Republican proposes paying poor women to have their tubes tied and paying rich women to have more kids

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

John LaBruzzo

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.

...

LaBruzzo said he worries that people receiving government aid such as food stamps and publicly subsidized housing are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated people who presumably pay more tax revenue to the government.

...

He said his program ... could include tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, he said.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index....xml&coll=1

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Excellent!

[jundp 191]

Wait. Republicans are against abortion, but it's ok for the government to pay a woman to have her tubes tied?!

#######.

Do we live in Communist China now?

[jundp 191]

His 81st House District runs from Old Metairie north to Bucktown and west along Lake Pontchartrain to the Suburban Canal. In a somewhat different configuration, it is the same district that sent white supremacist David Duke to the Legislature in 1989.

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.

He acknowledged his idea might be a difficult sell politically.

"I don't know if it's a viable option," LaBruzzo said. "Of course people are going to get excited about it. Maybe we'll start a debate on it."

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

LaBruzzo said he is only considering the proposal for now while he conducts research. But backlash from various groups was to be expected, he said.

"The black community will say this is some sort of race-based genocide. And there will be tremendous push back from the ACLU. They'll try to say these people are incapable of making such a decision when their life is in turmoil. That if you're dangling money in front of them, of course they'll make a decision that will affect them negatively.

"My argument would be if they’re incapable of making a decision whether to cease reproduction are they capable of raising multiple children to be good citizens? And if they're incapable, maybe Social Services should take their children."

http://www.neworleanscitybusiness.com/UpTo...cfm?recID=20404

[Niels Bohr 72]

The poor are not incapable of making a decision. They are very smart. They feed off the rich. Did he know that maybe about 5% keep or take consume public benefits.

Another thing is, the poor probably wants more babies so that there's a greater chance of each one getting a good education; therefore, becoming diligent people within the US economy.

There's a study at the local University here, a prominent one, that says their graduate contributed 7% more to the state after they deducted all the investment the state had invested on them while they were in school. The state spends about 3-5% on one kid, and get 7% back from the kid. What a deal on their ROI, isn't it?

Edited September 26, 2008 by consolemaster

[Peikko 1,575]

I have a better idea, invest in ways to ensure that poor people become independant of state aid and produce more for the economy. Much more of a win win than paying for them to have their tubes tied up. I also don't know why he wants rich people to reproduce more it's not like rich people have better kids now is it?

[mawilson 2,133]

I have a better idea, invest in ways to ensure that poor people become independant of state aid and produce more for the economy. Much more of a win win than paying for them to have their tubes tied up. I also don't know why he wants rich people to reproduce more it's not like rich people have better kids now is it?

Better only in the sense of not sucking up government money for their care.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Seems it would be better to me to not give them aid in the first place.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

His idea is nothing new. They bring back old memories. Sterilization of the poor and minority has been practiced in the US many times before. In the 1970's, several scandals broke because government doctors were sterilizing poor women and institutionalized women without their knowledge or consent. I was a human rights researcher and advocate for many years, starting in my teens, and the forced sterilization of Native American women was the very first issue I worked on fresh out of high school. I'll never forget the women I met during that era, and how many times we cried together about their profound loss.

State Secret: Thousands Secretly Sterilized

The Indian Health Service and the Sterilization of Native American Women

Sterilizaton Grows Along Side Discrimination

Edited September 26, 2008 by Virtual wife

[mawilson 2,133]

Seems it would be better to me to not give them aid in the first place.

They have to live somewhere. It's best to keep them segregated in specially designated high-crime public housing areas.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Well they could live where they want if they got responsible and earned and worked their way like most responsible adults.

[mawilson 2,133]

Well they could live where they want if they got responsible and earned and worked their way like most responsible adults.

True, but they don't. They are too lazy and irresponsible to even make an attempt to care for themselves.

The PC version is, "the system is stacked up against the poor, so they deserve a government hand-out."

[IAMX 3,055]

John LaBruzzo

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.

...

LaBruzzo said he worries that people receiving government aid such as food stamps and publicly subsidized housing are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated people who presumably pay more tax revenue to the government.

...

He said his program ... could include tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, he said.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index....xml&coll=1

I say he get his district re-zoned specifically to areas of poor minorities. And be forced to engage in a public debate in a mob-fashion. Feed him to the wolves.

Uppity ####.

Edited September 26, 2008 by SRVT

[akdiver 3]

I think it's a good idea - except that they should be paying EVERYONE not to have kids. Instead of getting this BS "child tax credit" it should just be a "child tax".

There's a study at the local University here, a prominent one, that says their graduate contributed 7% more to the state after they deducted all the investment the state had invested on them while they were in school. The state spends about 3-5% on one kid, and get 7% back from the kid. What a deal on their ROI, isn't it?

You consider 2-4% ROI a good deal? Christ. The tax payers can do better than that with a freakin' CD, and maybe even a good savings account. Where did you learn economics?