Why are "refugees" still having children?

[Crazy Eddie]

Why on earth do people keep making that argument*?

Because people have managed to raise and sustain families in horrible conditions in the past and done relatively well for themselves. I know that's annoying, but I can't help that it continues to be relevant.

To a certain extent "Rational family planning" is a first world problem, as we live in a society where it's assumed children will be totally dependent on their parents and incapable of shouldering any real responsibility until their mid teenage years. For ALOT of other people, children are only a liability for the first couple of years until they're old enough to take orders; once they get past the toddler stage they're pressed into service as little fetcher/helper/errand runners for mom and dad. There are whole families that used this strategy to literally breed themselves out of poverty: by the time you get to your seventh kid, you're basically a small business owner.

What's a "biological imperative"?

Things human beings have evolved to do and/or desire to do because it is in our nature to do them. This stems from the very basic concept that life is not actually mandatory and neither are any of the things we choose to do with ourselves, so we collectively place a higher premium on the things nature designed us to do (eat, sleep, breathe, fuck) because denying the utility of those basic imperatives would pretty much negate our entire existence.

Says the guy who set himself up as the arbiter of whose actions are none of whose f***ing business. You're swearing at credoconsolans for exercising his sovereign human right to express his opinion...

... and then he called you and paid your retainer, oh tireless public defender of the interwebs

 

[whichphilosophy]

Because people have managed to raise and sustain families in horrible conditions in the past and done relatively well for themselves. I know that's annoying, but I can't help that it continues to be relevant.

To a certain extent "Rational family planning" is a first world problem, as we live in a society where it's assumed children will be totally dependent on their parents and incapable of shouldering any real responsibility until their mid teenage years. For ALOT of other people, children are only a liability for the first couple of years until they're old enough to take orders; once they get past the toddler stage they're pressed into service as little fetcher/helper/errand runners for mom and dad. There are whole families that used this strategy to literally breed themselves out of poverty: by the time you get to your seventh kid, you're basically a small business owner. :

I would think that by the seventh kid, that business would be a baby factory.

 

[ksen]

You are speaking in abstractions, but these are real people with real problems, real lives, and a real need for human dignity. They don't owe YOU anything: not an explanation for their choices, not an adherence to your judgement of 'responsible behavior,' not your approval over their sexual practices.

But I do owe them my tax money, right? For their irresponsible and selfish acts?

Seems only fair since it was your tax money that made them refugees to begin with.

 

[arkirk]

But I do owe them my tax money, right? For their irresponsible and selfish acts?

Seems only fair since it was your tax money that made them refugees to begin with.

You can't go around bombing "terrorists" all over the world and not expect a flow of refugees from all over the world. It is your tax money that buys drones and drone pilots, that buys armies and air forces, that buys Israeli Defense Forces slaughter in Gaza. It is your tax money that creates the chaos in these countries that the refugees are fleeing. We owe it to these people to clean up our act and stop this shit....or take the refugees. That is our choice. Anything less and we become more and more like Nazi Germany or worse. I am always amazed when neocons complain about the cost of refugees, when just one of their defense department hammers costs $700. The war exploiters in our country are criminals without a cop after them. We as a society just don't seem to care for humanity anymore. I know why H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell died feeling all was lost. Without a conscience, there is nothing worth defending.

 

[fromderinside]

Seems only fair since it was your tax money that made them refugees to begin with.

You can't go around bombing "terrorists" all over the world and not expect a flow of refugees from all over the world. It is your tax money that buys drones and drone pilots, that buys armies and air forces, that buys Israeli Defense Forces slaughter in Gaza. It is your tax money that creates the chaos in these countries that the refugees are fleeing. We owe it to these people to clean up our act and stop this shit....or take the refugees. That is our choice. Anything less and we become more and more like Nazi Germany or worse. I am always amazed when neocons complain about the cost of refugees, when just one of their defense department hammers costs $700. The war exploiters in our country are criminals without a cop after them. We as a society just don't seem to care for humanity anymore. I know why H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell died feeling all was lost. Without a conscience, there is nothing worth defending.

Our tax money is dong very little about creating refugees. Drones? A drop in the tax bucket. Invasion? Yeah. That's why we didn't invade Syria and waste tax dollars there. If only all those refugees were being caused by the US we'd have some control. They're not so there isn't.

When it comes to stupid, the most stupid things are usually said and done by the most stupid and framed as common sense. As for children, desperation reduces rationality thereby leading to increased child production. Call it stupid of you will, but, it isn't common sense or taxes that are at base of any of this.

 

[arkirk]

You can't go around bombing "terrorists" all over the world and not expect a flow of refugees from all over the world. It is your tax money that buys drones and drone pilots, that buys armies and air forces, that buys Israeli Defense Forces slaughter in Gaza. It is your tax money that creates the chaos in these countries that the refugees are fleeing. We owe it to these people to clean up our act and stop this shit....or take the refugees. That is our choice. Anything less and we become more and more like Nazi Germany or worse. I am always amazed when neocons complain about the cost of refugees, when just one of their defense department hammers costs $700. The war exploiters in our country are criminals without a cop after them. We as a society just don't seem to care for humanity anymore. I know why H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell died feeling all was lost. Without a conscience, there is nothing worth defending.

Our tax money is dong very little about creating refugees. Drones? A drop in the tax bucket. Invasion? Yeah. That's why we didn't invade Syria and waste tax dollars there. If only all those refugees were being caused by the US we'd have some control. They're not so there isn't.

When it comes to stupid, the most stupid things are usually said and done by the most stupid and framed as common sense. As for children, desperation reduces rationality thereby leading to increased child production. Call it stupid of you will, but, it isn't common sense or taxes that are at base of any of this.

Do you believe in Democracy or not. If you give your money to a government that engages in wholesale murder worldwide, how can you deny that you sponsored the atrocities? You cannot. I mentioned only a few of the atrocities that have led to flows of refugees. It all counts...invasions and air wars. You are nitpicking here when it is most inappropriate. You are right on the issue of fecundity of the human being in crisis...it often rises. That is due to the lack of education, and civilized facilities available to people with only the clothes on their back. Storied peacenick John Kerry visited the Nuclear War Park in Hiroshima and didn't offer the slightest of apologies for our country going way over a major moral red line. Of course he would have been fired had he done so. That is what I am talking about...the wishes and the egos of the elite decision makers in our country have priority over what really are moral issues...prime moral issues.

The stupidity of the leaders of our world governments when they act like spoiled children is a major liability to our entire human race when it comes to nukes. But lesser killings also make lots of refugees...and the instability that follows something like the Iraq war is the cause of the refugees. Supposing we had offered humanitarian aid. We didn't. We sent soldiers and bombs and depleted uranium and etc. etc. etc. a virtual litany of violent intent and actions...all sponsored by our tax money and our leaders' willingness to mortgage the future of our country for their violent attempt to control the world. You are right. Common sense does not prevail...because with newspeak common sense disappears.

 

[Malintent]

Because people don't always make rational decisions.

Well then let's face their irrational choices with some new irrational choices... like work camps, sterilization, or just carpet bombing...

OK, let's NOT allow irrational justifications, then...

 

[Bomb#20]

Why on earth do people keep making that argument*?

Because people have managed to raise and sustain families in horrible conditions in the past and done relatively well for themselves. I know that's annoying, but I can't help that it continues to be relevant.

I.e., it's customary behavior; that makes it okay. People have committed genocide in horrible conditions in the past and done relatively well for themselves; it isn't evidence that genocide is virtuous. You aren't even addressing the problem I pointed out in the logic of your argument.

To a certain extent "Rational family planning" is a first world problem, as we live in a society where it's assumed children will be totally dependent on their parents and incapable of shouldering any real responsibility until their mid teenage years. For ALOT of other people, children are only a liability for the first couple of years until they're old enough to take orders; once they get past the toddler stage they're pressed into service as little fetcher/helper/errand runners for mom and dad. There are whole families that used this strategy to literally breed themselves out of poverty: by the time you get to your seventh kid, you're basically a small business owner.

Showing once again that the decision to have unprotected sex is self-interested. But is "But I'll be able to exploit him." a valid moral justification for anything?

What's a "biological imperative"?

Things human beings have evolved to do and/or desire to do because it is in our nature to do them. This stems from the very basic concept that life is not actually mandatory and neither are any of the things we choose to do with ourselves, so we collectively place a higher premium on the things nature designed us to do...

Nature didn't design us to do anything. That's for gods and other fictional entities. Things with a tendency to eat, sleep, breathe etc. survived to pass on their genes. As it turns out, things with a tendency to get addicted and things with a tendency to do stuff in our short-term self-interest and force the costs of it onto other people also survived to pass on their genes. We do those things because they too are in our nature.

... because denying the utility of those basic imperatives would pretty much negate our entire existence.

Nobody is denying the utility of those basic imperatives; that doesn't mean it's always okay to do them whenever you feel like it no matter the circumstances. If you sleep while you're on guard duty and risk getting your tribe massacred people are going to be angry with you; saying "We evolved to sleep; I desired to sleep because it is in our nature to sleep" is not going to convince people not to criticize you.

Says the guy who set himself up as the arbiter of whose actions are none of whose f***ing business. You're swearing at credoconsolans for exercising his sovereign human right to express his opinion...

... and then he called you and paid your retainer, oh tireless public defender of the interwebs

You wrote to me, dude. All I did was point out that Don had mistaken a lame ad hominem strawman for a substantive argument.

 

[fromderinside]

Do you believe in Democracy or not. If you give your money to a government that engages in wholesale murder worldwide, how can you deny that you sponsored the atrocities? You cannot. I mentioned only a few of the atrocities that have led to flows of refugees. It all counts...invasions and air wars. You are nitpicking here when it is most inappropriate. You are right on the issue of fecundity of the human being in crisis...it often rises. That is due to the lack of education, and civilized facilities available to people with only the clothes on their back. Storied peacenick John Kerry visited the Nuclear War Park in Hiroshima and didn't offer the slightest of apologies for our country going way over a major moral red line. Of course he would have been fired had he done so. That is what I am talking about...the wishes and the egos of the elite decision makers in our country have priority over what really are moral issues...prime moral issues.

The stupidity of the leaders of our world governments when they act like spoiled children is a major liability to our entire human race when it comes to nukes. But lesser killings also make lots of refugees...and the instability that follows something like the Iraq war is the cause of the refugees. Supposing we had offered humanitarian aid. We didn't. We sent soldiers and bombs and depleted uranium and etc. etc. etc. a virtual litany of violent intent and actions...all sponsored by our tax money and our leaders' willingness to mortgage the future of our country for their violent attempt to control the world. You are right. Common sense does not prevail...because with newspeak common sense disappears.

Whoa. Way over the top. Throwing out most of the family with the dishwater arkirk. I'm sure we did nothing wholesale. I'm pretty sure we were stupid going into Iraq, but, Iraq was a failed state already as evidenced by the brutish leadership it required to keep sunni from shia. Yeah we dropped a couple bombs on Japan. Would you rather ten million more Japanese die before they collapsed from lack of food and weapons. It was a marginal line we may have crossed. Since then we've lead the way toward tamping down the beasts we let out of Pandora's box there.

Since our world's democracies are governed by more or less normal people and normal people tend to be self centered, self satisfied, ignorant and followers our leaders will reflect that because they are normal people. Still, I'm not about to let some elite take charge. Are you?

Seems that the main thing that good people do is take what they are given, meaning those responsible for conducting humanitarian acts pocket most of the money and goods. Oops. I guess I did forget to say normal people tend to be corrupt when given opportunity. As for mortgages we don't need political leaders to bankrupt us because those who provide us with the best standard of living in the world are doing very well at that.

So cool your jets, come down form your last Bernie's speech. When you cool a bit and get on the real train we'll talk.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You wrote to me, dude. All I did was point out that Don had mistaken a lame ad hominem strawman for a substantive argument.

wut

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Because people have managed to raise and sustain families in horrible conditions in the past and done relatively well for themselves. I know that's annoying, but I can't help that it continues to be relevant.

I.e., it's customary behavior; that makes it okay.

No, it's a choice that, history shows, has wound up being profitable in the long run. Not always, and not every time, but various reasons it is common enough as a survival strategy that its successes tend to outnumber its failures.

People have committed genocide in horrible conditions...

Here you are equating "poor people having babies" with "committing genocide" as if they are in ANY WAY equivalent...

Why do I even bother?

Showing once again that the decision to have unprotected sex is self-interested.

Everything human beings have ever done is ultimately self-interested. That includes procreation.

What's a "biological imperative"?

Things human beings have evolved to do and/or desire to do because it is in our nature to do them. This stems from the very basic concept that life is not actually mandatory and neither are any of the things we choose to do with ourselves, so we collectively place a higher premium on the things nature designed us to do...

Nature didn't design us to do anything.

Not deliberately, no. Not that it matters much, because our tendency to place a higher value on those processes is the MAIN thing that keeps most people from descending into bleak nihilism.

... because denying the utility of those basic imperatives would pretty much negate our entire existence.

Nobody is denying the utility of those basic imperatives; that doesn't mean it's always okay to do them whenever you feel like it no matter the circumstances.

No one said it did. At issue here is whether or not individuals have the right to decide FOR THEMSELVES whether or not the circumstances warrant it or not. A total stranger doesn't have veto power over you and your choices; he can't prevent you from having sex, he can't force you to use birth control, he can't insist that you only do anal, and he sure as hell can't demand that your wife have an abortion.

Personal responsibility means you're responsible for your own choices and no one else's. If you don't like the choices somebody else is making, you can just as soon chose not to help them.

Hence the question Credo never fully answered, whether or not he is actually paying more (or for that matter, ANY) taxes to support the refugees and whether or not that even makes a difference considering those tax dollars technically belong to the government -- and not to him -- once they have been paid. If you don't want your government supporting the refugees because of what you view as their poor choices, you should run for office and get them to change their policy. But then, that's the old debate about taxation and politics in general; the government wastes ALOT of our tax dollars on questionable pursuits, and "support of refugees" is just a drop in the bucket.

You wrote to me, dude. All I did was point out that Don had mistaken a lame ad hominem strawman for a substantive argument.

My irony meter is twitching....

 

[credoconsolans]

You can keep telling yourself that.

I will, it's easy to do when it's true.

Call it. One or the other. In the first paragraph you say what you called me is accurate, in the 2nd you're saying you don't do it. Choose one or the other, you can't have both.

Logically it is possible.

Logically? Explain the logic.

I think it's you who needs to go back and read #148 again. I said nothing of the kind. Try not to put words in my mouth.

Really, you need to have someone read it and explain it to you.

No, it's you who is having the comprehension issues.

Then you have no business making claims of fact about their medical histories. You cannot say with certainty that refugees in your area had babies in transit.

Not with any certainly, but with a high probability.

You have no basis in fact for that claim.

Human nature is a very good basis in fact for my claim.

As I said, people can be stupid and you agreed.

Which does not mean they necessarily had babies in transit.

No but the probability is awfully high due to stupidity and you agreed people can be stupid.

Why did you contradict yourself in the first two sentences?

I didn't.

You did. You just said it was still possible logically. I'm waiting for the 'logical' explanation.

Your opinion is wrong.

I did not offer an opinion.

Yeah you did. I can understand why you don't want to own it.

Who said anything about morality? It's about the lack of commonsense, lack of rational thinking, the lack of self-restraint and selfishness.

You are making moral judgments when you claim the refugees who have babies in transit lack commonsense, or rational thinking or self-restraint or that they are selfish.

Since when is that a moral judgment? I see it as a logical observation of stupid actions.

THAT's certainly cause to feel contempt toward ANYone with those traits, let alone people seeking assistance.

Whether it certainly causes the feelings of contempt toward anyone with those traits depends on the people doing the feeling. For example, I don't think your posts on this subject are causing others to feel contempt towards you.

Why would they? Most probably agree with me.

 

[credoconsolans]

If that were a valid concern half my ancestors would never have been born.


Fair enough.

I, on the other hand, am reluctant to condemn a married man for having sex with his wife. There are a lot of things I will condemn a man for and call him irresponsible, but that just isn't one of them.

Some people are reluctant to condemn a man and call him irresponsible for driving drunk.

Drunk driving, unlike procreation, isn't a biological imperative inherent to the survival of the human species or the bloodline of a particular family, nor is it a sovereign right of families to engage in at a time and place of their choosing, nor is it something people can necessarily chose not to do when conditions suddenly change.

Drunk driving, unlike sex, isn't a private action between two consenting adults in the context of an established relationship, the practice of which is as old as the human race and as fundamental to human existence as eating and breathing.

Of course there are a million ways to go on ANY particular issue, but setting yourself up as the arbiter of "good judgement" over other people's married life -- particularly, people you don't know, whose situation you're not fully aware of, whose NAMES you don't even really know -- is kind of a dick move by any measurement.

Are you joking? Thousands of people go without sex everyday. Obviously it is NOT a biological imperative.

Thousands of people go without FOOD AND SHELTER every day. That doesn't mean food and shelter aren't basic human needs.

Are you joking? People can and do drop dead without food or shelter. I have yet to see anyone dropping dead for lack of sex.

No matter what blue-balled teen-aged boys think, going without sex won't kill them.

Our species currently has 7 billion on the planet. There is no imperative whatsoever to increase the population.

Who said anything about the population? People procreate because they want to increase and sustain their FAMILIES.

That argument only works if they have a high infant mortality rate. But I doubt anyone stupid enough to procreate while on the run as a refugee is seeing any further than the end of their genitals.

 

[credoconsolans]

DO you? Is this happening in a country/district/city where you pay taxes? And are YOUR tax dollars specifically paying for their food and shelter?

I'm sure your lack of approval over their life choices makes you feel really important in the overall scheme of the universe. Fortunately all of us, you still are not.

As long as their life choices don't effect me

They don't. You pay the same taxes whether the government spends it on refugees or not. If you don't want the government spending that money on helping refugees, you should run for office and vote against it.

OTOH, that still assumes that your taxes would go to the refugees in the first place. Is that even really the case?

None of which means I have to like it and I don't...

I don't like the way your farts smell, but you don't see me launching on a long rambling tirade condemning you for having such a stinky farts, do you?

Yes, because stinky farts are exactly like having a baby that needs medical care, food and shelter.

I have no problem with my taxes helping the refugees, but I sure can consider with contempt and resentment...

... anyone you damn well please. Just don't insult my intelligence by pretending you have a legitimate REASON to fling your content and resentment at people you don't even know and whose welfare you aren't even responsible for, tax dollars or not.

I won't insult your intelligence, but then again you think someone will die if they don't have sex.

I do have a legitimate REASON. SEVERAL in fact. Irresponsibility, selfishness, child endangerment. Those are good enough reasons to scorn them.

- - - Updated - - -

But I do owe them my tax money, right? For their irresponsible and selfish acts?

Seems only fair since it was your tax money that made them refugees to begin with.

Them. Not the babies they have while on the run.

 

[laughing dog]

I will, it's easy to do when it's true.

Okay, then you have lost the argument since you are name calling the refugees.

 

[credoconsolans]

... because denying the utility of those basic imperatives would pretty much negate our entire existence.

Nobody is denying the utility of those basic imperatives; that doesn't mean it's always okay to do them whenever you feel like it no matter the circumstances.

No one said it did. At issue here is whether or not individuals have the right to decide FOR THEMSELVES whether or not the circumstances warrant it or not. A total stranger doesn't have veto power over you and your choices; he can't prevent you from having sex, he can't force you to use birth control, he can't insist that you only do anal, and he sure as hell can't demand that your wife have an abortion.

Personal responsibility means you're responsible for your own choices and no one else's. If you don't like the choices somebody else is making, you can just as soon chose not to help them.

So if someone wants to act irresponsibly, then it's all on them. Why do they need my help then for paying for their sudden increase in expenses?

You tell me it isn't my business. I am not part of the decision making process.

OK, fine. But then why I am now responsible for helping pay for something in which I had no input?

Honestly your "life without sex negates existence" made LMAO. Sounds like some existential sex-angst written by horny frat boys.

Hence the question Credo never fully answered, whether or not he is actually paying more (or for that matter, ANY) taxes to support the refugees and whether or not that even makes a difference considering those tax dollars technically belong to the government -- and not to him --

In the US, the US citizen IS the government so those are MY tax dollars at any point.

once they have been paid. If you don't want your government supporting the refugees because of what you view as their poor choices

Don't get off on a track. I'm all for supporting refugees. No problem. Just them though. Not really happy about paying for any babies some of the stupid ones had in transit. I'll have to pay for them too, but I can certainly express my contempt to their parents if I get a chance.

- - - Updated - - -

I will, it's easy to do when it's true.

Okay, then you have lost the argument since you are name calling the refugees.

I'm not arguing with refugees though, am I?

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not arguing with refugees though, am I?

You name called the refugees. And, given your standard of name calling, you called me names as well. Even though I hesitate to use the following phrase, using your standard of "reasoning", you've lost your "argument". But, frankly, I don't care nor does it matter. I've had enough of the illogical, nasty, selfish and hypocritical delusions of rational positions you have presented.

 

[credoconsolans]

I'm not arguing with refugees though, am I?

You name called the refugees. And, given your standard of name calling, you called me names as well. Even though I hesitate to use the following phrase, using your standard of "reasoning", you've lost your "argument". But, frankly, I don't care nor does it matter. I've had enough of the illogical, nasty, selfish and hypocritical delusions of rational positions you have presented.

Yes, I figured you lost the argument when you can't even understand the illogic of irresponsible actions.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If that were a valid concern half my ancestors would never have been born.


Fair enough.

I, on the other hand, am reluctant to condemn a married man for having sex with his wife. There are a lot of things I will condemn a man for and call him irresponsible, but that just isn't one of them.

Some people are reluctant to condemn a man and call him irresponsible for driving drunk.

Drunk driving, unlike procreation, isn't a biological imperative inherent to the survival of the human species or the bloodline of a particular family, nor is it a sovereign right of families to engage in at a time and place of their choosing, nor is it something people can necessarily chose not to do when conditions suddenly change.

Drunk driving, unlike sex, isn't a private action between two consenting adults in the context of an established relationship, the practice of which is as old as the human race and as fundamental to human existence as eating and breathing.

Of course there are a million ways to go on ANY particular issue, but setting yourself up as the arbiter of "good judgement" over other people's married life -- particularly, people you don't know, whose situation you're not fully aware of, whose NAMES you don't even really know -- is kind of a dick move by any measurement.

Are you joking? Thousands of people go without sex everyday. Obviously it is NOT a biological imperative.

Thousands of people go without FOOD AND SHELTER every day. That doesn't mean food and shelter aren't basic human needs.

Are you joking? People can and do drop dead without food or shelter. I have yet to see anyone dropping dead for lack of sex.

In a sense, you have. Every human being you have ever met, in fact, exists because somebody had sex with their moms. That's the only reason ANYONE exists, because two people somewhere decided to get it on.

And it's entirely possible you think the refugees have TOO MUCH food and shelter, more than they deserve at least. You certainly seem to think they're having too much sex. Still absent from this tirade of yours is any explanation of how and when that became any business of yours.

That argument only works if they have a high infant mortality rate.

Or a lack of children.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I do have a legitimate REASON. SEVERAL in fact. Irresponsibility, selfishness, child endangerment. Those are good enough reasons to scorn them...

No, those are assumptions based on your moral abstractions. Now having apparently backpedaled from whining about your poor misbegotten tax dollars, you retreat to "General Principle."

And again, this is scorn leveled at people you've never met, whose exact circumstances you have no knowledge of. You don't know who they are, where they're from, what they did or when they did it. Your unsupported assumption that they are irresponsible, selfish and knowingly endangering their children is little more than a wild guess.

But you've already demonstrated you're the kind of person who is willing to make emotional judgements of other people based purely on your GUESSES about who they are. There's a word for that kind of person.

... because denying the utility of those basic imperatives would pretty much negate our entire existence.

Nobody is denying the utility of those basic imperatives; that doesn't mean it's always okay to do them whenever you feel like it no matter the circumstances.

No one said it did. At issue here is whether or not individuals have the right to decide FOR THEMSELVES whether or not the circumstances warrant it or not. A total stranger doesn't have veto power over you and your choices; he can't prevent you from having sex, he can't force you to use birth control, he can't insist that you only do anal, and he sure as hell can't demand that your wife have an abortion.

Personal responsibility means you're responsible for your own choices and no one else's. If you don't like the choices somebody else is making, you can just as soon chose not to help them.

So if someone wants to act irresponsibly, then it's all on them. Why do they need my help then for paying for their sudden increase in expenses?

Begging the question: whoever asked YOU to pay for anything?

But then why I am now responsible for helping pay for something in which I had no input?

ARE you responsible? Forgive me if I missed the part where you told me you worked for UNICEF or the American Red Cross or an all-volunteer refugee relief service that you can't get out of.

If you're merely talking about your TAX money, that's been covered already: you have no say in how your taxes are spent ANYWAY, your government does. Take it up with THEM if you think they're wasting it.

Hence the question Credo never fully answered, whether or not he is actually paying more (or for that matter, ANY) taxes to support the refugees and whether or not that even makes a difference considering those tax dollars technically belong to the government -- and not to him --

In the US, the US citizen IS the government...

... of Greece?

Aside from being utterly deluded about how the U.S. Government works -- this is a representative democracy, not a participatory one -- the OP is about a refugee camp on the Macedonian border. What makes you think U.S. tax dollars have anything to do with... ANYTHING? (You'd think their conditions would be less horrific if that was the case).