Octomom back on welfare gets $2800 a month

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
1-6-2013

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...suleman-back-welfare-report-article-1.1234285

Octomom Nadya Suleman back on welfare



A year removed from a solo porn video, Nadya Suleman has found herself back on the public welfare roll.



Suleman, who filed for bankruptcy last May, signed up for welfare this week and will be getting $2,800 a month in assistance

Update:


1-8-2013

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/octomom-nadya-sulemans-ups-downs/story?id=18151795#

Octomom Nadya Suleman's Ups and Downs



Nadya Suleman has not had an easy time since becoming known to the world as Octomom after giving birth to octuplets in January 2009.
After her initial notoriety, the mother of 14 has seen her share of highs and lows.



"She spent most of her savings while she was in Chapman Treatment center, paying for around-the-clock nannies, drivers, security and her treatment program," Rodriguez said in an email. "She does not expect to be on longer than three months."





She weaned herself off welfare five months ago but her bank account was quickly depleted after she entered rehab in October 2012 for what her rep said at the time was "anxiety, exhaustion and stress."


Along with this latest setback, click through to see a list of Suleman's ups and downs in recent years.
​
​
 
Last edited:
I

Incorruptible

Lifer
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
That pos, she should not be allowed on welfare, Just kick the pos out of this country, she is totally useless
 
W

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
At $186/per person in her household(14+1), it is way less than the amount of money the state would spend if they took her kids away and put them into foster care. CA pays $446-$667 a month per child in foster care. CA would spend $6244 to $9338 a month if they took her kids a way. Thats $3444 to $6538 in savings by giving her $2800 in welfare.
 
Last edited:
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,442
7,506
136
Wreckem said:
At $186/per person in her household(14+1), it is way less than the amount of money the state would spend if they took her kids away and put them into foster care. CA pays $446-$667 a month per child in foster care. CA would spend $6244 to $9338 a month if they took her kids a way. Thats $3444 to $6538 in savings by giving her $2800 in welfare.
Click to expand...

Sounds like she needs a pay increase.
 
N

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Wreckem said:
At $186/per person in her household(14+1), it is way less than the amount of money the state would spend if they took her kids away and put them into foster care. CA pays $446-$667 a month per child in foster care. CA would spend $6244 to $9338 a month if they took her kids a way. Thats $3444 to $6538 in savings by giving her $2800 in welfare.
Click to expand...

And how much does she get in all of the other benefits that are not "welfare"?

And of course the smart plan would have been to take the octoplets from her at birth and adopted them out to families that could care for them.

But hey we have to respect the "rights" of animals like octomom.
 
Doppel

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
nehalem256 said:
So let me get this straight... the fact that one of the biggest idiots in the country endorses your product is supposed to be a reason to use it? o_O
Click to expand...
This is America, so yes.

The whole thing is absurd, everything about this woman, from the 50 children she has, to the physician who never should have implanted a thousand embryos to the fact she did a *gag* solo porn thing to the publicity she gets.
 
Lemon law

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I don't give a damn about Octomom, but its difficult for me to somehow punish her children for the sins of their parents.

Welfare laws are not called welfare for a reason, and in stead are called Aid to dependent children.

Which brings up another question, given Octomom's basic only job qualification skill was spreading her legs to all comers, and somehow setting a world record in producing 8 live births in a single pregnancy. When so many better economically qualified parents in the USA are unable to conceive a single child and would be thrilled and gibe their eye teeth if they could. And offer such a child a much better life without costing the US tax payer dime in welfare payments.

But now we get on a slippery slope, not with just Octomom, but all American mothers who can no longer support their children in a proper manner. Often through no fault of their own. Maybe their main breadwinner dies or loses their job due to their employers going belly up. And suddenly they can no longer support their children. Even if its temporary.

As the larger question becomes, will we go full Nazi Eugenics and say we can take children from their mothers and award them to those more economically qualified?

As another ethical question exists given the new technology of fertility drugs and associated technologies like super expensive invetro fertilization that allows so many well heeled couples to have a single child.

As there is another question, How did Octomomom game the system and get free gratis to fertility drugs when she could not support the children she had? As we can also ask, don't the super brains who push the the frontiers of helping legitimate parents to conceive a child, don't have a committeemen social responsibility to prevent unlimited access to such treatments to the already fertile couples?
 
N

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Lemon law said:
I don't give a damn about Octomom, but its difficult for me to somehow punish her children for the sins of their parents.
Click to expand...

I think octomom's children are being punished simply by having octomom as a mother. As well as by the fact that she decided to purposefully deny them a father.

Why is it that if a man robs a bank and steals a few $1000 he is thrown in jail. Whereas Octomom on a moral level stole millions of dollars and yet we continue to give her money.

Lemon law said:
Welfare laws are not called welfare for a reason, and in stead are called Aid to dependent children.

Which brings up another question, given Octomom's basic only job qualification skill was spreading her legs to all comers, and somehow setting a world record in producing 8 live births in a single pregnancy. When so many better economically qualified parents in the USA are unable to conceive a single child and would be thrilled and gibe their eye teeth if they could. And offer such a child a much better life without costing the US tax payer dime in welfare payments.

But now we get on a slippery slope, not with just Octomom, but all American mothers who can no longer support their children in a proper manner. Often through no fault of their own. Maybe their main breadwinner dies or loses their job due to their employers going belly up. And suddenly they can no longer support their children. Even if its temporary.

As the larger question becomes, will we go full Nazi Eugenics and say we can take children from their mothers and award them to those more economically qualified?
Click to expand...

The simplest and most moral solution is to look at the economic situation at conception/birth. If, as is the case with octomom, they are clearly unable to support the children they should be taken from the mother and given to a loving couple that is capable of supporting/raising the child.

I mean really there are some really obvious cases where the mother is completely incapable of supporting the children. If we are going to claim that we care about the well being of children then why do we let 15 year olds become mothers?
 
soundforbjt

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,787
6,035
136
nehalem256 said:
I think octomom's children are being punished simply by having octomom as a mother. As well as by the fact that she decided to purposefully deny them a father.

Why is it that if a man robs a bank and steals a few $1000 he is thrown in jail. Whereas Octomom on a moral level stole millions of dollars and yet we continue to give her money.



The simplest and most moral solution is to look at the economic situation at conception/birth. If, as is the case with octomom, they are clearly unable to support the children they should be taken from the mother and given to a loving couple that is capable of supporting/raising the child.

I mean really there are some really obvious cases where the mother is completely incapable of supporting the children. If we are going to claim that we care about the well being of children then why do we let 15 year olds become mothers?
Click to expand...

You realize that in our founder's days 15yrs old mothers & wives were common.
 
N

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
soundforbjt said:
You realize that in our founder's days 15yrs old mothers & wives were common.
Click to expand...

You realize that in the modern world if I screwed a 15 year old girl I would go to jail because she is not old enough to make adult decisions? But then if she got pregnant from said encounter society would fall at her feet to "worship" her choice to be a mother.

And are you arguing for going back to a world where we marry off girls at 14?

EDIT: And you do realize in that in our founder's days black people were held as slaves...
 
HeXen

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,831
37
91
dmcowen674 said:
What the hell do you guys think I make 6 figures???
Click to expand...

Everyone else here does, didn't you know bro? At least they talk like it.

Lemon law said:
I don't give a damn about Octomom, but its difficult for me to somehow punish her children for the sins of their parents.

Welfare laws are not called welfare for a reason, and in stead are called Aid to dependent children.

Which brings up another question, given Octomom's basic only job qualification skill was spreading her legs to all comers, and somehow setting a world record in producing 8 live births in a single pregnancy. When so many better economically qualified parents in the USA are unable to conceive a single child and would be thrilled and gibe their eye teeth if they could. And offer such a child a much better life without costing the US tax payer dime in welfare payments.

But now we get on a slippery slope, not with just Octomom, but all American mothers who can no longer support their children in a proper manner. Often through no fault of their own. Maybe their main breadwinner dies or loses their job due to their employers going belly up. And suddenly they can no longer support their children. Even if its temporary.

As the larger question becomes, will we go full Nazi Eugenics and say we can take children from their mothers and award them to those more economically qualified?

As another ethical question exists given the new technology of fertility drugs and associated technologies like super expensive invetro fertilization that allows so many well heeled couples to have a single child.

As there is another question, How did Octomomom game the system and get free gratis to fertility drugs when she could not support the children she had? As we can also ask, don't the super brains who push the the frontiers of helping legitimate parents to conceive a child, don't have a committeemen social responsibility to prevent unlimited access to such treatments to the already fertile couples?
Click to expand...

In the case of siblings, i don't think it's a great idea to seperate them, which is what likely would happen otherwise. The most important thing above all this is that the kids have a loving home...i think some forget that in their selfish worries about how their taxes are used. I don't think at any point in history was a society where citizens taxes were efficiently and justly used. Statistically our country won't last forever regardless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom