What Hitler did is nowhere close to offering people money for sterilization. Quit being so hysterical.

I really want you to learn something so here goes:

1. Who gets to choose the less desirable (target) population?

2. Why do the people in #1 get to choose the less desirable (target) population? That already reeks of classism, racism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, conservatism, religious idealism, sexism, and heterosexism.

3. Paying "less desirable" people a relatively miniscule amount does not make paid sterilization substantively different than compulsory sterilization and Nazi eugenics.

4. Perhaps ninety percent to ninety-five percent of "less desirable" people will not accept money to be sterilized. Either they think it is a dumb or offensive idea; they don't feel like being bothered; they don't have the necessary resources such as time off from work/transportation/outpatient care; or don't trust doctors/government/researchers. So, the "paid sterilization program" is a complete failure. Then what? I can tell you what. It becomes less about paying informed consumers and more about excessive encouragement, coercion, lack of information, and force. History repeats itself. DUH. You were warned.

In this proposal, the people decide for themselves.

If people decide for themselves, how is it your business?

In the proposed system, anyone could elect to take the money. That's a little different than what the Nazis did, asshole. How you could even compare that to the concentration camps is imbecilic at best.

Doubt it. Having worked extensively with said demographic, I'm nearly positive that most of them would take $1,000 or some amount for a free medical procedure which would result in the savings of billions of dollars and the elimination of generational poverty.

They aren't targeted and informed by themselves. How will these people hear about the program? Mailings and notifications will use outlets that reach particular demographics (not the middle to upper class). Who decides the audience to be placed on the list of targets?

The same way you consider it enough of your business to form an opinion in support of such a program. The same way other programs are my business. And "decide for themselves" has been a much debated phrase for generations.

First off, bigoted bitch, Nazi eugenics spanned beyond the horror of concentration camps and compulsory sterilization occurred in the USA and around the world up until relatively recently. You really need to read. Do your brain a favor.

"Anyone" cannot elect to take the money because you already said it targets the "less desirable". In your mind, it is as simple as saying "yes" or "no" to some money. These are overwhelmingly disadvantaged people who are being labeled and stigmatized as "less desirable" and told that it is ideal that they be sterilized. Even if they do not participate in the paid sterilization program, membership in the "less desirable" group will resonate. You don't see the downward spiral because you are truly a clueless bigot.

I have also worked extensively with particular demographics and I know researchers and practitioners who have struggled for years to get particular demographics to participate in PAID research and PAID medical procedures. This is no different. Minimal success in a couple cities or states doesn't mean a substantive percentage of people are willing to be sterilized for money. It also doesn't mean billions of dollars are saved and generational poverty is eliminated. This has not been supported by research. Target populations aren't obligated to care about hypothetical savings of billions of dollars and hypothetical elimination of generational poverty.

From the Louisiana article Kevin linked:

It also could include tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children

Most of us aren't shocked that proposal was frowned upon.

As if incentives for college-educated, higher income people to have more children would be bad?

Cool.. I guess it's not an issue then.

Perhaps you are as unfamiliar with "eugenics" as you were "disproportionately". Oh well, I tried.

You are a perpetual brain fart.

What is your solution to generational poverty?

Let's spread the wealth.. give drug addicts free money in reparations. You don't do anything but talk shit about any proposal to fix the issue. You are not part of the solution. You're part of the problem. If idiots like you would get out of the way, we could have this issue tackled in a couple generations.

Incentives for ANYONE to have more children are bad across the board. The planet is overpopulated and its resources are stretched to the breaking point.

The key phrase is "across the board."

Guess we need to get rid of the earned income credit and the dependency exemption then...

But no, bullshit. Some of us have the resources to have kids. Others do not. Why are we giving the cash to the people who can't afford to have kids to have kids. It's dumb.

Putting uninformed bigots like you on an island and forcing them to read.

Get rid of tax incentives based on qualifying child(ren) until there are also tax incentives for people who do not have qualifying child(ren).

So nothing, huh, asshole?

I do agree on this point. But like I said, ACROSS THE BOARD. Donald Trump will get that same EITC if he reproduces again.

I personally like the idea of sending this thread to every one of your clients you referred to below whom you obviously think so highly of. It must be more refreshing than a Tampax ad to go to work every day and feel like you're better than everyone else.

Seriously, this line of thinking is beyond repugnant.

Read about existing programs, uninformed bigoted bitch, and learn that eliminating generational poverty is as realistic as eliminating crime.

The goal of existing programs (some of us are involved in our communities---apparently Kevin can't say the same) is to change the structure of poverty and address larger societal issues. Such as people in every social class who are financially, emotionally, and mentally under- or unprepared for parenthood. No one is doing anyone a favor by having children.

Uhhhh...This was my stance and you freaked out about quack doctors sterilizing people and the ghost of John Holmes.

No, your recommendation is the opposite extreme of tax incentives for reproduction.

33girl and I believe there should be neither incentives nor "punishments" for reproduction.

Existing programs do not go far enough and do not solve anything. You may enjoy throwing other people's money at problems and not solving them, but most of us don't.

It's mostly, if not always poor people who are financially unprepared for parenthood. Apparently, you are not actually involved in your community or you'd know that. As someone who represents children in our juvenile deprived courts on a regular basis, I have not seen very many middle class or higher families have their children taken away because of abuse or neglect. It does happen, but it is rare. I'm pretty used to seeing children taken from homes with no running water or electricity, and it's never just one child. These dumb bastards tend to have 3-4, at least one is special needs, probably due to neglect. Their rights get terminated and they go on to breed again.

Your apparent solution, not having any more children is about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. It works great until it leads to the extinction of the species. What of your programs and services are actually making a substantial impact on generational poverty? (in a positive way as most of these programs tend to encourage and enable it)

Pretty sure Trump doesn't qualify for the EITC. Pretty much only poor people qualify for it.

You don't know anything.

You also need to get over your uninformed bigotry and research how people across socioeconomic status (with some exception for the independently wealthy) express being economically and mentally unprepared for children. Poor people are unfairly the representatives for something that is a societal and world problem.

I don't care if people go extinct (which will take a while with over 7 billion people and daily births and deaths) but I never said people should stop reproducing. I said no one is doing anyone a favor by reproducing. Fertile people have relatively mindlessly and effortlessly reproduced for thousands of years. Wooptydoo. The ease at which eggs dance with sperm for fertile people across socioeconomic status places the tax incentive and paid sterilization nonsense in their proper perspective.

I was listening to "Lust For Life" by Iggy Pop when I read this. It put quite a picture in my head.

But anyway, I did the bare bones search on this dude, and it was as expected. Note: People comparing you to David Duke is not good ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_LaBruzzo

Bullshit. Middle class people all over the world do just fine with their kids. It's an economic adjustment for almost everyone but they deal with it. The poor, on the other hand are excessively dependent on government wealth redistribution in order to make ends meet, and as mentioned earlier, still fail to take adequate care of the children, costing further billions of dollars. Paying a thousand dollars here and there to make sure some of those individuals stopped making babies that the public had to provide for would save huge sums of money. Considering that the first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging, something like this would certainly yield positive results.

Sure we do. Those of us who produce children who will go on to college and make something of themselves because they had good parents to teach them right from wrong, that hard work pays off, and to refrain from drugs/crime are producing the future workforce, the folks who might someday be funding our social security, etc. On the other hand, the poor are by and large producing our future prisoners and felons, future gang members, future meth manufacturers, etc. That's a lot of generalization, but gang membership and distribution of meth is not found in all socioeconomic cross sections of society at the same levels.

Bullshit. And this is why people have silent struggles.




:rolleyes: Thank goodness for people of higher socioeconomic status, the majority of which are white. The heavens open. Let's ignore the fact that indecency and crime (across categories) span across socioeconomic status. Let's also ignore the fact the average poor person is hard working, honest, and not involved in crime.

/letting Kevin dig himself a bigoted hole.

I have to say that there are some things I agree with you on but, the way in which you share your viewpoint comes off as really pretentious. I would hope you don't speak to your clients in such a manner to let them know you think of them as trash. I also found it offensive that you believe some people have a special needs child, as you stated, "probably due to neglect." Please, if nothing else, find a way to present your argument without offending every other person out there.

#firstworldproblems. Our middle class "struggles" are certainly struggles, but no middle class income person is really worried about whether they will have shelter or the basic necessities.

[quote]True enough... if there wasn't enough of their wealth to redistribute, the poor folks would have it pretty bad.

Do they? Are a lot of those folks in the country club cooking meth and having their children placed into foster care? I work in the system and I just don't see that happening. Out of the hundreds of cases I've worked on, I think one time ever did I have kids in private school.

That said, back to the original subject, the proposed system didn't intentionally target lower-income people, but I could definitely see why $1,000 to someone on public assistance would mean more than $1,000 to me.

Kevin, don't you think that people with money are less likely to make enemies of the court system? I'm being serious. I want to make it clear that I am not badgering you or calling you names. In fact, I sometimes believe that you may say things that others might think but, do not want to express. I'm not saying that you don't have valid points that people who are middle or upper class are more likely to value waiting until they are financially stable to have children but, let's be honest here. Don't you think people may be a little more biased and feel obligated to remove a child from a home that is "poor" and less clean than a home where the parents are well-educated and have some money?

I'll admit that in my past job working for CPS, initially I was more apt to judge the poor families who had been accused of neglect or abuse than the families with money and nice homes. I'm not saying I was right. I remember once getting a call about an upper-middle class home where a mother had slapped her teenage daughter and my first thought walking into the beautiful well-kept home was, "Well, maybe the teenager talked back to her mom and deserved a slap." Thinking back, there is really no excuse for hitting your child but, I almost found myself siding more with the married parents with the high income. For cases of low-income families, I might have gone in thinking, "This must be a cycle of abuse for this family." I was quite judgmental when I first started my career. It's good that things have since changed or I would not be nearly as successful in my current career as I am now. I just had to realize my bias and open my mind.

I do have to say that, if nothing else, I appreciate the dialogue of everyone in this thread because if everyone agreed 100%, then this would be a very one-sided discussion.

Kevin, and anyone who believes as he does, is a bigot with limited exposure. He very much deserves to be badgered and called names. There is no need to apologetically question or coddle Kevin. He is an adamant asshole and knows exactly what he's saying. People like Kevin do a lot of damage to societies. Social policies should not be based on such inaccurate and inconsistent views of the poor and middle class.

/we all have our views that rub other people the wrong way but people like Kevin can fuck off a million times

Well, I'm trying not to jump to that conclusion. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of people who think just like him. I at least give him credit for saying it out loud and not keeping it to himself. If nothing else, we can agree that Kevin says what he is thinking.

Thank goodness Kevin isn't a politician. He'd be expressing his bigotry and stupidity and you'd be waiting patiently for the Golden Compass. ;) Meanwhile, the uneducated bigotry has been inserted in the policies and laws.

Kevin isn't the first person to express these bigoted viewpoints. Everything he types has been said by plenty of people over the generations. I talk to people everyday who hold these viewpoints and I read about these viewpoints everyday. To hell with all of them. People don't get props for expressing uninformed and uneducated opinions. No thanks and no props.

Hey now. I'm trying to put an optimistic spin on it. I remember saying to one of my LGBTQI friends, "I'd rather know who is bigoted towards me than to wonder." I am not LGBTQI. I was using the example that if someone discriminated against me, I'd rather know their feelings so that I don't patronize their establishment than to give money to people who hate me simply for being me. While his statements are uneducated in nature, there are many people who actually feel like him (as you noted).

I wish there was an easier way to rid the world of poverty and unfair conditions. I don't know how we can do that. Let's talk about some suggestions how we can make things better and advocate for marginalized populations.

People interested in working on poverty have programs in their cities and states; or can work on program initiatives. I encourage people to not go into the programs believing as Kevin believes. Educate yourself, inform yourself, and be open to being educated and informed by the people in these programs.

So if we're going to pay women to not get pregnant would we also pay someone a gratuity for being thoughtful enough to abort a pregnancy due to being G ill prepared?

As I said, I do volunteer work in our juvenile justice system representing children in deprived cases at no cost. I literally deal with the worst of the worst and I have worked on hundreds of cases. Unless it is your full time job to work with these demographics, I have a lot more experience at it than you do.

I doubt you've met many women who have given back double-digit numbers of kids to the state because they keep being born addicted to meth. I've represented the children of more than one.

Generational poverty is a thing. The proposed program would put a real dent in it. Especially among those with addiction issues.

An adequately trained CPS worker should know the minimum standards for what is appropriate for a home. As you know, those standards are quite minimal and that the CPS worker needs to also be culturally competent. I've run into the latter quite a bit with intake workers getting pickup orders because what they viewed as abuse/neglect was really just how a certain culture dealt with those kinds of issues.

There was a great story about a CPS worker who was sent out on a referral about a Native American family. They went to the family's home, which was a trailer on some land. They found that the children had a place to sleep, but when they checked the fridge and the pantry, both were completely empty. Before said worker finished their investigation, they were asked if they wanted to have dinner with the family. Wondering where the food was coming from, they agreed. Subsequently, they were led down a horse trail which ended up at another trailer. Inside was family and extended family sitting down for a big meal together as is customary in that particular tribe's culture.

That sort of thing is part of the training CPS workers get here, but we have some pretty awful CPS workers and I don't doubt class plays a role in pickup orders. And intake workers.. the quality varies and they don't often stay there long. It's one of the worst, if not the worst job CPS has to offer.

With poverty, neglect is sometimes a symptom of an overall disease. The family might be dealing with addiction or some other issue, so while poverty alone isn't going to get anyone's kids taken into custody (or shouldn't), you're going to find a lot more kids who are victims of abuse and neglect in poor homes than any other kind. That should be obvious to anyone.

I don't see a pickup order being signed over one slap and no matter what the income of the family, that referral does warrant further investigation.

Yup.

Maybe we should pay men for being so douchey that no one wants to reproduce with them.

I'd be open to at least providing abortions gratis to anyone who wants one. Paying a fee would seem to be rewarding stupid behavior and the religious types would never go for it.

No, you don't.

And your supposed experience is completely wasted on you. You completely miss the point.