Tags

, , ,


Damn it! I’m not going to get that government check!

Fair enough. But if we want to get serious about values, we might try an approach with a much more successful track record of behavior change: paying teenagers not to get pregnant. For every person who makes it to age 21 without becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else, the government should dip into the funds we’d otherwise spend caring for infants and teen moms and instead pay a significant cash bonus directly to the young person.

Sex and money have always been drivers of human behavior, but health officials rarely exploit this synergy to maximum benefit. Cash payments to teens could be doubly effective, reducing the number of teen pregnancies (which are declining nationwide but are still high relative to those of other developed countries) while producing what researchers call a “secondary outcome” by teaching self-regulation, patience and the ability to plan for the future—all valuable life skills.

via How to Prevent Teen Pregnancy: Pay Teens Not to Get Pregnant | TIME.com. The swine said:

Another moronic idea from the la la liberal land of ideas.  We already subsidize the unmotivated and clueless with tax money which only insures that they stay unmotivated and clueless while they procreate with impunity for bigger government  benefits.   Now crazed liberals want to reward young people with our tax money for avoiding pregnancy till the magic age of 21!  What kind of posters would Bloomberg put up?  “Don’t Procreate–Masterbate!”  Does getting an abortion keep you in the running for the free cash reward for not becoming a baby’s mama?  I don’t know, but I just see too many loop holes.  Gays would by definition be excluded from rewards, but how would anyone know?  The government would have to start registering citizen’s sexual orientation since the program is targeting heterosexuals.  I see too many problems here.  Furthermore, the program would reward asexual people for just being themselves!

Government should just stay out of our lives and stick to incarcerating criminals, maintain an army, and secure our borders.  Only one of the aforementioned three, the army, government seems to do well.  With such a track record, should it really venture into other areas of our lives since waste, failure, and entrenched special interests usually grow out of control?  The author of this article need to take her “synergy of maximum benefit” and stick it up her non-reproductive orifice.  This is clearly one of the most stupid articles I’ve ever read and I’m proud to share the liberal lunacy.

Advertisements