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

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Suppose a young couple in their early twenties have a couple of children very young. Neither of them went to college and are struggling, working menial jobs to make ends meet. Now there is a possibility of them both eventually getting college degrees and thereby creating economic mobility for their family. Lets say in a matter of 6 years, both graduate from college and their family income increase from $24g's to $80g's. They are no longer stuck in poverty. Perhaps at some point, they want to have another child. While sterilization sounds practical, for a couple like that, it wouldn't be a sound option. They are no longer considered low income.

OK - I'm with you here. I'd say that for the couple above, they shouldn't take the incentive. They should take advantage of the free and freely available abortions I advocated many posts back. I'll also counter with this scenario (which, unfortunately, happens all too often) - suppose you have a young crack addicted woman who, by age 23, has already given birth to 5 crack babies. In seems socially advantageous, for any number of reasons, to encourage her to stop having kids - period. Offering her an incentive to voluntarily sterilize seems reasonable to me.

That's just it....it's difficult to come up with blanket solutions because every situation is different. How many 23 yr. old drug addicts with 5 children are there? How much do they represent lower income families? My hunch is that the fictional couple I used as an example are more representative of lower income families than the fictional mother you used. Therefore, I'd rather see policies that address their situation in the hope of bringing them and their children out of poverty. A 23 yr. old crack addict with 5 kids - there's probably not a whole lot you can do. Put the kids into foster care and but her behind bars...offer her some rehab.

[akdiver 3]

Yes, but it is also ridiculous to say that having children is somehow economically beneficial to the parents at the cost of everyone else 100% of the time.

I don't recall ever saying anything about 100% of the time.

Also, something doesn't have to cover your expenses completely to be an incentive....

That's just it....it's difficult to come up with blanket solutions because every situation is different.

Never said there has to be one and only one solution. It's always possible to implement multiple solutions to the same problem (:

On a related note - you didn't directly comment on my $5000/year plan implemented as I described above. I'd be curious to know what you thought about that in terms of being for it or against it - or something similar, etc. (:

Edited September 27, 2008 by akdiver

[Dr. Obvious 49]

Also, something doesn't have to cover your expenses completely to be an incentive....

I don't call throwing $6k in the trash for $2k return an incentive. Maybe if I were stupid, but I guess those are the kind of people to be lined up for sterilization, the ones that can't really do math.

Edited September 27, 2008 by Wacken

[Niels Bohr 72]

Regarding this topic, we need to seperate the people who are animals and who are not animals.

[akdiver 3]

Regarding this topic, we need to seperate the people who are animals and who are not animals.

Um....all people are animals.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Regarding this topic, we need to seperate the people who are animals and who are not animals.

Um....all people are animals.

LOL. Yes they are.

[NickyMcMillan 0]

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 is a child tax. It is called 'daycare'. It runs between $400-1000 a month for the first 3 years and then about $200-$400 until the kid is old enough not to kill itself being left alone. It's enough to keep me from having more kids because I like working.

Yep -same here!!! This guiy would love me - 2 master's degrees, one from Columbia, but I'm still poor so made the wise choice(not entirely willingly) to not reproduce at all. Note -'Well-educated' does not mean the same thing as 'well-off'. Over 30% of white women aged 41-44 with advanced degrees are childless - how about giving us poor teachers and librarians grants to have kids so we can pass on our superior intelligence?????

Sorry Patti,

But if you have a master in fine arts, sociology, history, english, or anything that is not engineering or science related chances are you will be poor.

A master in fine arts gets about 15k/year if you're lucky. Good luck in finding a job in the museum.

History (so many pursue this field, therefore, increasing laborer competition which will lower the salary range), sure, you will get paid somewhere in the 35k range if you get a job in the school system. Not good enough though.

A master in sociology will get you nowhere quick.

In English, it's good just like history majors. But, they don't have any technical skills besides correcting the dictionary.

Engineering and Pre-Med? Well, it's a tough major. Not everyone could get accepted into those colleges eventhough you enroll at the University. The reason, it's demanding on the student to know every single detail of the physical world. That's alot to comprehend. This leads to a lack of students from taking these routes. Thus, decreasing laborers which promotes higher salary because society needs them. Consider this ratio, out of 100,000 people there'll be about 50-100 who are physicians, lawyers, and Engineers. Not many. That is where you get the money.

Yes the science/math type degrees do make loads more money. However not many of us have an aptitude in that direction. I didn't expect to get a high paying job with my degree...but I knew that having that degree would give me an advantage over those who didn't. You'd be amazed in the business world how many History/English folks there are. It probably looks a bit better on a resume to have a business degree, but if you can sell yourself in an interview and gain the proper experience in other ways you can be competitive. Anyways, at least in the field I work in there isn't really a degree you can get...you basically learn on the job.

Anyways, this has been a really fascinating discussion. With the world's population at 6 billion and resources getting stretched to the limit I am surprised that incentives haven't been introduced long before now.

It is interesting to note that the US is one of the few "child friendly" cultures out there, where we correlate joy and happiness and having fulfilling lives with babies.

There seems to be a religious undercurrent as well...though they are rare these days. I'm thinking of the Duggars and their ilk who follow the quiverfull philosophy.

But in most cases, people conceive on accident. I do like the idea of a voluntary sterilization (as long as it is completely reversible) with incentives given...and I think this shouldn't just apply to low income but to any woman who so chose to do so.

My question is though: how do you think the Republican base would respond to this? I would venture to guess they would see this as just another form of birth control and would be preaching once again the unrealistic idea of abstinence only education and lifestyle.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I guess abortion is better.

Better than providing financial incentives to keep a baby you wouldn't otherwise be able to afford?

Ive always thought anyone on government assistance should be made to be on birth control and be regularly drug tested.

Edited September 27, 2008 by ={Rogue}=

[IAMX 3,055]

I guess abortion is better.

Better than providing financial incentives to keep a baby you wouldn't otherwise be able to afford?

Ive always thought anyone on government assistance should be made to be on birth control and be regularly drug tested.

.. and here I thought conservatives were all about fiscal responsibility.

I wonder if you ever actually thought of the costs to give every financial aid student, welfare person, or WIC person, amongst many others, birth control and administer regular drug tests?

Conservatives aren't very good at thinking things through are they? Can't be fiscally conservative if you don't actually spend less than absolutely necessary, and can't be fiscally conservative if you can't think two seconds ahead.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I guess abortion is better.

Better than providing financial incentives to keep a baby you wouldn't otherwise be able to afford?

Ive always thought anyone on government assistance should be made to be on birth control and be regularly drug tested.

.. and here I thought conservatives were all about fiscal responsibility.

I wonder if you ever actually thought of the costs to give every financial aid student, welfare person, or WIC person, amongst many others, birth control and administer regular drug tests?

Conservatives aren't very good at thinking things through are they? Can't be fiscally conservative if you don't actually spend less than absolutely necessary, and can't be fiscally conservative if you can't think two seconds ahead.

....but, but, they're against government intervention before they are for it.