OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

I'm in the negative already?!? I mean seriously, who in their right mind using logic and reason would oppose this idea? Geez people!

Set up a charity.

PLEASE - no more federal programs requiring politicians to confiscate taxpayer money and direct it honestly and efficiently into citizen benefits.

"...who in their right mind using logic and reason would oppose this idea?"

People opposed to Nazi inspired Eugenics.

Nice fear-mongering and spastic hyperbole jeff. Take your tin foil hat off numbnuts, I said VOLUNTARY. I have spoken to hundreds of people across 16 communities, and this is a very real concern for people.

And ricardomigrant, we have done 4 analyses in regard to taxpayer cost and burden, and the costs to tax payers paying for the innumerable children born on welfare, nearly triples what the cost would be for such a voluntary sterilization program. There are of course variables which cannot yet fully be accounted for until such a program exists, but it is by far more costly to the tax payer to pay for all of the children (and mothers) born into welfare.

There are many things you are missing.

Cost would be huge.

It would be abused.

Economics shows population control is a major input to GDP. And qulitiy of life.

History shows as far back as far as Rome that goverment controls NEVER work.

Your idea WILL dive up costs.

That said I do wish some people would not reproduce.

I'm tired of paying for all of these immoral idiots that breed like rabbits already. Here's one I would be in favor of: If a woman or a man has more than two children out of wedlock...then we mandatorily sterilize them....how would that go over in the ghetto?

So you saw my "fear-mongering spastic hyperbole" and raised me a couple of ad hominems...impressive.

The sterilization of the hillbillies was called "voluntary". This is how eugenicists work. They don't want to be exposed as evil people trying to play God via population manipulation mandatorily, they just want to encourage the poor people and the less desirable ones to "volunteer" for sterilization. Won't it be nice when the world is only full of rich people with certain desirable features?

As to the burden of costs on taxpayers, turn off the socialism and there won't be any burden. Those who work will eat, those who don't wont.

raedle:

* Costs would be less than the welfare burden of all the welfare children and mothers currently.

* Abuse is not possible. The more who volunteer to have free sterilization procedures, the merrier.

* It's not population control - it's making services available that people desire but cannot afford, that would in turn have indirect benefits to the tax payer and the US economy.

* It's not government control - it's government cooperation for voluntary procedures.

* It will ultimately lower costs - significantly

jeff:

Yeah, I couldn't resist. I had to respond in kind. I admit, it's more fun.

And despite your conspiracy mindset, this program would be voluntary, not some sinister imaginary eugenics program. Like I've said, we've spoken with hundreds of people across 16 communities (so far), and the survey results show overwhelmingly that people desire these procedures to be more available. Honestly, if the government has no problem funding abortion availability, why not provide the same availability for sterilization procedures which would in turn have a net effect of reducing abortions? Which would also reduce the necessary funding for abortion availability, again reducing tax payer burden.

I agree, eliminating the whole socialism crutch would be ideal (as well as instituting something like the FairTax and cutting foreign aid to Israel, Africa, etc). But unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time in the foreseeable future. The US walked all the ten planks of communism as listed by Marx, long ago and it's a long road back. In the meantime, I find it to be more logical and productive to propose a solution that would reduce the costs and reduce the burden on the tax payer, hence my proposal here.

I don't believe your comments were in kind for I was quite sincere in my statement. When you ask why would someone be opposed to your proposal one of the reasons is that there are still some people in America opposed to Nazi eugenics, I happen to be one of them. This is why I voted against your eugenics program and your suggestion is indeed a eugenic program. Eugenics is the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (http://wordnet.princeton.edu). You have selected the people that you want (non burdensome people)and the people you don't want (people who are a burden to taxpayers). The people you have selected to be undesirable, you would like to make a program available so that they will not have offspring anymore, and thus, reducing their potential future burden to taxpayers (as if poor offspring will always be a tax payer burden).

Besides all the above, I've been around rich people and I've been around poor people and the content of the character of the poor people typically surpasses the rich. If I was to propose a eugenics program (which I would not) I would direct it at some of the rich folks for the woes that this country is currently experiencing has certainly not been directed by the poor people of this country.

OPEN A CHARITY.

jeff:

You stated, "Besides all the above, I've been around rich people and I've been around poor people and the content of the character of the poor people typically surpasses the rich."

Thank you kindly. I happen to be one of the poor folks. I appreciate the compliment - it is true.

Otherwise though, your entire premise is fatally flawed. Number one, you keep trying to discredit my idea by repetitively attempting to associate it with Nazi eugenics. It's a tired old tactic - take something you disagree with and keep labeling it in association with something that people find offensive and appalling. Do it enough, and it can be successful. It's utter nonsense, akin to arguing with non sequiturs.

Secondly, it's simply not eugenics. You WISH it were eugenics so that you would have a legitimate argument, but it's not. I haven't selected anybody - neither poor, nor rich, nor in between. These people from all walks of life have have agreed with the idea on their own accord, and would volunteer out of their own desires. You're just upset because you can't figure out how to pull the old slight of hand and present a cogent argument that the program is somehow "sinister eugenics" - "Watch out! There's another holocaust hiding in that closet!" You even posted the definition of eugenics, PROVING that this program is NOT eugenics, as it takes NO genetic qualities or selective breeding (a rather dehumanizing term, don't you think?) into account.

You stated, "If I was to propose a eugenics program (which I would not) I would direct it at some of the rich folks for the woes that this country is currently experiencing ..."

Ah, colors revealed! Whereas I would like the program I propose to be available to all people, YOU would target people because of their financial status and class. That sounds a little suspicious of Karl Marx type of reasoning. Are you ...?

It's a tired tactic until you run across something that is indeed a Nazi Eugenic tenant. For example, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist and a Nazi. She created a voluntary program called abortion. This effort has promoted significantly, her racist efforts to cull the black population. Now you bring forth an effort to go one step before Sanger and want the government to fund a sterilization program. You say that your program will be available for rich and poor alike? What do rich people need with government funding to support their voluntary sterilization. Whether you admit it or not your program is targeting poor people, for it is the poor people that would require that we take from one set of people to pay for their sterilization (socialism). Anyway, I've had my say on this one, you can have the last word. Best wishes to ya.

jeff:

You stated, "Anyway, I've had my say on this one, you can have the last word."

Oh, can I? Can I, can I?!? Thank you kind sir for giving me permission to have the last word.

And I'll take it, because of the ridiculous statements you just made. Let's start with this one: "She created a voluntary program called abortion. This effort has promoted significantly, her racist efforts to cull the black population."

I honestly laughed when I read that. Where do you get that information? ... Black Panther Monthly Digest? Here's the facts. First, let's address that "culling" of the black population. Let's see, in 1970 the US black population was 22.6 million (11.1%). As of 2006, the black population was 40.9 million (30.4%). Call me crazy, but "eugenics" plans to "cull" a race of people doesn't usually let them nearly DOUBLE in number during the "eugenics" active period. Yeah, that Margaret Sanger was a real evil mastermind.

Now in regard to the abortion numbers ... According to Kaiser, as of 2005, 53% of all abortions were on white women, verses 35.5% on black women.

Furthermore, the CDC reports that white women have ALWAYS had the largest percentage of abortions. For instance, white women comprised 72.5% of all abortions in 1973, 69.9% in 1980, 64.8% in 1990 and 56.6% in 2000. Compare this to 27.5%, 30.1%, 31.9%, and 36.3% in those same respective years for black women. Save the fairy tales for the fantasy forums.

And whether you admit it or not, you're refusing to address the issue and still using the tired old tactic of taking something you disagree with and continuing to deceitfully label it in association with something that people find offensive and appalling, hoping if you do it enough, it will be successful. As I said before, it's utter nonsense, akin to arguing with non sequiturs.

Despite all the debate, this one is a LOSER. If you want to help people to be sterilized who want it and can't afford it, START A CHARITY!

tolynette:

I don't mean to have ignored your suggestion ... and it's not bad. However, a charity is extremely unlikely to have a productive benefit nationwide. Most charities are often incredibly limited to who and how many they can help ... unless they receive government funding. This is essentially the premise. Contrary to the negative points, my idea is very good and has been highly praised outside of this forum. I just think that it has received negative votes because of all the heavy traffic coming here from WorldNetDaily (which is ironically how I heard about this site). It would be calloused to not want to help people on this matter with a government funded program.

I have a personal friend who could've used it. She already had two children, and given her circumstances a third was out of the question. But without insurance or money, she could not have a tubal ligation and she got pregnant. She was terrified. She had a nervous breakdown. She considered abortion and was tormented by trying to make that decision. All of which could've been avoided if a program offering free tubal ligation had existed. I honestly think that people just have an irrational fear of the word "sterilization."

Thank you for the feedback. As a former teen mom, I support:

* Life

* Adoption

* Charities

* Personal Responsibility

* Tiny Federal Government

* State's Right's

I paid for my own sterilization. The Federal Government and others donate tens of millions to Planned Parenthood. Surely, you could redirect some of that money?

There hasn't been an announcement yet, but we are in a depression and the USA is bankrupt. I think people should exercise restraint.

Your last statement is indeed a very good point.

And I would like to think we could redirect some money from Planned Parenthood for a program like I suggest, however, that's quite a racket they have going over there at PP and I doubt they'd let any of their funds be redirected without a major fight.

I like your support list. I am the same - sort of a cross between a Ron Paul Republican and a Libertarian. I just happen to diverge a little bit on this issue.

Government is already too involved in everything!