It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

State Rep. proposes voluntary sterilization for poor

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   

State Rep. proposes voluntary sterilization for poor


www.ksla.com

Representative John LaBruzzo of Metairie wants to pay poor people to get sterilized and reward rich people for having children. His proposal is already fueling heated debate.

...He has come up with the idea of voluntary sterilization for the poor. As a reward, they would get $1,000 from the state government. "If we don't break generational welfare trend, lot of people feel taken advantage of, then another problem on our hands." LaBruzzo is also thinking about proposing tax incentives for...
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
thinkprogress.org




posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
From Thinkprogress:


Louisiana State Rep. John LaBruzzo (R) recently stirred controversy by advocating a form of eugenics to decrease the number of poor. “I realized that all these people were in Louisiana’s care and what a massive financial responsibility that is to the state,” he said. “I said, ‘I wonder if it might be a good idea to pay some of these people to get sterilized.’” His plan would also give tax incentives to the rich to encourage procreation.


Wow, so pay the poor to get sterilized, and give tax incentives to the rich to make babies. Where do these people dream up this stuff?

www.ksla.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I have no issue with VOULENTARY sterilization for those who desire it. However, to reward the well off who procreate is a bit much IMHO. Some of the worst kids I have ever met were from "good" families :shk:

Now the question is if you are on welfare and a druggie should you HAVE to do this?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Mmm, the generational welfare issue isn't genetic. It's due to poorly established moral parameters. Something that can easily be overcome through proper education.

... something this representative clearly hasn't had enough of.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Welfare druggies and mandatory sterilization.
Absolutely!!
Exactly why should any society allow itself to take on more burdens?
How can any society be a progressive society when it allows the very situation we have now.
There are millions of non-working liabilites that have held us down for much too long.
Can you imagine all the good things we could have done with the money spent ont them?

"Education"? Sounds so noble. Do you think it is realistic?

Paying the well off to have more children is not necessary. That is the part of the proposal that could sink the whole thing.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by OhZone]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
The whole reason that there are poor people to begin with is the greed of the wealthy. If you paid people a living wage, there wouldn't be poverty and welfare.

EDIT to add video:





[edit on 9/29/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
There are people who will not work.
There are people who hardly work.
There are people who work but everything they do is very poor quality.

Just how much do you think a man on a shovel should get pain?
HOw much are you willing to pay people who harvest the veggies you eat?
Want to give them $10 an hour? Or what?
How much do you want to pay the janitor?

We do need janitors and field workers don't we?
Should they be getting the same pay as a highly skilled mechanic?

People are poor because they are unskilled and then they want to have children that they cannot afford to raise.
Do you like paying to raise their children and children's children?
You do know that poverty tends to run over the generations don't you?
It is the rare individual who pulls himself out of these situations.

There seem to be a lot of people who never do a reality check on ithe workability of ideas they propose.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 



There are people who will not work.


For the most part, that's what we are supposed to think. Sweep the problem under the carpet with an excuse that helps us sleep better at night. It also helps to deflect from the real causes of poverty.

But for the rare cases that we see people who really just don't want to work, you really have to ask yourself why someone would want to waste their life doing nothing useful. I would say that this must be some sort of mental illness really. In the end though, I really don't care. Don't want to work? Fine, be useless, just stay out of my way and in your crappy motel room eating government cheese. I'd rather that than pay for your jail cell after you victimize someone.

Really though. most people want to work. Take crack dealers even. Your average street dealer is not getting rich. He's out there risking his head everynight just to hustle enough to put food on the table, and buy the next re-up bag. Give him a job that would pay for a house in the suburbs, watch how quick he drops the crack.



There are people who hardly work.


Anyone who works 40 hours a week deserves to earn enough to provide for basic living expenses.



There are people who work but everything they do is very poor quality.


I suppose you would say then that people who are of inferior intelligence, or who are handicapped, don't deserve a job that pays enough to live on? Hitler thought the same thing.



Just how much do you think a man on a shovel should get pain?


Enough to pay the rent, put food on the table, go to the doctor when they are sick, etc. Enough to survive and not a dollar less.



HOw much are you willing to pay people who harvest the veggies you eat?


Enough that they can afford those veggies themselves too.



How much do you want to pay the janitor?


Actually, janitors get paid very well these days in most places. I wish I had kept my job as a high-school janitor. I would be well on my way to a state retirement package, earning a fair wage that goes up every single year with paid vacation, sick time, medical, etc.



Should they be getting the same pay as a highly skilled mechanic?


I didn't say that, I'm not a Communist. If you have skills, sure you should be paid more. But that doesn't mean that the people at the bottom should not be paid enough to survive. But of course, that situation is what ensures that you have a janitor and a garbage man, and an exploited labor force to pick your veggies, etc etc.



People are poor because they are unskilled and then they want to have children that they cannot afford to raise.


I am homeless with a college education and no children.



It is the rare individual who pulls himself out of these situations.


Not for not trying. But you have a better chance getting out of the mob than getting out of poverty.



There seem to be a lot of people who never do a reality check on ithe workability of ideas they propose.


Have you ever been poor?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Wow, so pay the poor to get sterilized, and give tax incentives to the rich to make babies. Where do these people dream up this stuff?


believe it or not, this has been around for a long time. In fact, Planned Parenthood was started with the same intention - paying black people specifically, to be sterilized. The reasoning was something along the lines of "quality over quantity."



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Well, if this stock market fiasco hits the US the same way it did in the 1920s, I'll bet more than a few elitists will be talking out of the other side of their mouths real soon. When you're living high, and think your ****doesn't stink, it's pretty easy to say it's all the fault of the poor themselves. That may change real quick for some folks, and then they'll be moaning about how unfair it is that their Harvard degree won't let them keep their SUV and 9000 sq. ft house.

At least poor folks are used to getting by on less.






As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


Indeed. And please allow me to share this quote that I happened to have used in another thread lately as well...



We, the unwilling,led by the unknowing,are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much,for so long,with so little,we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
- Mother Teresa



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I think its an awsome idea, would be a heck of a lot less crime.
Im already sterol so where do I sign up for my 1k rofl!?!



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I paid to have my child murdered in the womb rather than live the way I live.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Mmm, the generational welfare issue isn't genetic. It's due to poorly established moral parameters. Something that can easily be overcome through proper education.

... something this representative clearly hasn't had enough of.


You're right. I don't understand why these representatives of ours aren't investing in the education of the poor. That, to me, seems the most appropriate response, however expensive.

However, I think the major issue being argued here is not that generational welfare is inherited as some sort of genetic trait-that's ridiculous to even suggest that-but generational welfare is obviously a result of poor environmental conditions when growing up, such as exposure to drug or other addictive culture, the condition of one's emotional upbringing and lack of investment into the intellectual pursuits of normal society by those parents.

The problem is that taxpayers feel they shouldn't have to pay for the children of these poor people, whether it be through social services, or educational outreach programs. That is very sad, but the truth is people just don't care enough about others' children to make such an effort.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
In fact, Planned Parenthood was started with the same intention - paying black people specifically, to be sterilized. The reasoning was something along the lines of "quality over quantity."


Interesting. I don't remember that about PP. You got anything to look at on that? (before I go info seeking)...thanks.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
It's just statistics. Although it technically shouldn't infer anything about the the qualities of the subjected population's race or ethnicity, many people are simply incapable of leaving it alone. But then again it's also in poor taste for those representatives to make particular decisions, and say that they are based solely on "stats".

If I were to say Mexicans should be sterilized because it would benefit society's general welfare, that would infer a lot of things about the concerned people; the issue would escalate to a level far too irreparable to resume civil discussion, to explain why the government is offering benefits to those that cooperate with their program.

This is a delicate issue. The decision to address such a concern should be weighted carefully against the socioeconomic situation of the subjected population. Would such a claim only induce hatred? Do "stats" justify the public subversion of ethnic or racial groups? Maybe we should redefine the extent to which the subjected population should be considered for such government funded programs. Perhaps we should both broaden and specify the qualifications of such participants, so that participants represent both a more realistic sample of such a population, and a narrower social and economic set of circumstances.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by scientist
In fact, Planned Parenthood was started with the same intention - paying black people specifically, to be sterilized. The reasoning was something along the lines of "quality over quantity."


Interesting. I don't remember that about PP. You got anything to look at on that? (before I go info seeking)...thanks.


I will make a post about it this week. It's a pretty massive topic.

here's some info on Margaret Sanger, founder of PP

www.dianedew.com...



"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race
(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)


[edit on 30-9-2008 by scientist]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
There is a proposal that I am quite fond of sharing, and started a thread on it sometime back. I think readers of this thread will find it interesting...

www.abovetopsecret.com...




top topics



 
1

log in

join