The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Tyler Durden on February 01, 2010, 11:35:07 AM
-
I had an idea pop into my head last week.
As you might know, it is widely believed or understood that farmers get paid money by the .gov to NOT plant crops.
So, my next leap in logic, is instead of the .gov paying welfare checks to female teens to keep producing...well...welfare babies.
Why don't we pay women to go on norplant? It is the birth control "pill", essentially, that gets injected under the skin and is supposed to last for 3 years to prevent pregnancy.
It would strictly be voluntarily. And the effects aren't permanent. So it isn't exactly all Eugenics-like.
What say you?
-
Seems logical.....
Problem for the left though. If welfare recipients cannot reproduce, they Democrat party will cease to exist in a few generations.
Oh! Wait! ...... ;)
It's a GREAT idea! ;D
-
"As you might know, it is widely believed or understood that farmers get paid money by the .gov to NOT plant crops."
Wait I must have must have missed something, because if farmers and ranchers get paid by the .gov to not produce goods, then I really don't know why I'm going to college to get a job that the .gov doesn't tax the crap out of. I would much rather be back at home working on the ranch then have to live in the city. Yes farmers and ranchers can apply for subsidies, but it doesn't mean that they get paid to do nothing. Plus subsidies are just there to help domestic farmers and ranchers, because like every other industry in this nation, they have been hard hit with all of the foriegn goods that come into this country.
-
Way too logical.
There are downsides--one more step to disconnecting cause and effect.
I believe much of our problems are because of the nanny state and over-protective parents so kids don't learn responsibility until it is too late.
There also are too many "help" organizations that have their personal value wrapped up in this problem that they don't want it to just go away.
-
Your plan works out fine, except the comparison is out dated. While the USDA does still fund cut backs, it is a free for all on planting, and has been, for the most part, since the late 80's. I do remember getting a token payment per acre for not planting 20 percent of our corn, wheat and/or oat land and leaving out of production for the year, but that was a killer overall ... so now they plant all they want, pile the excess on the ground in piles of anywhere from 250k to 1.5 million bushels and then say we can't use it for fuel because it's food >:(
-
So, my next leap in logic, is instead of the .gov paying welfare checks to female teens to keep producing...well...welfare babies.
Why don't we pay women to go on norplant? It is the birth control "pill", essentially, that gets injected under the skin and is supposed to last for 3 years to prevent pregnancy.
It would strictly be voluntarily. And the effects aren't permanent. So it isn't exactly all Eugenics-like.
What say you?
Way to complicated. Just eliminate all welfare type programs. Let the tax payers keep the money. Then they can decide which local charities to support.
The Local charities will have a better handle on who is really in need. ... and if they don't do a good job at it, next time, another group gets the donation.
I imagine that for ever $ you send off to Washington for welfare, only 50 cents makes it to the folks who need it (and my hunch is 50 cents is too high)
So, if you take only half of what you didn't pay in taxes for welfare and donate it to the charity of your choice, you still end up with 50% to put towards a new firearm, and the charities have as much with which to help folks. Or you can give a bit more if you are inclined to do so.
Might be tough for awhile, particularly for the displaced welfare workers around the country, but the change will be made.
Now if someone becomes a lifelong recipient of the charity, it is because the folks who live around them have decided to keep contributing to their upkeep.
-
@ nupe and m58, that is why I started off my OP with "It is widely believed or understood....blah-bitty-blah...yada yada..." and that's why I put the title in quotation marks.
I kinda had a inkling that every third Joe Farmer wasn't kicking back watching TV 24 hours a day with a brew in his waiting for the mailman to deliver his check from the government for not planting anything.
My underlying premise still is....wouldn't it be cheaper for the .gov to pay a stipend to girls/women to get injected with norplant on the front end versus paying welfare to the new mom and then financially rewarding her for each kid she has after that on the back end?
??? ???
-
Tyler: didn't mean to start anything. That's just been one of my pet peeves, because I've heard since I was a kid (of course around here I relatively still am ;D) about how it must be nice to be in agriculture and have the government pay for everything. There are people that take advantage of the system and that not right, but you're going to find that with anything.
Anyway, going back to original subject. It probably wouldn't be too bad of an idea. Have to look into the cause and effects that may happen, but I like the thought of that then paying for some gal supporting six kids with no job and no ambition. I know that my future sister-in-law could have used that shot.
-
Nupe wrote:
I know that my future sister-in-law could have used that shot.
Sorry...but I couldn't help laugh out loud when I read that....BWWWWAHAHAHAHAHH!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Tyler: didn't mean to start anything. That's just been one of my pet peeves, because I've heard since I was a kid (of course around here I relatively still am ;D) about how it must be nice to be in agriculture and have the government pay for everything. There are people that take advantage of the system and that not right, but you're going to find that with anything.
Anyway, going back to original subject. It probably wouldn't be too bad of an idea. Have to look into the cause and effects that may happen, but I like the thought of that then paying for some gal supporting six kids with no job and no ambition. I know that my future sister-in-law could have used that shot.
I have no problem with that, except, that the people rational enough to take the deal probably already use birth control. Plus the hard core feminists AND the Bible bangers would go ape sh*t (generally a sign that somthing is a good idea ;D). As to CRP, it is a good program in theory. Its designed to preserve ag land from development in order to have arable land available. Fl. as exhibit A as to why this is a good idea.
FQ13
-
So, my next leap in logic, is instead of the .gov paying welfare checks to female teens to keep producing...well...welfare babies.
Aside from the obvious morality issues, the dems would never vote something in that would keep THEIR constituency from reproducing. ;D
-
Not poo pawing your idea, but what about another theory? Instead, use ALL people on welfare for public projects. Nobody sits on their ass. They can pick up trash, administrative work, fill potholes, babysit for other workers, clean public bldgs, etc.. You can add whatever other jobs as seen fit, but you get the idea. Everybody wins, government keeps their welfare workers, citizens get "value" for their dollar, and recipients learn a trade/increase self esteem/feel fulfilled.
Brian
-
FQ back on page 1 wrote:
I have no problem with that, except, that the people rational enough to take the deal probably already use birth control. Plus the hard core feminists AND the Bible bangers would go ape sh*t (generally a sign that somthing is a good idea )
If those people are that rational to use birth control in the first place, they might as well get paid to use birth control.
All of economics is based on what a rational person would do.
The hard core feminists shouldn't have a problem with it because it would be a voluntary program. The femi-nazi's are all about choice, so, hey, let's give 'em one. :P
Tex-gun wrote:
Aside from the obvious morality issues, ...
What morality issues? ??? I'm not trying to be all judgemental here and get up on my high horse, but these are the same folks who have sex out of wedlock, have babies out of wedlock, don't get jobs, and then expects the .gov to foot the bill for their kids.
I'm thinking morality issues are the least of that particular demographic's concerns.
-
Tyler Durden ;D +1
I'm thinking morality issues are the least of that particular demographic's concerns.
-
There was a group in Ca. that was giving crack addicts a lump sum if they got their tubes tied, but it had to be permanant. That was a private group though.
I'm with Solus though, Until the Government stepped in communities always handled their own affairs. Americans give more to charity than any other nationality, but the more government meddles the narrower the gap.
-
Here's three simple changes to the Welfare System that will immediately cut spending in half or more.....
1.) If a welfare recipient applies for benefits then the need to agree to immediate termination of CABLE TV SERVICE AND INTERNET SERVICE. FOR BOTH PARENTS. They also agree to not have any persons living inside the home, boyfriend, babydaddys etc. They also need to subject themselves to regular and random drug and alcohol screening. Any violation means PERMANENT LOSS OF ALL BENEFITS.
2. Food Stamps will be remodeled along the lines of WIC. Only STORE BRANDS, ONLY BASIC STAPLES. Eggs cheese, milk, flour, chicken on the bone, hamburger, low cost beef and pork cuts, rice, basic cereals. Nothing in a bag, pre prepared, or in a bottle. This would cut Medicaid spending too because we wouldn't be funding Obesity....
Make all Medicaid Recipients get a primary care provider. Make scheduled visits free. ER visits cost 20 dollars cash unless something is life threatening....
These three simple reforms would save the country's taxpayers BILLIONS by making the Welfare Culture less palatable.
-
FQ back on page 1 wrote:
What morality issues? ??? I'm not trying to be all judgemental here and get up on my high horse, but these are the same folks who have sex out of wedlock, have babies out of wedlock, don't get jobs, and then expects the .gov to foot the bill for their kids.
I'm thinking morality issues are the least of that particular demographic's concerns.
BINGO!!!! But, "morality" will be one of the first arguements thrown out there just like it would be if someone advocated aborting all of those welfare babies. "Hey y'all, we don't want you to have babies but we're gonna subsidise you so that you can screw all you want!" Great message for the kids!
Personally, the government throwing anything out there that tells people they can't have babies starts feeling a little Chinese-like no matter how fiscally responsible it might seem.
-
BINGO!!!! But, "morality" will be one of the first arguements thrown out there just like it would be if someone advocated aborting all of those welfare babies. "Hey y'all, we don't want you to have babies but we're gonna subsidise you so that you can screw all you want!" Great message for the kids!
Personally, the government throwing anything out there that tells people they can't have babies starts feeling a little Chinese-like no matter how fiscally responsible it might seem.
I think the first argument will come from the Poverty Pimps like Sharpton, Jackson and the like. This is "racist" and intended to impact the Black community by effectively reducing the number of "black" babies. You might as well dress up in a sheet and hood when you present this to Congress as it will have the same impact and go just as far.
-
It would NOT be "racist" if it was voluntary.
;)
-
Here's three simple changes to the Welfare System that will immediately cut spending in half or more.....
1.) If a welfare recipient applies for benefits then the need to agree to immediate termination of CABLE TV SERVICE AND INTERNET SERVICE. FOR BOTH PARENTS. They also agree to not have any persons living inside the home, boyfriend, babydaddys etc. They also need to subject themselves to regular and random drug and alcohol screening. Any violation means PERMANENT LOSS OF ALL BENEFITS.
2. Food Stamps will be remodeled along the lines of WIC. Only STORE BRANDS, ONLY BASIC STAPLES. Eggs cheese, milk, flour, chicken on the bone, hamburger, low cost beef and pork cuts, rice, basic cereals. Nothing in a bag, pre prepared, or in a bottle. This would cut Medicaid spending too because we wouldn't be funding Obesity....
Make all Medicaid Recipients get a primary care provider. Make scheduled visits free. ER visits cost 20 dollars cash unless something is life threatening....
These three simple reforms would save the country's taxpayers BILLIONS by making the Welfare Culture less palatable.
Again, just too complicated. we will now need a task force to cross check welfare recipients against every cable provider and ISP in the country.
Just eliminate the the give away and no worries anymore.
-
Again, just too complicated. we will now need a task force to cross check welfare recipients against every cable provider and ISP in the country.
Just eliminate the the give away and no worries anymore.
Its just a simple database... the FCC already has its thumb on the cable industry.... The foodstamp thing would be easy too....
My point is to make the lazy bums get off their fat asses.... TV, beer and Doritos are hard for me to afford, they shouldn't get this handed to them...
-
Keep in mind that the "WalMart effect" has happened in the farming community as well. Just as WalMart ran small shops out of business, large "corporate" farms ran the small farms out of business. There are a few small farms still around, but the farmers have regular jobs too. Small farms just can't make enough to support themselves anymore.
My step-dad works for one of these large farmers who farms 1,000s of acres of farmland. One year there was a flood so they got money from the government for the crop damage. Got over $1,000,000 for crops that were eaten by the local deer herd.