>William, I understand your point and the frustration behind it.
>
>The perception (and sometimes reality) that welfare recipients are having too many babies and sponging off the public purse to pay for them, is not much fun. But all the alternatives seem far worse.
>
>FWIW, the current Prime Minister of New Zealand is from a welfare family. He was brought up in a welfare-funded home and received free education to tertiary level and free healthcare. Now he is a multi-millionaire who took a significant pay-cut to become Prime Minister.
>
>I'm sure people can find examples of others who did just as well without welfare (which is why anecdote is not that useful ;-) but my point is that if welfare is affordable, society should pay for it to give the potential Prime Ministers, scientists and others whose contribution to society may well be greater than any of ours, the opportunity to respect and contribute to the sort of society we want to live in. Why would you want to risk marginalizing such capable people? Sure there will be some who bludge and take advantage but those sorts of people are everywhere (including in power suits in offices) and are just part of the price we pay to live in a free society.

In case I haven't been clear - I'm not against welfare for those who can't make a living for medical, physical, or reasons beyond their control.

I'm against welfare as a career choice.

I'm absolutely against those on welfare breeding new welfare generations. If they can't pay for themselves, they have ABSOLUTELY NO *RIGHT* TO GENERATE MORE CHILDREN FOR ME TO FEED/PROVIDE CHILD CARE/EDUCATE/PROSECUTE/INCARCERATE/ETC.

NONE.