"Paying farmers to NOT plant crops"....norplant instead of welfare...

[Tyler Durden]

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?

[Timothy]

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!

[nupe]

"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.

[r_w]

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.

[MikeBjerum]

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 

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

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.

[Tyler Durden]

@ 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?

 

[nupe]

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 ) 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.

[Tyler Durden]

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!!!   

[fightingquaker13]

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 ) 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 ). 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