I’ve seen these so called ‘poor families’ on the TV bemoaning how they don’t ‘get enough from the government’ and the house is loaded with colour TVs, computers, stereos, etc. How is it my parents, who came from nothing (as did many of my friends’ parents) managed to raise children, clothe and feed them properly, send them through school and not have any gov’t assistance in doing so? We might not have had all the latest gizmos and gadgets but my parents knew the importance of necessities, frugality and self reliance. Oh, and they didn’t live in a 3,000 square foot house with two cars and take vacations every year and buy their kids $100 running shoes.

Fortunately, there is a Canada that exists outside of Ontario. I will say, anecdotally, that when I was working in retail I saw far more Hutterites than I ever saw women wearing Islamic markers. In fact, I would say that I see far more folks wearing turbans than I do wearing Islamic dress.

I guess the Sikhs would be another group that feels the need to be "wearing a uniform that separates them from other Canadians?"

Plenty of kids are only good if they contribute more than they consume. Investing more and more money into something where history shows is unprofitable (multi-generational welfare families) instead ones that have a track record of generating a profit (productive, taxpaying families) is bad business. The welfare class consumes more money than they contribute – they are counter productive, a drag on the economy. Tax breaks that allow families to keep more of their own income are a far better investment.

BTW, your subtle hints at racism are unfounded, unless *you* believe that non-whites and Hispanics are incapable of being successful.

Also, I find that comment to be in rather bad taste.

Steyn is the perfect example of a sophist: he talks a lot about a lot of things, but there isn't much value to what he says.

Keep up the good work, gentlemen!

The mid-2004 location and number of the world's 472 Hutterite colonies:[15]

Canada (347)
Dariusleut (142): Alberta (109); Saskatchewan (31); British Columbia (2)
Schmiedeleut (106): Manitoba (105); Alberta (1)
Lehrerleut (99): Alberta (69); Saskatchewan (30)

This is fun. I think I will write more social policy and collect it into a book.

Life is not so easy for the Steynistas here. They thought they had a foolproof theory, but it doesn't play.

My surprise about Macleans remains. Where is Wells?

Duly noted.

Another example of poor argument and failure of common sense.

No serious person who cares for facts would say the only sector of the populace in the US who are having kids above the replacement rate – the Hispanics – are all, or even mostly, welfare dependent. Far from it – the only reasonable assumption is that they probably, on avergage, receive more welfare than the non-Hispanic White population.

But you are getting results for the money: plenty of kids, above the replacement level. The majority White population, it is clear, especially the better off part of it, DESPITE having far more disposable income, will not even have enough kids to replace their own population. (For it is foolish to say that the US middle class has LESS disposable income than welfare recipients…..Even middle class self-pity should not be allowed to go that far. Heck, they'll be complaining next the middle class guy can't afford a hamburger with french fires, unlike the Latinos!).

Nor is it good business sense to take away investment from the ONLY unit in your corporation which is productive and sinking it in a notoriously money-losing sector.

It goes back to the old saying about subsidizing what you want more of.

Since the middle class does a better job of raising kids the government should have pro-family tax rates instead of a generous welfare state. The incentive to have children would then move to the taxpayers instead of tax receivers.

What's going in?

In France under de Gaulle, greater welfare spending by the government is known to have conbsiderably raised the birthrate.

In Russia and Eastern Europe, the collapse of welfare systems is known to have accompanied shap declines in birthrates.

In South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong – polities with low welfare spending – birthrates are much lower than in the US.

In France, a country with proportionately higher welfare spending than the US, birthrates are only slightly behind that of the US.

In the US itself, which Steyn claims maintains a slightly higher than replacement level birthrate thanks to its low welfare spending, the birthrate of the majority non-Hispanic White population is below replacement. Only the Hispanic community in the US has a higher than replacement birthrate, and that is a community known to have higher than average welfare payments……

So what gives? Steynism.

The ridiculous truth is that people like Mark Steyn are drugged on the fantasy that declining numbers of Western White folk can somehow be blamed on something they have taken a great hatred to: welfare spending by governments. On every count of fact and simple logic the claim proves absurd but the Steyns of our world are not going to abandon it for realistic explanations of the birth rate decline in the West…….If only because, apart from the emotional high scapegoating welfare provides these propagandists, they are actually earning good money through their ranting articles.

Does Mark Steyn wish to deprive Europe of wealth and birth control?

What a strawman we create…