In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Reverse Welfare Plan, Would It Work?

boogerbooger Member Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭
edited February 2004 in General Discussion
A few years back there were some studies, embraced by few, about a reverse welfare plan. The concept being that each child bearing female (from the age of 12) would be paid $300 a month NOT to get pregnant. This money could be used for college or just about anything. If the woman became pregnant the payments would stop for nine months then pick back up. The only wrinkle to the plan is regular doctor checkups to verify no pregnancy.

The math on this actually saves a bundle over the existing welfare plan, while rewarding responsibility instead of the current goverment sponsored breeding program.

I thought the idea was brilliant yet I've never heard of it again. It's too bad our current president nor any candidates have had the balls to propose a radical change.

If someone has a link or any updates to this, please post them, as I'm just going from memory.

Them ducks is wary.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • ruger270manruger270man Member Posts: 9,361 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yeah, itd help population too. Sounds like a good idea.

    GWB_logo_100.gifGWB_logo_100.gifGWB_logo_100.gifErie.gif
    banner-small.jpg
    www.awbansunset.com
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Red223Red223 Member Posts: 7,946
    edited November -1
    The adult that claims the 12 year old female on his taxes get's a $1,000 tax credit. If she got pregnant and delivered he can claim 2 children and $2,000 on his taxes...on top of that pay him $300 a month to not allow his little girl to get pregnant and if she get's pregnant receive $300 a month extra?....mmmmm...too much.

    Make it a criminal act for any girl under 18 to get pregnant. The father will be put into a State prison for 6 months. Talk about bringing morality and parenting back to this country....





    kabalogoshadowed.gif
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ElMuertoMonkeyElMuertoMonkey Member Posts: 12,898
    edited November -1
    "Make it illegal for any girl under 18 to get pregnant."

    I've heard some far-fetched notions in my day, but that one had me rolling on the ground laughing!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • boogerbooger Member Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Nah, the money would be the females, (Not paid to parents) set aside as long as they're juveniles. As best as I can remember.

    This plan I'm talking about is a whole 'nuther animal that would over-haul a bunch of stuff.

    Them ducks is wary.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mpolansmpolans Member Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    So we'll have a bunch of parents (on welfare) who decide to have 10 kids, then threaten to kill/starve/maim them if they get pregnant so they can collect an extra $3000/month?
    Hmmm...I dunno about this one.

    quote:Originally posted by booger
    Nah, the money would be the females, (Not paid to parents) set aside as long as they're juveniles. As best as I can remember.

    This plan I'm talking about is a whole 'nuther animal that would over-haul a bunch of stuff.

    Them ducks is wary.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • boogerbooger Member Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    mpolans, nah, not like that. It would be women/girls/females only, with the money entrusted in some way. It wouldn't matter if the females were nuns. The math showed that it would be cheaper to pay each child bearing age woman NOT to have kids than what we curently have. If you want to have kids fine, but no money from Uncle Sam or if you don't want to have children but then donate the money to the Red Cross okie-dokie.

    Currently by rewarding poorer women to conceive doean't appear to be working so good. Might as wll reverse it and bribe them not too.



    Them ducks is wary.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WagionWagion Member Posts: 2,464 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    What about a one time lump sum to be sterlized plus the gov pays for the operation?

    say 5000-10000 and they have to be surgicaly fixed no reversable

    If force ain't work'n... Your not use'n nough of it.
    I know the spelling is bad but guess what I DON'T CARE
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • stanmanstanman Member Posts: 3,052
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Red223:
    Make it a criminal act for any girl under 18 to get pregnant. The father will be put into a
    State prison for 6 months. Talk about bringing morality and parenting back to this
    country....

    Gimme a break man,,,,
    You're gonna put ME in state prison for 6 mos. because one of my daughters gets pregnant before she turns 18???
    I won't claim to be an expert (and my 3 daughters would agree), but do you have ANY idea what it's like to raise teenage girls in the days of Britanny/Janet/MTV?

    How 'bout, instead,,I just summarily EXECUTE the "perpetrator" and we call it even??
    OK???






    The Bush administration sends tens of thousands of American military to protect the sovereignty of nations around the world, while trading our own sovereignty for hispanic votes!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bigdaddyjuniorbigdaddyjunior Member Posts: 11,233
    edited November -1
    The worst result of the welfare system has been the total destruction of the two parent family. If the father of the kids lives with the mother they get less or no benefits. So since the new society's establishment the mostly poor inner city black kids have been growing up without fathers. If a boy grows up not seeing his dad get up everyday and go to work, then he sure isn't going to do it. Couple that with a lack of a disciplinarian and you end up with a kid with no work ethic, plenty of free time to get into trouble and no-one to keep his butt in line. Multiply that by a few hundred thousand and you've got a problem...... We've got a problem.

    Big Daddy my heros have always been cowboys,they still are it seems
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bartobarto Member Posts: 4,734 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Operating on the same dumb-* theory they should pay ME $300 a month or so not to eat Big Macs, thus eliminating a heart-attack risk & Medicare having to support me.
    What a crap-crock!
    [V][V]barto

    Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.-JFK
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 40,245 ***** Forums Admin
    edited November -1
    I like Wagion's idea.

    Aberdeen.gif
    81st FA BN WWII...Thanks Dad
    U!S!A! ALL THE WAY!!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FrOgFrOg Member Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by stanman

    How 'bout, instead,,I just summarily EXECUTE the "perpetrator" and we call it even??
    OK???


    Lol, you got the right idea now stan[:D][:D].

    On a serious note: Cant put my finger on it, but this reverse welfare thing seems like a step backwards as far as morality is concerned.

    Frog

    divemed1sm.jpg

    GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • spasmcreekspasmcreek Member Posts: 37,717 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    just think how much money would be saved if it was only given to people who truly deserve help..............
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Some women believe in sex for the single girl and take contraceptives anyway. So they're going to get a subsidy for no effort. Some women who don't work are already taking food stamps as part of their lifestyle and calling it "working the system"; this would give them one more effortless entitlement.

    I agree with Barto -- if we can save money in the long run by not indulging in X, and then establish a govt. subsidy for not indulging in X, we could all be on the dole and hardly have to change a thing about our lives -- free money for all! In fact, it might be ruled discrimination to establish some subsidies but not others. I don't like cake that much, so if somebody were to pay me $300 a month not to eat cake and improve my weight and heart health, I'd sign up and never think about it again. The question is not always "is it cheaper," but "is it right?" Not pursuing certain kinds of crimes might be cheaper, but it would allow people to get away with behavior that is morally repugnant, without consequences.

    T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

    NRAwethepeople.jpgNRA Life Member fortbutton2.gif
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • boogerbooger Member Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I hear what you're saying, however, if there already existed an entrenched goverment program that rewarded fat people to eat more cake, I would consider a different objective.

    Seems as though I'm overly fascinated by this idea, I 'spose I'll let it rest.

    Them ducks is wary.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • muggstermuggster Member Posts: 420 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Never happen.The democrat voter pool would start to shrink.

    Muggster
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.