I think these are fascist techniques

HE is the one who needs sterilzation!

While what he's proposing is quite offensive. Population control is the elephant in the room WRT to global warming, environmental pressures and resource (food) management.

China is the only country who has taken a drastic approach with a successful result. As a species, we need to decide if we're going to use up our planet until it's dry and then die when our supply of food and other resouces is gone.. Or whether we're going to try and sustain some level of habitation that doesn't overheat our planet, toxify our air, soil and water, and kill 99% of the species on the earth larger than a cockroach.

It's just a shame. We need a one child per human policy for the whole planet. And we need to keep that for about 500 years until our population is around 2 billion. Then we can work to maintain about 2 Billion people.

Want to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2050? Reduce the population by 30%.

Please flame on.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against this guy's stupid ideas. I think we should sterilize everyone after they've sired 2 people.

How long before he gets 'elected' president?

Huh. And in my barely-blue state, we have fuckwits writing letters to the editor to the effect that being childless is "selfish" and that birth control turns women into sex objects (like they somehow would be less chattel if barefoot and pregnant). I'm surprised that the howling Louisiana mob isn't brandishing torches and pitchforks at this guy's office already.

But let's turn this thing on its head and just sterilize deadbeat dads. It's way cheaper to have a tomcat snipped than it is to spay a female cat--for all I know it could be that way for humans too. Just think of the tax savings!

OK this is my progressive Achilles heal.

I COMPLETELY agree with the idea of a "birth license". To drive a car you need a license, but to make the most important decision
any human can make (creating another human life) can be done by anyone.

Given our shrinking resources and exploding population, massive population control is MANDATORY!!!!

There should be only about 100 million human beings on this planet...maximum, living in green mini cultures.

zugzug @ 5:

While what he's proposing is quite offensive. Population control is the elephant in the room WRT to global warming, environmental pressures and resource (food) management.

China is the only country who has taken a drastic approach with a successful result. As a species, we need to decide if we're going to use up our planet until it's dry and then die when our supply of food and other resouces is gone.. Or whether we're going to try and sustain some level of habitation that doesn't overheat our planet, toxify our air, soil and water, and kill 99% of the species on the earth larger than a cockroach.

It's just a shame. We need a one child per human policy for the whole planet. And we need to keep that for about 500 years until our population is around 2 billion. Then we can work to maintain about 2 Billion people.

Want to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2050? Reduce the population by 30%.

Please flame on.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against this guy's stupid ideas. I think we should sterilize everyone after they've sired 2 people.

Population control is not a bad idea at all. But that is not what this is...he wants to pay rich people to procreate (in other words, make more nice little Republicans - too bad it doesn't always work out that way).

It's the implementation in this case that is beyond offensive.

I'm sometimesembarrassed to be an American because of people like LaBruzzo.
Fortunately, wingnut-nazis like him eventually get what coming to them in an Karmatic kind of way! Mr. LaBruzzo, your day is coming!

Leadership @ 11:

OK this is my progressive Achilles heal.

I COMPLETELY agree with the idea of a "birth license". To drive a car you need a license, but to make the most important decision
any human can make (creating another human life) can be done by anyone.

Given our shrinking resources and exploding population, massive population control is MANDATORY!!!!

There should be only about 100 million human beings on this planet...maximum, living in green mini cultures.

good one, Keanu

Ah yes, the culture of life rears its ugly head yet once again. I swear to you my brothers and sisters, I accept the concept of cognitive dissonance at an esoteric intellectual level but I simply can not wrap my mind around it. How can a person's mind work like that?

Peace and respect to you all

How about mandatory assisted suicide for right-wing nut jobs.

Another prime example of the dumbing down of America. This man has probably never read a history book or had any human contact with people different from himself or else he would have known that these are old, evil ideas. Well lot's not stop there, Representative LoBruto, how about the old, the infirm, the physically imperfect.
And another thing about his atrocious mind: $1000? $1000 dollars just to please his nasty st$%kin' @$$!

Heinrich Himmler loved this sort of crap. How 'bout an entire medical profession doing nothing but "experiments" on the lower classes? How bout just rounding them all up and placing them into "camps" with free "showers".
Racism is alive.

This is why we need universal healthcare. I feel sorry for this guy. He needs some serious mental help. He needs to be locked up in a mental ward, until he is fit to go out in public. It just makes me so sad to see these mental patients wander the halls of our government babbling to themselves about spaceships, deruglation, and Jesus.

but where will the neocons get their cannon fodder?

This is disgusting.

Maybe he'd like to euthanize my older brother, who's Down syndrome.

I do have to ask this -- and it's not racist or reactionary or reich-wing to do so (my very liberal friend in New York asks the same thing):

Why do people who cannot -- and I emphasize CANNOT -- afford to have children do so anyway? Four, five, six, seven kids? All living on a shoestring? Do they feel it's simply their inherent right, poverty or abuse or homelessness or other consequences be damned? I believe in reproductive rights, of course -- I shudder to think what a future Supreme Court might do to Roe v. Wade -- but those rights should always be attached to a commensurate ability to be a kind and loving and nurturing father/mother/guardian. Don't procreate just for the hell of it. It's easy to be a sperm donor -- but difficult to be a parent. One must be fully ready to assume such a huge task.

You can never blame the offspring of irresponsible people. They're always the biggest victims of all. Sweet and beautiful innocents in a world full of Sarah Palins.

Anyway -- and this should be obvious -- personal responsibility should never be liberal/conservative proposition. It's basic and fundamental. That said, enlightened societies should always take the communal approach and help those truly in need (like my brother). We need another FDR. We need to continue promoting the general welfare. It does indeed take a village.

Back to this Louisiana fellow: He's just a sick racist.

BID

Can we please sterilize the 20% of America that still supports Bush?

dan @ 25:

Leadership @ 11:

OK this is my progressive Achilles heal.

I COMPLETELY agree with the idea of a "birth license". To drive a car you need a license, but to make the most important decision
any human can make (creating another human life) can be done by anyone.

Given our shrinking resources and exploding population, massive population control is MANDATORY!!!!

There should be only about 100 million human beings on this planet...maximum, living in green mini cultures.

Are you volunteering to be one of the billions to not reproduce in order to bring the population that far down?

I volunteered years ago!! My sister too!!

MY brother has kids and I give him serious shit!! What kind of genius would bring kids into this world. Born to die fighting for canned foods in world knee deep in garbage and corpses.

Watch Children of Men while your painting the nursery!!

Ummm, that's the kinda crap they do in communist China LaBruzzo.
(Why am I seeing Brutto from Popeye in my mind right now?)

They practiced forced sterilization in the country from around 1900--1970's on the mentally retarded and insane. That's now considered inhumane, especially since often they were guilty of no crime.

Pierre @ 21:

How come this doesn't create a HUGE outrage?

I guess with all the outrageous crap coming out of right wing America these days, this is barely noticeable.

Crunchy Hippie @ 29:

I am sorry to say but if you want to save a panda we need to get rid of a few humans. My mother's cousin in Tennessee had 9 kids by 10 fathers (she never fessed up to the last one). She was on public assistance and a drag on the entire community. Her children were not fed right, nor did they grow up with any prospects. She was ordered to get her tubes tied to maintain government support. She did, and stopped making children for the rest of us to care for.

It sounds icky, but population control must always start with the surplus population - those who cannot make their own healthy choices and move into the general population. Planned Parenthood is just a liberal way of controlling the population. There should be more of this, and any environmentalist must face the fact that we cannot have trillions of rabbits, pandas, or humans and have a diverse and healthy eco-system. I would like come planet for my own off spring and I think we need to put it out there that reckless birthing should not be rewarded with the same resources. We either handle this with science, or let mother nature take care of us a la famine and pestilence.

However, who really cares. I am under the impression that we can't make any rational decisions or plan society along any lines with our long term survival in mind. So in the mean time, breed away humans. My kids will soon be at your door to eat your kid's food. And for the Pandas, F-em.

So, instead of supporting birth control education, welfare support for underprivileged kids or basic education- lets cut their naughty parts out. Great solution. You ought to show up in the senate and suggest we solve the economic crisis by sewing up the mouths of starving folks.

The South at its best...is it really too late to let them secede?

"A day after state Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, made a buzz in the New Orleans area by proposing $1,000 for woman on welfare to have their Fallopian tubes tied, Archbishop Alfred Hughes blasted the idea, calling it “wrong” and against the ideals of the Catholic Church."

http://www.wwltv.com/topstories/stories/wwl092508mlbishop.b051e50c.html

Birth Control and the Catholic Church
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

I suspect LaBruzzo is Catholic, having attended St. Stanislaus College Prep in Bay St. Louis, MS. His proposal is similar to one forwarded by his predecessor, David Duke.

Anyone out there know if he is, in fact, Catholic?

I think if it were applied only to Republicans and religious zealots, male and female, I'd chip in a little extra on my tax return.

Mr. LaBruzzo reminds me of Dr. Benjamin Rush who opposed slavery on the grounds that he believed Black people to be suffering from a hereditary skin disease.

LaBruzzo may have a good idea but it's coming from the wrong place.

Andrew @ 39:

Was it too difficult for him to come up with some ideas to reduce generational welfare by, oh, maybe helping people improve their situation and get off welfare? Education... Job Opportunities, etc?

Yeah really. I go one better. How about we evolve and create a real society where NO ONE HAS TO PAY FOR ANYTHING. I'm telling you, it's the systems we live under, the prisons we create for ourselves that are killing the planet. We don't need to kill people to fix the problem. We can change it right now by casting away these things that are not necassary(money,government,religion) and just live as free human beings.

Crunchy Hippie @ 29:

I am sorry to say but if you want to save a panda we need to get rid of a few humans. My mother's cousin in Tennessee had 9 kids by 10 fathers (she never fessed up to the last one). She was on public assistance and a drag on the entire community. Her children were not fed right, nor did they grow up with any prospects. She was ordered to get her tubes tied to maintain government support. She did, and stopped making children for the rest of us to care for.

It sounds icky, but population control must always start with the surplus population - those who cannot make their own healthy choices and move into the general population. Planned Parenthood is just a liberal way of controlling the population. There should be more of this, and any environmentalist must face the fact that we cannot have trillions of rabbits, pandas, or humans and have a diverse and healthy eco-system. I would like come planet for my own off spring and I think we need to put it out there that reckless birthing should not be rewarded with the same resources. We either handle this with science, or let mother nature take care of us a la famine and pestilence.

However, who really cares. I am under the impression that we can't make any rational decisions or plan society along any lines with our long term survival in mind. So in the mean time, breed away humans. My kids will soon be at your door to eat your kid's food. And for the Pandas, F-em.

yeah, sterilize the poor before bothering to address the unequal and, often, racist distribution of human capital, like education and healthcare . . . i'm the kid of a poor, "reckless" breeder and, thanks to merit scholarships, i have an ivy league education, am a productive, engaged member of society, and i have one productive and engaged child . . . but thanks, i guess, to my lesser beginnings, i wouldn't have the nerve to denigrate someone else's existence, no matter how different/less privileged than my own

though i do wonder: if we are contemplating our collective welfare, who should have been sterilized . . . babs bush or virginia kelley clinton?

I know a couple fellows who have up to four kids with different women, neither him nor the women have a substantial income to support these children. Who ends up footing the bill? You, the tax payer. That's the same story with poor people in all over the world. They are so poor, sex is the only passtime. That's all right. Except that they don't have the means to protect themselves from pregnancy...or aids. A case in point Africa. Rachel is trying to keep his show alive. I see nothing wrong with the proposal. It's already done in Europe. But then again, the bigger the "families", the harder to send them to school. The children remain ignorant. Then, they join the Armed Forces or the gastronomy business of America, ie...McDonalds, Burger King, all the Mexican food joints, or the gangs, or any any low paying job. Isn't that right up the corporation alleys? That's exactly what they want. Madows is blowing this situation out of proportion. But that's what is pay for to do.

I'd donate a 1000 dollars to sterilize a few republicans

Yeah, I think.

God, I love Rachel Maddow.

garcia @ 56:

I know a couple fellows who have up to four kids with different women, neither him nor the women have a substantial income to support these children. Who ends up footing the bill? You, the tax payer. That's the same story with poor people in all over the world. They are so poor, sex is the only passtime. That's all right. Except that they don't have the means to protect themselves from pregnancy...or aids. A case in point Africa. Rachel is trying to keep his show alive. I see nothing wrong with the proposal. It's already done in Europe. But then again, the bigger the "families", the harder to send them to school. The children remain ignorant. Then, they join the Armed Forces or the gastronomy business of America, ie...McDonalds, Burger King, all the Mexican food joints, or the gangs, or any any low paying job. Isn't that right up the corporation alleys? That's exactly what they want. Madows is blowing this situation out of proportion. But that's what is pay for to do.

You must know you're going to get some strong responses to this comment garcia.
All I have to say is. Contraception.
If the religious right would accept contraception as an alternative. Things would be alot different.

abarts @ 61:

Prospective parents should be required to show ability to PAY for and CARE for children. Not only in LA.

Or we could pass a living wage law and not have to worry about it.

Dhalgren @ 57:

Can we force all Alaskan women to have tubal ligations performed? Just asking. I am a doctor [deleted].

There was a rally, the largest Alaskan have ever seen that protest Sarah palin which I'll shorten her name to sarin, seem fitting, that never was expose to the Cable media. Not all or most Alaskan women are happy with Sarin being ice president.

Well they do have a lot of Nazi connections in the Republican Party.
http://www.kdebusk.com/bush/images/legacy.jpg

Eugenics might have just gone underground...

upchuck @ 64:

abarts @ 61:

Prospective parents should be required to show ability to PAY for and CARE for children. Not only in LA.

Or we could pass a living wage law and not have to worry about it.

Yes, but that would require someone actually obtaining and holding a job.

Hold on. I'm a progressive, a big fan of Rachel Maddow, and disgusted by the corrupt and ideological behavior of most Republican representatives.

HOWEVER. This could be a good idea. Don't we always complain about Republicans using knee-jerk thinking instead of reasoned discourse to respond to issues? Well, here we liberals are doing the same.

Lets modify it a little. $5000 to any woman who gets a tubal ligation before she has 2 children or reaches age 40, and maybe $1K for a tubal ligation after 2 children. This IS NOT ENFORCED STERILIZATION. IS NOT. I hate to shout but a lot of progressives are being as narrow-minded as our ideological adversaries. Tubal ligation is *reversible*.

Scrap the tax benefit for rich people having children and we have ourselves a deal. I really get frustrated when high-minded fellow liberals don't realize how many children are here because their parents (usually unmarried) were too drunk and horny to use birth control. And besides, birth control sometimes fails. Heck I've even heard of men with vasectomies getting their wives pregnant (confirmed by DNA test).

All of you with children or who expect to have children can do a LOT to improve their future security by reducing the number of unwanted, maltreated children in their community. Frankly I don't understand how people can be FOR birth control and AGAINST tubal ligation.

Don't any of you remember that Obama proposed to make contributing to 401Ks the default option for workers? Because a lot of people just can't be bothered to fill out the paperwork to start one. It's about human nature -- a lot of people don't actually WANT children but are too careless to take the steps to prevent one. (Disclosure here -- that includes me and for weeks afterward I was dumbstruck by how stupid I was. But that's the nature of the beast -- lust occludes rational thought.)

Just think about this before assuming that a Republican from LA wants to replace minorities with rich white people.

HA HA!

This is the exact premise for how the future of the country gets beyond stupid in the movie "Idiocracy".

LaBruzzo's just watching too much TV, that's all. Probably thought the movie was too realistic (that's sarcasm, btw).

He should turn on the nightly new once in a while if he needs a potential future to be frightened of-

Leadership @ 11:

OK this is my progressive Achilles heal.

I COMPLETELY agree with the idea of a "birth license". To drive a car you need a license, but to make the most important decision
any human can make (creating another human life) can be done by anyone.

Given our shrinking resources and exploding population, massive population control is MANDATORY!!!!

There should be only about 100 million human beings on this planet...maximum, living in green mini cultures.

Well, I guess you could make the decision to do your part to start making that happen any time you choose......!! It has to start with one...why not step up to the plate, then we'd only have 6.2,000,099 billion left....!

garcia @ 56:

I know a couple fellows who have up to four kids with different women, neither him nor the women have a substantial income to support these children. Who ends up footing the bill? You, the tax payer. That's the same story with poor people in all over the world. They are so poor, sex is the only passtime. That's all right. Except that they don't have the means to protect themselves from pregnancy...or aids. A case in point Africa. Rachel is trying to keep his show alive. I see nothing wrong with the proposal. It's already done in Europe. But then again, the bigger the "families", the harder to send them to school. The children remain ignorant. Then, they join the Armed Forces or the gastronomy business of America, ie...McDonalds, Burger King, all the Mexican food joints, or the gangs, or any any low paying job. Isn't that right up the corporation alleys? That's exactly what they want. Madows is blowing this situation out of proportion. But that's what is pay for to do.

Where exactly is this done in Europe? Sure as hell isn't in any of the EU member countries? I live in the UK, and I am taxed up the wazoo. Yet, I really don't give a shit that my tax money goes to helping out poor people on benefits and paying for healthcare. Better that than paying for Wall Street greed and government complacency. I also don't have a problem with people going into the Armed Forces or working in McDonald's. But then, I don't look down on people and I realize that all people matter.

Like everyone has said, more education and investment is needed to lift people out of poverty and help them to make better life choices. And please, can all the zero-population people STFU? It's sickening.
Like

Amitola @ 74:

Leadership @ 11:

OK this is my progressive Achilles heal.

I COMPLETELY agree with the idea of a "birth license". To drive a car you need a license, but to make the most important decision
any human can make (creating another human life) can be done by anyone.

Given our shrinking resources and exploding population, massive population control is MANDATORY!!!!

There should be only about 100 million human beings on this planet...maximum, living in green mini cultures.

Well, I guess you could make the decision to do your part to start making that happen any time you choose......!! It has to start with one...why not step up to the plate, then we'd only have 6.2,000,099 billion left....!

See post #34!!

garcia @ 63:

Of course, there will always be a few idiots who spend their time reading the bible, do not understand the demographic problems the world is facing, and when food is totally scarce, all you will hear is: "Oh shit, how come nobody told me about this."

Well, you see, that's why it's probably a good idea for you to vote for McCain - 'cause he's promised another 100 yeasr of unending war. And, as you may be aware, one of the really great by-products of war is >>>> lower population. And, if he decides to use the nukes, well, that will really be a god-send to the eugenicists. Go to go eat dinner now.....

Leadership @ 78:

Amitola @ 74:

Leadership @ 11:

OK this is my progressive Achilles heal.

I COMPLETELY agree with the idea of a "birth license". To drive a car you need a license, but to make the most important decision
any human can make (creating another human life) can be done by anyone.

Given our shrinking resources and exploding population, massive population control is MANDATORY!!!!

There should be only about 100 million human beings on this planet...maximum, living in green mini cultures.

Well, I guess you could make the decision to do your part to start making that happen any time you choose......!! It has to start with one...why not step up to the plate, then we'd only have 6.2,000,099 billion left....!

See post #34!!

No, no. I didn't mean volunteer not ro reproduce - I meant volunteer to leave the planet!!

me_over_here@76
________________________________________________________________
Yet, I really don’t give a shit that my tax money goes to helping out poor people on benefits and paying for healthcare. Better that than paying for Wall Street greed and government complacency. I also don’t have a problem with people going into the Armed Forces or working in McDonald’s. But then, I don’t look down on people and I realize that all people matter.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, congratulations. You are a hell of gentlemen and human being. Not many people think like you. Congratulations again!

Mandatory population control is absolutely necessary for the long-term survival and future of mankind on this planet. If you think otherwise, I invite you look at the numbers involved, do the math for yourself, and get back to me. It's quite bad enough we're headed for a major die-off in the near future; it's even worse that the die-off will happen again, and again, and again because people will not take responsibility for their own gonads.

The problem with proposals like LaBruzzo's, and a long line of others before him, (apart from the obvious racist overtones) is they do not address the problem of population control; they merely seek to eliminate the poor without thought to the fact that more poor will emerge. Population control must be applied evenly across the board in order to succeed. Arthur C. Clarke once conjectured a form of population control that I thought was fair. Everyone gets two children. The third child requires a payment of one million dollars that goes directly toward local government and/or charitable organizations. The fourth doubles that, the fifth doubles THAT, and so on. Thus, the more children one has, the more one must pay into the charities that support poor families. Does it favor the rich? Of course it does, but the poor, self-evidently, cannot afford to have many children in any event.

Enforcement, of course, won't always be pleasant, but law enforcement never is. The biggest difficulty will be the fundamentalists who believe that magic will happen and the population can expand indefinitely. Fortunately, the vast amounts of money pumped into the system by rich couples who want many children will provide for the necessary education. Education will allow these fundamentalists to extract themselves from the ghetto of scientific illiteracy and understand why it's in everyone's best interests for them to limit themselves to one or two children. Eventually, enforcement will no longer be necessary except in the rarest of cases.

garcia @ 79:

mudshark@62

If the religious right would accept contraception as an alternative.
_______________________________________________________

The religious right will never come around this concept. Why? Is simple. They are mostly rich people. Rich people have almost as a rule, one or two children (They save the money to buy that BMW). They also are part of the corporate segment in the American economy. The more children a family have, the better it is for low corporation wages. Poor families are nothing else than factory workers suppliers. They talk about contracepion. It's good for them, not for the low level income families. When you have more that four children, you are owned by the "company" store. A sad situation indeed.

All of the rich people I know (London is crammed with them) have 3+ kids. I work in the media and have some pretty good contacts. I am a laydee, by the way.

upchuck@83

I live in Frankfurt, Germany. We get 175 Euros for our child. The rate of birth in Germany is below zero. Google it.
If it woudn't be for Fashing, there would not be any Germans by now. You sound like you just discovered Coca Cola.
Oh! BTW thank you!

Isn't there a girl name, Eugenia?

I am sick and tired of the right handed domination of our society.
I think that we should sterilize all the right handed, and promote left handedness for all utensils, and cars.

If LaBruzzo thinks that this is such a good idea, then he should offer up himself up for castration. I think we need to have him do his own personal demonstration.

The Very Bitter Ceci Hussein @ 85:

I am fascinated that this is always suggested to lower the population of people of color. But once someone suggests to castrate white males to cut down on the population, then there are riots in the streets.

After all, no one wants to see a white male neutered, do they?

Certainly not THIS white male.

Yellow Elephant Safari @ 98:

The Very Bitter Ceci Hussein @ 85:

I am fascinated that this is always suggested to lower the population of people of color. But once someone suggests to castrate white males to cut down on the population, then there are riots in the streets.

After all, no one wants to see a white male neutered, do they?

Certainly not THIS white male.

Funny, I always thought you were 'yellow' ;)

Yellow Elephant Safari @ 98:

The Very Bitter Ceci Hussein @ 85:

I am fascinated that this is always suggested to lower the population of people of color. But once someone suggests to castrate white males to cut down on the population, then there are riots in the streets.

After all, no one wants to see a white male neutered, do they?

Certainly not THIS white male.

Then why is it all right for a white male to decide (and pronounce in the public eye) what anyone does with their bodies?

barrett d @ 67:

how about incentives for rich people to adopt from poor people?

And what about those millions of couples waiting to adopt that the so-called "Right to Life" billboards talk about? Oh, but wait, those billboards--with one exception I've ever seen--all have healthy white babies. Apparently if you're brown and older than about six months, no deal. Anybody know how many kids are in foster care nationally? Why aren't the childless couples dueling in the streets to adopt them?

Sterilize republicans and the democrats who concede to them.

Uh... does anyone notice how young he is? I strongly suspect that he wasn't listening at prep school or college when they covered the subjects of fascism and eugenics, not to mention ethics. I remember very clearly in civics class at my catholic high when this stuff was covered. His statements look like he thinks he came up with this as if it were new. (If he has Republican mentors, he was still too ignorant to realize he is being used.)

Really, is EVERYBODY banging and bonging their way through school nowadays?

As for birth control, somebody up-thread mentioned education--all forms of education. I worked for a charity quite a while ago that emphasized women's education. When prospective mothers can see for themselves a better economic future, they no longer felt the need to pop out children who would be expected to take care of them in their old age.

Guaranteeing the education and the bodily sovereignty of women is key to reducing birth rates--look at the negative rates now found in Europe. The Vatican has found that they have absolutely no influence in telling educated Italian women how many children to have, and Italy has the second lowest birth rate in the western world. A fine irony for LaBruzzo

I didn't mean to take it out on you, Yellow Elephant Safari, but I would like an honest answer why anyone would presume to take it out on the populations of color instead of themselves.

Since the blue states generally contribute far more in federal tax dollars than they receive, and most red states receive far more in federal dollars than they contribute, perhaps only those of us in federal tax contributing counties should be allowed to procreate, and the others be sterilized?

The Very Bitter Ceci Hussein @ 87:

V @ 86:

Mandatory population control is absolutely necessary for the long-term survival and future of mankind on this planet. If you think otherwise, I invite you look at the numbers involved, do the math for yourself, and get back to me. It's quite bad enough we're headed for a major die-off in the near future; it's even worse that the die-off will happen again, and again, and again because people will not take responsibility for their own gonads.

The problem with proposals like LaBruzzo's, and a long line of others before him, (apart from the obvious racist overtones) is they do not address the problem of population control; they merely seek to eliminate the poor without thought to the fact that more poor will emerge. Population control must be applied evenly across the board in order to succeed. Arthur C. Clarke once conjectured a form of population control that I thought was fair. Everyone gets two children. The third child requires a payment of one million dollars that goes directly toward local government and/or charitable organizations. The fourth doubles that, the fifth doubles THAT, and so on. Thus, the more children one has, the more one must pay into the charities that support poor families. Does it favor the rich? Of course it does, but the poor, self-evidently, cannot afford to have many children in any event.

Enforcement, of course, won't always be pleasant, but law enforcement never is. The biggest difficulty will be the fundamentalists who believe that magic will happen and the population can expand indefinitely. Fortunately, the vast amounts of money pumped into the system by rich couples who want many children will provide for the necessary education. Education will allow these fundamentalists to extract themselves from the ghetto of scientific illiteracy and understand why it's in everyone's best interests for them to limit themselves to one or two children. Eventually, enforcement will no longer be necessary except in the rarest of cases.

Then let the rich people be sterilized. Leave the rest of us alone. The world could use less debutantes like Paris Hilton and the rest of the Gossip Girls.

The rich people are not (with a few exceptions, like Sarah Palin) the ones having an excessive number of children. Population control must be applied evenly across the board, whatever form it takes. The idea of the rich paying for extra children is just an idea; it may be better simply to have no exceptions at all, and if people want more than two children, let them adopt. Sterilizing only the rich will achieve very little.

The Very Bitter Ceci Hussein @ 110:

I didn't mean to take it out on you, Yellow Elephant Safari, but I would like an honest answer why anyone would presume to take it out on the populations of color instead of themselves.

You picked the wrong guy to ask. I am a pro choice and anti repuglican.

I hope Rep. LaBruzzo realizes that his idea can work many ways. In fact, some of my fellow veterans have proposed the idea of sterilizing right wingers like him in order to reduce the amount of cowardice found in the United States.  My take on it that idea is that it probably won't work.  Most right wingers don't have balls anyway.

Is it against the law for two people with mental retardation to have sex?

V @ 114:

The rich people are not (with a few exceptions, like Sarah Palin) the ones having an excessive number of children. Population control must be applied evenly across the board, whatever form it takes. The idea of the rich paying for extra children is just an idea; it may be better simply to have no exceptions at all, and if people want more than two children, let them adopt. Sterilizing only the rich will achieve very little.

Actually you're wrong. Sterilizing the rich would put a stop to this stupid proposal in its tracks. If rich white people were sterilized tomorrow, they would put their money where their mouth was and create such a ruckus that LaBruzzo would be drummed out of office.

In short, it is very sensitive and problematic to have a discussion about this, especially if it a white male giving his orders about how other people (namely folks of color) are to live. This is nothing about population control. It's about racism being legislated into law. Period.

So, whenever a white male suggests what women and people of color do with their bodies, I would like him to offer his own penis up for castration. Let him prove that this is equal down the board.

Yellow Elephant Safari @ 116:

The Very Bitter Ceci Hussein @ 110:

I didn't mean to take it out on you, Yellow Elephant Safari, but I would like an honest answer why anyone would presume to take it out on the populations of color instead of themselves.

You picked the wrong guy to ask. I am a pro choice and anti repuglican.

Understood. Thank you.

The Very Bitter Ceci Hussein @ 122:

V @ 114:

The rich people are not (with a few exceptions, like Sarah Palin) the ones having an excessive number of children. Population control must be applied evenly across the board, whatever form it takes. The idea of the rich paying for extra children is just an idea; it may be better simply to have no exceptions at all, and if people want more than two children, let them adopt. Sterilizing only the rich will achieve very little.

Actually you're wrong. Sterilizing the rich would put a stop to this stupid proposal in its tracks. If rich white people were sterilized tomorrow, they would put their money where their mouth was and create such a ruckus that LaBruzzo would be drummed out of office.

In short, it is very sensitive and problematic to have a discussion about this, especially if it a white male giving his orders about how other people (namely folks of color) are to live. This is nothing about population control. It's about racism being legislated into law. Period.

So, whenever a white male suggests what women and people of color do with their bodies, I would like him to offer his own penis up for castration. Let him prove that this is equal down the board.

But wait, this proposal is for voluntary sterilization. Paying people who want to have the surgeries. No "orders about how other people (namely folks of color) are to live", no "rich white people" or anyone else sterilized unless they choose to be. I still am not seeing what's wrong with offering, say, an income tax credit for those who "volunteer" by way of surgical sterilization not to have any more children... Please explain the counter argument??

The south is tired of being dumped on, but they keep electing these idiots to go to Washington. What are we to think?

(I say, "Sterilization would only be good for the Bush crime family. Too bad Babs didn't get her tubes tied.")

V @ 129:

The Very Bitter Ceci Hussein @ 122:

V @ 114:

The rich people are not (with a few exceptions, like Sarah Palin) the ones having an excessive number of children. Population control must be applied evenly across the board, whatever form it takes. The idea of the rich paying for extra children is just an idea; it may be better simply to have no exceptions at all, and if people want more than two children, let them adopt. Sterilizing only the rich will achieve very little.

Actually you're wrong. Sterilizing the rich would put a stop to this stupid proposal in its tracks. If rich white people were sterilized tomorrow, they would put their money where their mouth was and create such a ruckus that LaBruzzo would be drummed out of office.

In short, it is very sensitive and problematic to have a discussion about this, especially if it a white male giving his orders about how other people (namely folks of color) are to live. This is nothing about population control. It's about racism being legislated into law. Period.

So, whenever a white male suggests what women and people of color do with their bodies, I would like him to offer his own penis up for castration. Let him prove that this is equal down the board.

I absolutely agree that LaBruzzo's proposal is out of line, targeted at those least equipped to defend themselves from it, and reeks of open racism. My original post was addressed more at some others on this thread who seem to feel that all forms of population control are evil and unnecessary.

Defending themselves from a voluntary program??

He represents the 31 district, in Metairie, a white flight suburb of New Orleans. This is the same district that elected David Duke.

garcia @ 103:

anney@93

If he were really concerned about poverty for the sake of the poor, he’d be recommending education and jobs for the poor and no more welfare for the wealthy, not plans to keep the poor under the “great white man’s” thumb.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

The thing is...the more the people, the less opportunity for jobs and education for the the poor. That's the core of the argument.
Is not telling people what to with their bodies. Get it?

No, on a level playing field, more people equal more consumers which equals more jobs, more taxpayers, more educational opportunities. Louisiana is not a crowded state, but of course he was talking about the poor Black people of New Orleans who are considered to be the dregs of the class system in that city. Until racism disappears from all American life, there will always be poor Blacks for whom there is no way out, particularly Black women. People LOVE to pin the blame for poverty on someone other than themselves and people like them.

V @ 129:

I absolutely agree that LaBruzzo's proposal is out of line, targeted at those least equipped to defend themselves from it, and reeks of open racism. My original post was addressed more at some others on this thread who seem to feel that all forms of population control are evil and unnecessary.

I understand. But as a person of color, whenever anyone starts discussing population control, the first targets they use as examples are non-white persons. The history of eugenics always points to those who don't fit to a specific White (or "Aryan") ideal. That's what this "voluntary sterilization" reads to me.

I am for birth control and strong proponent of choice as well. But I am against anyone who wants to legislate anyone's reproductive rights. It's not their business, nor their right to present an edict over anyone, let alone people of color, telling them how they should live.

One other question: La Bruzzo is Catholic, will he get in trouble with the Church with this type of legislation? Just wondering.

The people of LA State District 81 are possibly the worst in the nation - LaBruzzo's predecessors include David Vitter and David Duke.

Some cow out in Oakland tried this a few years ago. There were billboards all over East Oakland, trying to get women to come in and get their tubes tied - and for less money, too ($200).

They said it was aimed at women who were drug addicts who still got pregnant.

I'll say what I said them; G-T-F-O-H

I thought we needed more of the poor for our wars? (snark)

Nick @ 119:

I don't believe that anyone should be paid to have children - positive eugenics is a bad thing. But why not reward people who responsibly choose not to have more children than they can support? There is a major push in our country, as I think there should be, to teach contraception and family planning.... so why not offer as a gov't to at least pay to a woman or man to have a tubal ligation or vasectomy if they want to do so? I'm a pretty liberal democrat, but this doesn't make sense to me - perhaps somebody can explain it to me. Can someone put give me a good argument for why we shouldn't, as a country, offer to do so? And if we're willing to pay for the surgeries, why not incentivise them too? Doesn't seem like a totally left-field proposal to me, as long as it's completely voluntary. Please help me out if you have a good argument against it.

Just reposting because nobody seems to want to take this on yet, though many are criticizing the proposal on the harshest terms in their posts. Any takers for spelling out an argument for a dummy (me)?

this is disgusting. Yes. It's an outrage, yes. Oh, and not to distract from the topic, but I'm PRETTY sure that Louisiana is MISSPELLED as Louisiania in the background, no?

Rachel! Crack some skulls down there!