In a Feb. 10 letter, “Help those who help themselves,” Eruch Tata said people should live within their financial abilities and the government (local, state and federal) should not help those who do not help themselves. He stated that if a person cannot adequately support his family, she should not have had children.

Consider: Mary and John marry during a relatively prosperous time, both successfully employed in decent-paying positions. They put money away to purchase a home and for retirement, and save for vacations without problems; soon they have two growing children. Suddenly the economy takes a dive, one or both become unemployed, and their financial well-being is tested to the point no one could have expected.

According to Mr. Tata, they should have had the vision to foresee such a disastrous future. I find this view not only self-serving but quite selfish. Should the family be broken up, kids given up for adoption or foster care, parents separated and fending for themselves? Does he really think that the millions of American families who suffered devastating financial loss — unemployment not due to their own performance, the effects from unethical financial companies that led the way to the financial downturn and took advantage of those most affected — are not decent, responsible and ethical citizens?

Give me a break. If Mr. Tata and his like-minded brethren believe that government should not support those who have no other means of existence, then I suggest he also decline government assistance: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and other senior assistance. Do as you say and pay your full way.

Joanne Hafter

Columbia