it is preferable to watch tv or play xbox than have sex….. and it is only in situations of extreme poverty that couples resort to sex for enjoyment?

Most normal well adjusted couples, enjoy sex on a regular basis whether they are rich, comfortable or poor.

Whilst having babies you can’t afford is not an ideal situation, to put any kind of control on this i.e. to be means tested for permission to have a baby, could only take place in a horribly authoritarian fascist society. Poor people having children may be unfair on the children and it may be a burden on the state, but the alternative is far worse.

I do not believe that having children is a right, as many claim. Yet it is not a privilege for only the elite either.

I agree with this.

And that is precisely the problem we face. Too many having children they can't afford but can't force them to stop.

Also, history is full of examples of dirt poor children growing up to be great additions to the society and children of the rich failing.

But I think we all will agree that having extra money can help eliminate many of the difficult choices for parents who lack the funds.

Do you think it's ethical for a couple to deliberately have a baby or babies that they can not afford to support ?
What I mean by not afford is that they are in extreme poverty and malnurished themselves, or they're so poor that they rely on government assistance just to survive.

A difficult question.
Universal factors of Local conditions of life expectancy, Parental IQ level, Adoption needs of financially stable, yet infertile couples, etc., come into play.

The healthy child may not come from the wealthy genetic progeny. Factors of middle-class stability, over time, is hard to sustain in present economic environs. Etc.

What on earth are you talking about… Do you presume that it is preferable to watch tv or play xbox than have sex….. and it is only in situations of extreme poverty that couples resort to sex for enjoyment?

Most normal well adjusted couples, enjoy sex on a regular basis whether they are rich, comfortable or poor.

Pronatalist seems to enjoy the notion of very poor people in a one room hut enjoying procreation as their only recreation.

And the only drawback to this is apparently naysayers and dictators who won't automatically support those children after they are born.

Pronatalist has a fetish.

Whilst having babies you can’t afford is not an ideal situation, to put any kind of control on this i.e. to be means tested for permission to have a baby, could only take place in a horribly authoritarian fascist society. Poor people having children may be unfair on the children and it may be a burden on the state, but the alternative is far worse.

I do not believe that having children is a right, as many claim. Yet it is not a privilege for only the elite either.

The problem here is that you're telling Person A that he or she is responsible Person B's behavior, but has no right to tell Person B how to behave.

If people want freedom, they have to accept full responsibility for their actions.

If people want freedom, they have to accept full responsibility for their actions.
And If we want freedom, we have to allow others to accept full responsibility for their actions. But that doesn’t mean we have to watch people starve in the streets to ‘teach them a lesson”.

It's not ok to have babies, period :)

Unless they are for eating. :D

And If we want freedom, we have to allow others to accept full responsibility for their actions. But that doesn’t mean we have to watch people starve in the streets to ‘teach them a lesson”.

It also doesn't mean that we have to redistribute wealth to shield people from the consequences of their actions.

Here in the Western world, we're basically being told, "It's your duty to clean up our messes, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, but don't you dare try to keep us from making those messes in the first place!"

if a couple wants to have a kid so they can get government support then they are selfish because they are putting their own needs before their child. you need to beable to support your child and not your child supporting you, this is why we are told to wait before we have kids, wait till you are 100% certain that u can give him/her the best life that you can.

The sad part of this, I have wittnessed this first hand. People having babies for the weffare money and not because they love the kid or even want to take care of the kid. It is pretty sad, but the Clinton welfare reforms were supposed to take care of this kind of problem. So we no longer have career welfare families.

This also touches on the issue of he perpetual under class in society....people for what ever reason lack the ability or desire to hold down a job. What do you do with them? Do you want to see them in the streets? Some of them are constantly going in and out of prison. This is a problem for society. How society should deal with it is a bit elusive.

It also doesn't mean that we have to redistribute wealth to shield people from the consequences of their actions.

Here in the Western world, we're basically being told, "It's your duty to clean up our messes, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, but don't you dare try to keep us from making those messes in the first place!"

OK, but if you have it any other way, you have to choose between the following;

1. Couples have to put in an application to have children
2. Means test the couple to see if they can afford a child
3. Make it a crime to have children without permission
4. Prosecute and imprison those who break the law
5. Or kill any illegal children they have – if you don’t the children will have to go into state care

The cost of the above to the tax payer would be enormous. It would need a whole new government department, social workers, extra prison places etc. And would cost far more than current child support

Or you let them have as many children as they want and do not give a penny in support, you will get;

1. A greatly increased crime rate
2. Which would need extra police, and extra prison places
3. A greatly increased burden on hospital system from malnourished and diseased children
4. A general risk to public health from people living in third world conditions, cholera etc

The cost of the above to the tax payer would also be enormous. Requiring, health workers, police, extra prison places etc. And would cost far more than current child support

As I said before the current arrangement is far from ideal, but the alternatives are worse. Think about it.

OK, but if you have it any other way, you have to choose between the following;

1. Couples have to put in an application to have children
2. Means test the couple to see if they can afford a child
3. Make it a crime to have children without permission
4. Prosecute and imprison those who break the law
5. Or kill any illegal children they have – if you don’t the children will have to go into state care

The cost of the above to the tax payer would be enormous. It would need a whole new government department, social workers, extra prison places etc. And would cost far more than current child support

Or you let them have as many children as they want and do not give a penny in support, you will get;

1. A greatly increased crime rate
2. Which would need extra police, and extra prison places
3. A greatly increased burden on hospital system from malnourished and diseased children
4. A general risk to public health from people living in third world conditions, cholera etc

The cost of the above to the tax payer would also be enormous. Requiring, health workers, police, extra prison places etc. And would cost far more than current child support

As I said before the current arrangement is far from ideal, but the alternatives are worse. Think about it.

And the best solution is to spend way more than we are on education.

And the best solution is to spend way more than we are on education.

Education, definately. Is there a current eduction programme though for this purpose.Whether in schools or in the community?

Education, definately. Is there a current eduction programme though for this purpose.Whether in schools or in the community?

Well I mean't education in general.

The more educated people are the fewer children they tend to have and they have the financial means to take care of them. This is universal.

The key to solving all of these issues is education.

Better educated have lower incarceration rates
Better educated make more money
Better educated have fewer children
Better educated use contraceptives

it goes on and on.

So the real solution is to shut off the tap.

So instead of having to pay for all of these problems downstream, we invest up front and save in the end.

Here:

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/press/cost04/EducationPays2004.pdf

http://www.prb.org/pdf07/powerfulpartners.pdf

Well I mean't education in general.
The more educated people are the fewer children they tend to have and they have the financial means to take care of them. This is universal.
The key to solving all of these issues is education.
Better educated have lower incarceration rates
Better educated make more money
Better educated have fewer children
Better educated use contraceptives


Ah yes, I see what you mean and I do agree in principle. I can only see one problem though, that of free market economics. Whilst I totally agree that the better educated will earn more and have fewer children, any economy will only support a certain percentage to higher level education, why, because there are only so many jobs that require this type of education. Already in western countries we find graduates working in basic jobs because there aren’t enough high level jobs on the market. Also education costs and an economy can only support so many through to a high level of education.

Ah yes, I see what you mean and I do agree in principle. I can only see one problem though, that of free market economics. Whilst I totally agree that the better educated will earn more and have fewer children, any economy will only support a certain percentage to higher level education, why, because there are only so many jobs that require this type of education. Already in western countries we find graduates working in basic jobs because there aren’t enough high level jobs on the market. Also education costs and an economy can only support so many through to a high level of education.

This is an issue of course. However, better educated is relative.

The bottom line is, the more education and better quality of education they get, the less likely all of these other negatives will occur.

We have people who are having sex that don't know how babies are made.
We have people who can't get a job because they can't read and write.

Imagine the difference in choices being made from someone who graduated high school and went to a trade school compared to someone who dropped out at 15.

The first person has something to look forward to, a way to make it on his own. The second has very few choices, one of them is crime.

He fathers a few kids and then isn't around to raise them and can't contribute financially. This is a scene that is repeated over and over and over again and we are paying through the nose to keep a max exodus on the street with family after family who would literally have nothing but the local soup kitchens to look to for the basics of life.

So yes, it's going to take a massive sustained investment to turn it around.

What are the chances of that ?

OK, but if you have it any other way, you have to choose between the following;

1. Couples have to put in an application to have children
2. Means test the couple to see if they can afford a child
3. Make it a crime to have children without permission
4. Prosecute and imprison those who break the law
5. Or kill any illegal children they have – if you don’t the children will have to go into state care

The cost of the above to the tax payer would be enormous. It would need a whole new government department, social workers, extra prison places etc. And would cost far more than current child support

Or you let them have as many children as they want and do not give a penny in support, you will get;

1. A greatly increased crime rate
2. Which would need extra police, and extra prison places
3. A greatly increased burden on hospital system from malnourished and diseased children
4. A general risk to public health from people living in third world conditions, cholera etc

The cost of the above to the tax payer would also be enormous. Requiring, health workers, police, extra prison places etc. And would cost far more than current child support

As I said before the current arrangement is far from ideal, but the alternatives are worse. Think about it.

I'd rather get rid of welfare and deal with any negative repercussions rather than allow people to continue to abuse taxpayers. Helping people in need is one thing, but enabling those who wish to screw over the taxpayers is another.

And the best solution is to spend way more than we are on education.

So either way the taxpayers are expected to clean up the messes of the irresponsible. :shrug:

I'd rather get rid of welfare and deal with any negative repercussions rather than allow people to continue to abuse taxpayers. Helping people in need is one thing, but enabling those who wish to screw over the taxpayers is another.

Getting rid of welfare might create more crime. If you get rid of welfare these people are going to have to do something to survive. You will be putting people in jail and warehousing them instead of paying welfare. The jail option costs a whole lot more than the welfare option.

Getting rid of welfare might create more crime. If you get rid of welfare these people are going to have to do something to survive. You will be putting people in jail and warehousing them instead of paying welfare. The jail option costs a whole lot more than the welfare option.

Maybe so, but at least it will be punishing them rather than just us.

Do you think it's ethical for a couple to deliberately have a baby or babies that they can not afford to support ?
What I mean by not afford is that they are in extreme poverty and malnurished themselves, or they're so poor that they rely on government assistance just to survive.So we'll find out what the people whose babies use up hysterical amounts of the world's resources think about what resources the poor's babies will use.

Pronatalist seems to enjoy the notion of very poor people in a one room hut enjoying procreation as their only recreation.

This is quite to the point, though: poor people tend to see and have a very limited scope of what to do in life, in general, not just in terms of recreation.

So either way the taxpayers are expected to clean up the messes of the irresponsible. :shrug:

Cowboy,

much talk of the taxpayer, whydo you think we pay takes? do you actually agree with taxation at all?

So either way the taxpayers are expected to clean up the messes of the irresponsible. :shrug:

Yes, however, if we invest in education to the extent that is needed, we get a double benefit.

1) A better educated populace
2) Fewer messes to clean up

And that will snowball. IOW, you will have better educated parents and so on and so on.

The bottom line is what we are doing right now is expensive and very short sighted.

Maybe so, but at least it will be punishing them rather than just us.

Punishing them for being poor ?:shrug:

This is quite to the point, though: poor people tend to see and have a very limited scope of what to do in life, in general, not just in terms of recreation.

This displays a very bourgeois attitude.

Many great creative talents and even business leaders have come out of poor communities.

Poor people often see as much as anyone, they are restricted on what they can do by their poverty. Viewing them as spending all dfay f**king in a hut full of screaming children cos they cant think of anything else to do is stereotyping to the extreme.

Of course there are two types of poor people, those who are poor through circumstance and those who are poor because of very low mental ability or physical / mental handicaps. This second group will not be helped by education

This is quite to the point, though: poor people tend to see and have a very limited scope of what to do in life, in general, not just in terms of recreation.

They have very short lists of hobbies and interests, I see.

Poor people often see as much as anyone, they are restricted on what they can do by their poverty. Viewing them as spending all dfay f**king in a hut full of screaming children cos they cant think of anything else to do is stereotyping to the extreme.



Well, that's what Natalist seems to think is appropriate to think and do. He/she/it is the expert on procreation.


In other news, this is a very successful poll. Seems the overwhelming majority doesn't think breeding like rabbits is a good thing for humans to be engaged in.

What on earth are you talking about… Do you presume that it is preferable to watch tv or play xbox than have sex….. and it is only in situations of extreme poverty that couples resort to sex for enjoyment?

Most normal well adjusted couples, enjoy sex on a regular basis whether they are rich, comfortable or poor.

Well of course the rich like sex too. In fact, I question the Demographic Transition theory that claims as societies modernize, birthrate and natural increase population growth goes down, as somebody said, There's nothing about having money in one's pockets, that magically sterilizes the reproductive organs. The Demographic Transition theory, is but a cover for the evil rampant unnatural contraceptive eugenics pushing.

Rather the observation goes, that the poor especially seem to like sex. The poor can't seem to afford as many distractions from sex, as the rich can.

But of course children are worth far more than money, so who then really is poor and who is rich? Most people wouldn't sell their children for money, so aren't the largest families the most rich, in what really matters?

Well of course the rich like sex too. In fact, I question the Demographic Transition theory that claims as societies modernize, birthrate and natural increase population growth goes down, as somebody said, There's nothing about having money in one's pockets, that magically sterilizes the reproductive organs. The Demographic Transition theory, is but a cover for the evil rampant unnatural contraceptive eugenics pushing.

Rather the observation goes, that the poor especially seem to like sex. The poor can't seem to afford as many distractions from sex, as the rich can.

But of course children are worth far more than money, so who then really is poor and who is rich? Most people wouldn't sell their children for money, so aren't the largest families the most rich, in what really matters?

No.

They are not the most rich.

Try growing up as one of 6 or 8 when your mom and dad have scarcely enough attention to go around.

I'll never forget one of my next door neighbours giving out to me for not seeing to her child when he was trying to eat something off the pavement. Even though I barely knew her.

She had so many children she could scarcely look after them all properly, and she felt it was others' job to do a share.

You're not rich if you have a family like that.

And the best solution is to spend way more than we are on education.

So perhaps what you want, is a huge government monopoly school boondoggle to propagandize people to be robbed of their blessings of having children?

Have you not heard of how runaway government interference has helped to inflate all sorts of unstable economic bubbles that are destabilizing our economy? Among these was the real estate bubble, the soon-to-burst commercial real estate bubble, and the huge college (and education) bubble we have now. We have a huge excess of college graduates with degrees than we have matching good jobs to justify supposedly such degrees.

While education may indeed help many things, we have a huge problem with education bait-and-switch malpractice, in which "education," or government fad or propaganda is substituted for truth, and of more government being seen as the answer to every problem, including the problem of too much government spending.

I support breaking up the underperforming government monopoly in education, selling off the government monopoly schools, and allowing for more more free market behaviors to emerge and solve problems as they see fit to trade with who best meets people's needs or wants. Let parents pay tuition to the school of their choice, or homeschool, and not have to pay the unjust income and property taxes. Let schools compete for student, rather than whine of having not budgeted for maintenance, phony marxist liberals thinking they can just sucker the already overburdened taxpayer for ever more money, and stop whining about supposed overcrowding.

I heard from a police officer, at a wrongful, 4th Amendment violating driver's license or DUI checkpoint, claim that they are trying to keep people honest. That is not the job of government. It's not even the job of the government to educate people. At least the Federal government was supposed to have very limited enumerated powers under our U.S. Constitution. I see nothing in the Constitution nor the Bible, authorizing government to run schools. The job of government is to punish evildoers and to build roads and bridges. Not to usurp the place of God and Church to make people be good or to "keep us honest." We are supposed to keep government accountable and honest. Most of what government does these days, is unconstitutional and thus immoral and illegal.

And education has become far more about fad and government state religion, and not about how to think for oneself and ask the right question and search out the truth.

So let's examine how and if, education can help, before just throwing money down an endless government "education" and other waste hole. Throwing money at a problem, rarely is an adequate solution. Money must be spent, more wisely, and often far more sparingly, especially if it's not even your money to spend.

This displays a very bourgeois attitude.

Many great creative talents and even business leaders have come out of poor communities.

Poor people often see as much as anyone, they are restricted on what they can do by their poverty. Viewing them as spending all dfay f**king in a hut full of screaming children cos they cant think of anything else to do is stereotyping to the extreme. ...

Uh, I don't think the children are screaming inside the hut that much. Children probably talk and yell and scream more, when they are outside playing somewhere?

A lot of the reason why government spending is out-of-control, is because of this insane "entitlement" idea of today's phony marxist liberals, that people have no right to fail. (That somehow poor people have "rights" that our U.S. Constitution never listed, to steal indirectly from their neighbors via taxation social engineering policies, to supposedly be less poor.) People must have the right to fail, to be more enabled to make good choices and succeed. (Government can't be everywhere to hold people's hands and make all their decisions for them.) But it seems we aren't allowed to fail nor succeed. Is it even legal to obtain an axe, and build a log cabin somewhere, with no running water and no electricity? (And yet our countries founders were largely self-reliant like that.) If you are successful, you are taxed through the nose. But if you are too poor, the government begs you to get on government assistance so as to buy off our votes. What an evil and despicable corrupt system!

What we need is to get government out of our pockets and out of our business. Then maybe we can solve our own problems more readily.

"Government governs best which governs least." Thomas Jefferson

And maybe there wouldn't be so many shantytowns in the world, if there was more true land reform, rather than denying poor people any way to obtain land of their own. Why build a nice home, if any day it might be bulldozed? People can accumulate wealth and freedom a lot easier, where there is the predictable rule-of-law, and property rights are protected by the government. But endless government spending and bailouts, worsens the problem of moral hazard, in which the irresponsible are rewarded and the responsible punished. Is it any wonder we have so many irresponsibly behaving people, and no longer enough responsible?