Get Ready TaxPayers

[MJS]

I saw this and needless to say, I was shaking my head.

LOS ANGELES – A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman's 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California's taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red.
Even before the 33-year-old single, unemployed mother gave birth to octuplets last month, she had been caring for her six other children with the help of $490 a month in food stamps, plus Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters. The public aid will almost certainly be increased with the new additions to her family.

You know, its stuff like this, that really makes me sick. Hey, far be it from me to tell someone how many kids they can have, but when it comes down to taxpayers having to start doing things like this...I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. Have all the kids you want, but dammit, you better be able to support them. Why should I, or anyone else, have to foot the bill because you want 14 kids????? And it would be a very cold day in hell, before I'd donate any amount of money to this woman.

 

[Steve]

I saw this and needless to say, I was shaking my head.



You know, its stuff like this, that really makes me sick. Hey, far be it from me to tell someone how many kids they can have, but when it comes down to taxpayers having to start doing things like this...I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. Have all the kids you want, but dammit, you better be able to support them. Why should I, or anyone else, have to foot the bill because you want 14 kids????? And it would be a very cold day in hell, before I'd donate any amount of money to this woman.

Just for clarity, it's not Social Security Disability. It's Supplemental Security Income... a completely different program. SSI is needs based (aka welfare) while disability is part of the Social Security program.

I agree with you, but the distinction between the two programs is significant. Three of her 6 older kids are already on SSI and because her 8 new babies were born so small, chances are good that some, if not all, will also qualify. That's over $700 per child... plus food stamps and medical (California's Medicaid program, which is also needs based).

 

[Gordon Nore]

You know, its stuff like this, that really makes me sick. Hey, far be it from me to tell someone how many kids they can have, but when it comes down to taxpayers having to start doing things like this...I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. Have all the kids you want, but dammit, you better be able to support them. Why should I, or anyone else, have to foot the bill because you want 14 kids????? And it would be a very cold day in hell, before I'd donate any amount of money to this woman.

Understood and duly noted. I think the woman in this story has some problems beyond having children she can't afford. There has been some concern that she is pathologically driven to having babies. This is a situation that could end with the state taking full care of her family. Whatever people like this cost us as tax payers, her children may pay a greater price over time.

It's very interesting that we're having this discussion amidst all the abuse of wealth, privilege and taxpayer dollars that we're seeing from corporate leaders. This woman (based on what we've read and heard, perhaps) feels entitled to children she cannot afford. CEOs are saying without the bonuses and percs, they'll lose all this great talent they've got, and then financial institutions will be really F'd up. I'm not trying to apply moral relativism, but it really would be nice to see some moral leadership.

I'm not immune to the point you are making, MJS. I do feel a great deal of sadness that some people find it acceptable to place themselves in a position of complete dependency, virtually ruling out opportunities for growth, employment, travel, having choices in life. I know that some people actually seek out this sort of dependent life -- Heaven help them if they believe they're living the dream.

 

[shesulsa]

I think the irresponsible prick fertility doctor should share in the cost ... like, greatly.

*folds up bravado and puts it away*

Well ... if she would shut up and sign that book deal she wants, she would be able to swing it on her own ... but she keeps on blabbing! There won't me much left to tell shortly.

 

[Andrew Green]

... better to spend $500 / month of tax payer money feeding babies then $500,000+ month bailing out executives who drove their company into the ground... and throw in a little extra for mom on top, she's obviously got a baby addiction to work through.

 

[Kreth]

This is why I think birth control should be mandatory for anyone on public assistance.

 

[Steve]

... better to spend $500 / month of tax payer money feeding babies then $500,000+ month bailing out executives who drove their company into the ground... and throw in a little extra for mom on top, she's obviously got a baby addiction to work through.

Both are bad and, IMO, neither is better or worse than the other. I honestly don't see the connection between the two. By the time this woman is done, she could be receiving over $5500 per month in general revenue tax dollars through the SSI program. $793 per child times, let's say 7 kids (presuming that half of the octuplets qualify as disabled). Plus food stamps and medicaid. I think that this is as willfully fraudulent as the actions of the bankers.

Bear in mind also that this money is tax-free.

 

[Gordon Nore]

... better to spend $500 / month of tax payer money feeding babies then $500,000+ month bailing out executives who drove their company into the ground... and throw in a little extra for mom on top, she's obviously got a baby addiction to work through.

I would be more inclined this way if I had to choose which were more invidious. I have trouble with moralizing about bootstrapping and self-reliance when it comes to children. I'd rather pay for hungry kids than greedy CEOs.

 

[Empty Hands]

It's a necessary consequence to multiple choices we have made as a society, all good:
1) it's not the place of the state to control the reproductive choices of it's citizens
2) children shouldn't starve to death

So the state either helps support them now, or inevitably supports them later when CPS removes the children and places them in the state system. Only a tiny handful of individuals go Ms. Suleman's route, so it would be foolish indeed to change those noble decisions to punish a handful of likely mentally ill individuals. Deadweight loss and free riders are an inevitable product of all large systems.

 

[MJS]

Just for clarity, it's not Social Security Disability. It's Supplemental Security Income... a completely different program. SSI is needs based (aka welfare) while disability is part of the Social Security program.

I agree with you, but the distinction between the two programs is significant. Three of her 6 older kids are already on SSI and because her 8 new babies were born so small, chances are good that some, if not all, will also qualify. That's over $700 per child... plus food stamps and medical (California's Medicaid program, which is also needs based).

I'm not against helping someone. But, IMO, the person should also be helping themselves. If someone has a child that is born with a disorder, we can't control that. There are programs to help the person. If some young girl gets pregnant and the daddy is nowhere to be found, I say help the kid, but at some point, that kid needs to get herself out and get a job. I don't feel I should have to support her all her life. No different than being on unemployment. At some point, the person needs to get off their rear and look for a job.

Was it necessary for this woman to have 14 kids? Who in their right mind does that? I have to wonder if her having all of these kids were born with disorders due to the large number of kids that she had.

 

[Cryozombie]

It's a necessary consequence to multiple choices we have made as a society, all good:
1) it's not the place of the state to control the reproductive choices of it's citizens
2) children shouldn't starve to death

So the state either helps support them now, or inevitably supports them later when CPS removes the children and places them in the state system. Only a tiny handful of individuals go Ms. Suleman's route, so it would be foolish indeed to change those noble decisions to punish a handful of likely mentally ill individuals. Deadweight loss and free riders are an inevitable product of all large systems.

Yes, but unfortunatley when they start hammering the "little guy" from all sides, he's going to find a villain, even if that villain is a young girl who should either NOT have had those children, or been prepared to pay for them in advance.

After all If I father a child and don't pay for it woe be unto me... why doesn't that hold true for her? She can't support these kids, perhaps they SHOULD be taken from her...

 

[MJS]

Understood and duly noted. I think the woman in this story has some problems beyond having children she can't afford. There has been some concern that she is pathologically driven to having babies. This is a situation that could end with the state taking full care of her family. Whatever people like this cost us as tax payers, her children may pay a greater price over time.

It's very interesting that we're having this discussion amidst all the abuse of wealth, privilege and taxpayer dollars that we're seeing from corporate leaders. This woman (based on what we've read and heard, perhaps) feels entitled to children she cannot afford. CEOs are saying without the bonuses and percs, they'll lose all this great talent they've got, and then financial institutions will be really F'd up. I'm not trying to apply moral relativism, but it really would be nice to see some moral leadership.

I'm not immune to the point you are making, MJS. I do feel a great deal of sadness that some people find it acceptable to place themselves in a position of complete dependency, virtually ruling out opportunities for growth, employment, travel, having choices in life. I know that some people actually seek out this sort of dependent life -- Heaven help them if they believe they're living the dream.

I'm sure many people who're on welfare feel that nobody should tell them how many kids they can/can't have. But, I can't believe these people expect others to help support them, when they bit off more than they could chew. Especially in todays economy, I for one, have my own issues to deal with, without donating cash to this womans cause.

 

[MJS]

I think the irresponsible prick fertility doctor should share in the cost ... like, greatly.

*folds up bravado and puts it away*

Well ... if she would shut up and sign that book deal she wants, she would be able to swing it on her own ... but she keeps on blabbing! There won't me much left to tell shortly.

That doc should have his head examined. A book deal?? Isn't that nice...she creats a spectacle of herself and hopes to cash in. Sorry, I won't be buying that book, nor do I choose to listen to anything on tv that has to do with her. IMO, there are more important things to put on tv.

 

[MJS]

... better to spend $500 / month of tax payer money feeding babies then $500,000+ month bailing out executives who drove their company into the ground... and throw in a little extra for mom on top, she's obviously got a baby addiction to work through.

Well, look at it this way...both her and the execs have something in common....they both ****ed something up. The execs with their companies and this nut with her 14 kids. In the end, like always, its the innocent people that end up paying for everyone elses **** ups.

 

[MJS]

this is why i think birth control should be mandatory for anyone on public assistance.

amen!!!!

 

[grydth]

I think the irresponsible prick fertility doctor should share in the cost ... like, greatly.

*folds up bravado and puts it away*

Well ... if she would shut up and sign that book deal she wants, she would be able to swing it on her own ... but she keeps on blabbing! There won't me much left to tell shortly.

This is the best idea I have seen so far. Since this irresponsible clinic as a practical matter stands in the place of a father, they should have to support the children they created. Why make a 17 year old young man pay for a baby he helped make, and then let these professionals off in these atrocious circumstances?

I would hope the Attorney General is taking a hard look at a civil suit. Everyone at that clinic involved in this travesty should have their wages garnished for the next 18 years.

If this deranged woman has a book ghost written for her, then Social Services should have a lien on the profits for all that they pay out.

Starving the children would be murderously unethical. But let's send the bills for this adventure where they belong.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

... better to spend $500 / month of tax payer money feeding babies then $500,000+ month bailing out executives who drove their company into the ground... and throw in a little extra for mom on top, she's obviously got a baby addiction to work through.

No, it's better to pay for NEITHER and let them finally have to accept some consequences for their actions.

 

[Ramirez]

As per the CEO/welfare question, she is not going to cause a global recession, put millions out of work and walk off with 1/2 a billion dollars.

 

[Steve]

This is the best idea I have seen so far. Since this irresponsible clinic as a practical matter stands in the place of a father, they should have to support the children they created. Why make a 17 year old young man pay for a baby he helped make, and then let these professionals off in these atrocious circumstances?

I would hope the Attorney General is taking a hard look at a civil suit. Everyone at that clinic involved in this travesty should have their wages garnished for the next 18 years.

If this deranged woman has a book ghost written for her, then Social Services should have a lien on the profits for all that they pay out.

Starving the children would be murderously unethical. But let's send the bills for this adventure where they belong.

Chances are she went over the border to mexico for her fertility treatments. While there are some unethical fertility clinics in the country, most are not.

 

[Steve]

As per the CEO/welfare question, she is not going to cause a global recession, put millions out of work and walk off with 1/2 a billion dollars.

Well, if it's simply a matter of scale, lets talk SSI payments for December 2008 (just the one month). Wanna guess how much we, as tax payers, paid out in SSI benefits for just December of 2008? Highlight the next few lines to find out. I don't want to spoil the surprise.

$3,880,433,000.

That's for December, 2008. 7,520,501 people received an SSI payment in December. So, it's in our best interest as a country to make sure that the payments are administered correctly and that, as much as we can, that people don't abuse the system. That's a lot of dough and, yes, I believe on par with corrupt CEOs. As I said, both are bad.

I am not in any way opposed to helping people who cannot help themselves. The aged, blind and disabled who cannot work need help and I'm all for it. People who can work essentially engineering disabled children irritates me.