State Rep. Labruzzo: If you're on welfare we'll tie your tubes for ya (1 Viewer)

[DavidM]

It's just a brainstorming idea that has taken no real root yet, according to that link. Isn't that the point of brainstorming, throw it all out there and then discuss the pros and cons?

From reading that, the proposal is purely voluntary. Instead of paying poor people to have kids, it would pay poor people not to have them. Why all the outrage over one and not the other? I'd rather my tax money go toward less people than more people, regardless of race and/or income level.

A desire to tackle the problem of poverty, and in too many cases, the cycle of poverty, is noble. But this?

There are genetic factors with obesity and it's a leading cause of health problems which in turn comes at a cost to taxpayers, so should obesity be the next trait targeted in attempts at purifying the gene pool? And I phrase it that way since, in his brainstorming, he included "tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children." Why? I understand the odds go up that the children of educated, higher income parents will, themselves, become educated and with higher earning potential, but it's certainly not a given.

But let's assume the idea has merit -- will the state pick up the tab to reverse these procedures should these poor people find themselves in better economic conditions and thus ready to produce offspring that can go on to be educated, successful, Americans?

 

[DavidM]

Ah, I see Spam and I were having similar thoughts.

 

[feoinfunroe]

I'd rather my tax money go toward less people than more people, regardless of race and/or income level.

...until one has to field an army or fund Social Security.

 

[cruize]

My Mother ran a local housing authority for 35 years. She saw Mothers having multiple babies after being on welfare. She then saw those children grow up, apply for apartments, and have children in the same way. It's not the childrens fault. They deserve the help. But, at some point, for societies sake and mainly the childrens sake, something has to be done. It's sad that people make such poor choices that leads someone to even start this discussion. What can be done? I'm not smart enough to know. All ideas step on personal choice and individual rights. I expect it will be like it is now, easier just to right a check.

 

[Thorin]

My Mother ran a local housing authority for 35 years. She saw Mothers having multiple babies after being on welfare. She then saw those children grow up, apply for apartments, and have children in the same way. It's not the childrens fault. They deserve the help. But, at some point, for societies sake and mainly the childrens sake, something has to be done. It's sad that people make such poor choices that leads someone to even start this discussion. What can be done? I'm not smart enough to know. All ideas step on personal choice and individual rights. I expect it will be like it is now, easier just to right a check.

I agree, there are obvious implications of a major lack of personal responsibility for some of the welfare recipients; and a culture of dependency has been instilled into a fringe of people for a couple of generations. Education is certainly the key IMO. Some of y'all (you know who you are) should be commended for rescuing this thread from the oversimplifications, stereotypes, and generalizations contained within.

 

[44slayer]

From NOLA.COM: http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/labruzzo_sterilization_plan_fi.html

State Representative John Labruzzo is floating the idea of offering sterilization to poor men and women in order to fight the so-called welfare state. I think this is a great example of a complete failure on the government's part to stay the hell out of people's lives. The logic is so batty, especially considering "LaBruzzo said he opposes abortion and paying people to have abortions. He described a sterilization program as providing poor people with better opportunities to avoid welfare, because they would have fewer children to feed and clothe."

C'mon, either let people have all the abortions and sterilization they want and stay the hell out of it or this is what you get. You can't have your Fundamentalist-Christian-Conservative pie and eat it, too.

People want the government to stay out of other people's lives, yet they want the government to give them money to support their lifestyle. Thats swallowing the cake whole, right out the oven. Why is one better than the other? I agree with welfare to a certain degree, but I also believe that if you receive money from the government, you cant hide under the right to privacy regarding everything. Your daddy pays your bills, but he doesnt know what he is paying? Daddy isnt paying unless he sees bills.

 

[Thorin]

People want the government to stay out of other people's lives, yet they want the government to give them money to support their lifestyle. Thats swallowing the cake whole, right out the oven. Why is one better than the other? I agree with welfare to a certain degree, but I also believe that if you receive money from the government, you cant hide under the right to privacy regarding everything. Your daddy pays your bills, but he doesnt know what he is paying? Daddy isnt paying unless he sees bills.

I might not be opposed to a higher level of scrutiny, especially in long term aid situations. There are isolated cases of recipients holding jobs (housecleaning, lawn service, babysitting etc.) without reporting their income. So there's tax evasion plus welfare fraud.

 

[SaintsFanForever]

People want the government to stay out of other people's lives, yet they want the government to give them money to support their lifestyle. Thats swallowing the cake whole, right out the oven. Why is one better than the other? I agree with welfare to a certain degree, but I also believe that if you receive money from the government, you cant hide under the right to privacy regarding everything. Your daddy pays your bills, but he doesnt know what he is paying? Daddy isnt paying unless he sees bills.

good point

 

[V Chip]

Oh and BTW: 1993 called and it wants its "let's demonize welfare" argument back.

 

[SaintsFan11]

The key phrase, for me btw, is this



It's not that he wants to provide better public health to those who need it most (many of whom probably don't want more children anyways). Let's be blunt

He wants less people from the "bad end of the gene pool" and more people from the "good end of the gene pool". Which is deplorable. Regardless of the overall merits of his idea when taken objectively.

I agree wholeheartedly. The way he put forth his proposal really makes it seem like this is 100% about demographics (and race).

Also, what does one do with sexually active teenagers? What heppens when people start hauling their kids in to get them sterilized so they can collect $1,000? What happens when teenagers go to get sterilized so they can collect $1,000 and buy worthless consumer items?

 

[saintned]

From NOLA.COM: http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/labruzzo_sterilization_plan_fi.html

State Representative John Labruzzo is floating the idea of offering sterilization to poor men and women in order to fight the so-called welfare state. I think this is a great example of a complete failure on the government's part to stay the hell out of people's lives. The logic is so batty, especially considering "LaBruzzo said he opposes abortion and paying people to have abortions. He described a sterilization program as providing poor people with better opportunities to avoid welfare, because they would have fewer children to feed and clothe."

C'mon, either let people have all the abortions and sterilization they want and stay the hell out of it or this is what you get. You can't have your Fundamentalist-Christian-Conservative pie and eat it, too.

So you want to force me to pay for the slaughter of innocent human life, pay for the irresponsibility of the willfully ignorant, and pay to have them sterilized if they want? How about let them starve and pay the consequences for their own lifes choices? How long would it take for the welfare culture to evolve when they lose their lifelong bailout for a bankrupt lifestyle?

 

[Thorin]

So you want to force me to pay for the slaughter of innocent human life, pay for the irresponsibility of the willfully ignorant, and pay to have them sterilized if they want? How about let them starve and pay the consequences for their own lifes choices? How long would it take for the welfare culture to evolve when they lose their lifelong bailout for a bankrupt lifestyle?

Someone went and hit the reset button.

 

[antipop]

So you want to force me to pay for the slaughter of innocent human life, pay for the irresponsibility of the willfully ignorant, and pay to have them sterilized if they want? How about let them starve and pay the consequences for their own lifes choices? How long would it take for the welfare culture to evolve when they lose their lifelong bailout for a bankrupt lifestyle?

yet another brought to you by saintned

 

[Jonesy77]

Also, what does one do with sexually active teenagers? What heppens when people start hauling their kids in to get them sterilized so they can collect $1,000? What happens when teenagers go to get sterilized so they can collect $1,000 and buy worthless consumer items?

Economic stimulus? And any such lawwould almost certainly require an age of "consent" so to speak. Poor 15 year olds would still be able to crank out little money trees

 

[Thorin]