[Representative] LaBruzzo considering plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have tubes tied

Originally posted by Interestinggg
Worried that welfare costs are rising as the number of taxpayers declines, state Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, said Tuesday he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.

Awww but hes so perfect isn't he?
With his offshore tax havens and subsidiary corporations so he pays 0 tax.
His offshore accounts in fake names to pay high class hookers from his bribes he receives from corporations.
I think he should authorize $1000 payments for corrupt politicians to jump off bridges.
That sounds a little better.
Wonder why I can find no family history for him?Is that because his mom had 8 kids on welfare?


John LaBruzzo (born July 6, 1970, New Orleans, Louisiana) is a Republican member of the Louisiana House of Representatives, representing District 81 in Metairie, Louisiana. LaBruzzo has spent the last 12 years in medical sales, and has recently expanded his business career into real estate.
In winning the seat he campaigned on two particular promises; to help businesses in the state and to pass a tax credit for parents of private school students.

Oh yeah hes really for the people yeah?

At least he can afford to pay his $1000 prostitutes. If he can legally find a way pay no taxes then he would be a fool to pay any.

reply to post by chise61


Children are the responsibility of the parent. If the parent can't care for them, its terrible, yes. But supporting generations of welfare for the "sake of the children" is terrible, too. Life isn't some grand fairy tale where everything goes right; all of us pay for the decisions of our parents, in one way or another. Rather than being a crutch for these people, we should let them and theirs suffer the consequences of their actions and thus cut the cancer out. People seem to forget that life is harsh and everybody dies; no one is entitled to have that death be of old age, with friends surrounding.

As for the fathers, well, no one made the mothers give it up to them, now did they? That was a choice, and they should pay the consequences, instead of others being forced to pay for them. I don't see anyone giving me support for poor decisions Ive made. I guess I should have made sure they came with children.

reply to post by saturnine_sweet


I agree that supporting generations of people on welfare is not the way to do it.

However advocating the death of children by starvation or any other means because of the decisions of their parents is not the right way to go about it either, the children after all had no choice in the matter. I must also say that IMO there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with this line of thinking.

While i agree that people should suffer the concequences of their actions, the children have performed no actions to suffer the concequences of. Yes life is harsh, so are people, but no one, especially a child should be subjected to such a harsh death as through starvation.

I have to disagree with you about no one being entitled to anything. Children have no choice in the matter of whether they are brought into this world or not. So until they are capable of taking care of themselves they are entitled to a decent life.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by chise61


As for the fathers, well, no one made the mothers give it up to them, now did they? That was a choice, and they should pay the consequences, instead of others being forced to pay for them. I don't see anyone giving me support for poor decisions Ive made. I guess I should have made sure they came with children.

Well no one made the fathers take it either did they ?

It's a two way street the mothers did not conceive the children by themselves, the fathers played a very important role in bringing a child into this world, couldn't have been done without them.

It was a choice made by two people and therefore both people should suffer the concequences, not just the mother.

If the fathers were made to take the responsibility of their actions then others wouldn't be forced to pay for them. It's not that hard of a concept to understand.

It's thinking like this that adds to the problem that you complain about.

And do you suggest that a woman should not "give it up" to her husband ? There are plenty of women on welfare that were legally married and had children as a result of that marriage only to have the husband take off leaving all his obligations behind.

I'm not understanding your last statement, are you saying that you should have made sure that the poor decisions that you made should have come with children ?


edited to fix grammar error


[edit on 25/9/08 by chise61]

[edit on 25/9/08 by chise61]

reply to post by chise61

As for the children, you're not really saving anyone from suffering. You're just spreading it out. So that the children of irresponsible family A suffer less, the children of responsible families B-Z will go without something that their parents earned. Spreading the pain and suffering is a hallmark of communism. It shouldn't be a hallmark of America. Someone ALWAYS pays for irresponsibility. Why should the responsible suffer for the sake of the irresponsible?

As for the fathers, of course they are a part of it. And they pay child support, or they face consequences. Pretty stiff consequences in many states, now. But the bottom rung of these welfare families, they do not know who the fathers even are. Guess what? That's not my problem. And if you feel like the fathers arent giving enough support, then, by all means, make them suffer more. It's their responsibility. What if the father is a welfare parasite himself? Well, sucks to be the mother, then...she should have considered the father's worthiness of being a father and a provider before she spread her legs, no?

I'm so sick of people who make excuses for these despicable people. They choose the path they take in life. I don't care how poor you start, how bad things are, you always have a way out, if you want it bad enough. Been there, done that. Let the trash rot in waste bin, or take it out to the curb, but don't come spreading it on my lawn.

reply to post by chise61


As for my last statement you didn't understand, I was being sarcastic. That if i'd made sure my mistakes came with children, then I'd have someone bailing me out for them. Well, that, or made sure I was an investment banker. lol

[edit on 9/25/2008 by saturnine_sweet]

I'd like to clarify comments in my earlier post: by 'welfare mothers' I was not referring to women whose children were born into a marriage or permanent relationship, but rather to those females for whom producing illegitimate children has become (via welfare payments) basically a substitute for entering the workforce.

reply to post by saturnine_sweet


Don't get me wrong while i see nothing wrong with people receiveing help when times are hard, i do not advocate a lifetime on welfare, or generations of families on welfare. Not only is it unfair to the people that take care of their own, but it's harmful to this country as well as the welfare receipients.

What i can not advocate is innocent children suffering, especially starvation because of something they had no choice in.

And to be quite honest i am really trying to make sense of your opinion, as it is one that i have never heard before. I have never in all my life heard someone seriously advocate the suffering and death of children. I have never read anything here that has ever saddened me so much. I guess maybe i was hoping that you didn't really mean what you said about the children starving to death. I'm not trying to ridicule your beliefs, just trying to understand them, which i see now that i never will. To each his own, i guess.

Me myself even though i don't enjoy my money that i work for going to people that just don't want to work, i would rather it go there than for these children be homeless, or die. I certainly would rather it go to the children than to bailing out corporations, or foriegn aid while our own children go hungry. I digress, my apologies.

No if the father turns out to be irresponsible in any way at all it doesn't suck to be the mother, it sucks to be the child. There are situations where the father was a good father and due to outside influences changed. So your saying that the women shouldn't have "spread their legs" is not appropriate in all cases.

And you know that these women don't know who their children's fathers are, how? Do you know them personally, or do you always stereotype people ? People don't always choose their path, sometimes life just deals the wrong hand and they don't know how to change it around. I have to say that your choice of referring to people that you don't even know as despicable trash doesn't say much for you. But then again you're entitled to your opinion as i am entitled to mine.

If you are so adimately opposed to your money going to these people, there are ways that you can opt out of paying taxes.

reply to post by saturnine_sweet


As for the fathers paying child support, or facing stiff concequences you may want to do some real research about that before making that statement. Many men never even see the courtroom in these cases. Some have learned the ropes on how to get out of it. We even have plenty of politicians that do not pay child support and therefore they are adding a burden to society.

Sure if they don't pay court ordered child support they lose their income tax refund. Easy solution, they claim as many dependants as they can and therefore have less of a return for the goverment to keep. Work a job that pays cash and they have no verifiable source of income for the judge to put a lien on.

I could go on and on about all the little tricks they use, but i won't because it would fall on deaf ears. You have made it very clear that you are of the mindset that all the responsibility falls on the women no matter what the situation is.

Regretfully your mindset disheartens me too much to carry on this conversation any longer.

Originally posted by Dock6
I'd like to clarify comments in my earlier post: by 'welfare mothers' I was not referring to women whose children were born into a marriage or permanent relationship,

I'm confused, i don't see any earlier post made by you.

I checked through the thread three times and could only find this post. I even checked your thread posts through your profile and it only shows this one.

reply to post by chise61


By no means do I think it all falls on the women. However, as women are indeed the half that bear the children, as they are the half that are at the heart of most welfare families, yes, they do bear certain burdens of responsibility. Last I heard, men don't get pregnant, so they aren't going to be taking the birth control, either. I despise and blame the men just as much, worry not, but ultimately the women are the ones who are the "last line of defense" in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

As for the starving children...there will always be suffering in the world, there will always be starving children in the world. It is impossible to eliminate, as it is a fundamental part of human societies. Trying to force the populace to support one group of starving children will only lead to ever more starving children, in the end. Weep for the humanity of it, but death and starvation are a fact of life. We should concentrate our efforts on families who have starving children for reasons other than irresponsibility.

As for the exceptions, there are always exceptions. The most inane arguments I hear on ATS are those when people resort to going on about the exceptions. Here's a novel concept: when dealing with large groups of people, and there is an overwhelming majority within a group, it is often necessary to categorize them by their common attributes. This is not unfair stereotyping, but rather good organizational skills.

Oh, and as for mothers not knowing the fathers of their babies...I know from having worked with a lot of said mothers and their children. The majority of those who knew the father of their child (or the name of their father) knew from paternity tests. Obviously you are unaware of what the prevailing culture is like amongst the demographic of which we speak.

reply to post by saturnine_sweet


YOU ARE JUST AS SICK AS THE OTHER GUY!!!! GOOD GOD ! Do you look at poor people like a piece of crap? Man .. thats just so wrong! I have 2 autistic children that have really taken an effect on our life. YES I AM POOR! And how did I get there? MY Government! My Country! Rich people trying to save a buck! Just to add shelf life to our childs shots. This is just sick and wrong! How dare you judge others with less then you. It's people like U , why our country is going down the tubes. GREED GREED GREED ! Would be nice for something to happen to you so you would have to live pay check to pay check .. something that was out of your control. How would you feel if people looked down at you.


Very Very Sad

Although I don't feel that it's right for children to be put into such predicaments, especially one they did ask for, because of their irresponsible parents, I can understand why LaBruzzo would suggest such a plan.

Just travel to your nearest supermarket and you'll see another young pregnant mother with about five kids trailing behind her as she pushes her cart through the aisles, grabbing at junk foods and sodas. Sure enough, you'll see her in line paying with her "food stamp" card. Offering these "poor" women $1000 as a surefire means of birth control sounds reasonable in my opinion. And with the financial crisis we are in right now, offering $10,000 per "freeloader" is just too rich for the economy.

Taxpayers, like me, are fed up with having to support them, men and women alike. Yes, there are other alternatives but these have also been around for years and with no success. So basically they'll offer them the only thing that will draw their attention and that's money.

reply to post by SteveR


You have no right to tell anyone they can't have a child, period.

You also have no right to make me pay for something as draconian as this.

Try passing a bill like this, I dare you.

Originally posted by aravoth
reply to post by SteveR

 

You have no right to tell anyone they can't have a child, period.

You also have no right to make me pay for something as draconian as this.

Try passing a bill like this, I dare you.

Well they shouldnt have a right to make the rest of us pay for someone elses family.

I will take you up on your challenge and try to get a billed passed like this.

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


This is a very interesting idea....unfortuately the reason many may be weirded out by this or simply are opposed might be on to something....We learn that history usually repeats, correct? At least in some form....and this is a direct link the Hitler-esqe ideology of getting rid of the weak and less fit humans of socitey.....Hilter took it a step further by actually killing them....but this idea tries to rationalize and prevent humans by sterilzation....The correlation is uncanny.....