• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Octomom Welfare Fraud

P

piasabird

Lifer
http://now.msn.com/octomom-welfare-fraud-investigation-underway?ocid=ansnowex

Looks like what goes around is coming around. This borders on the rediculous.

Nadya Suleman, better known by her "James Bond" villain-sounding nickname Octomom, has been under investigation for welfare fraud for a few months. But the probe appears to be heating up: TMZ reports that investigators have gotten a warrant to seize Suleman's financial and employment records to see if she collected welfare when she legally couldn't. Because she has so many kids (14, to be precise), she's entitled to welfare benefits if she earns less than $119,000 in a year, but rumor has it she earned more than $200,000 in 2012. If she does end up getting convicted of welfare fraud, Octo could get up to three years in prison. Maybe she can use some of that welfare money to hire a lawyer.
 
Take this human garbage and lock her up in jail. A minimum of 5 years to teach her a lesson about stealing from the taxpayer with welfare.
 
"...she's entitled to welfare benefits if she earns less than $119,000 in a year..."

WTF^infinity

How in gods name do we have Politicians allowing a system to be setup to actually pay out any welfare (short of disabled child/parent) to someone making that much per year?

Just when you think Gov can't get any more F'd up, you read about shit like this. Progressives wonder why people do not want to hear about their idiocy ideas of cutting here to give to there...gee, wonder why...
 
chucky2 said:
"...she's entitled to welfare benefits if she earns less than $119,000 in a year..."

WTF^infinity

How in gods name do we have Politicians allowing a system to be setup to actually pay out any welfare (short of disabled child/parent) to someone making that much per year?

Just when you think Gov can't get any more F'd up, you read about shit like this. Progressives wonder why people do not want to hear about their idiocy ideas of cutting here to give to there...gee, wonder why...
Click to expand...

This isn't about progressives this is more about both sides having a point but not applying both points. Kids shouldn't be left behind because they were born into the wrong family. Its extremely clear that the founding fathers did not want an aristocracy to develop. The other side is there is not enough being done about the parents in these situations to deter them from going so far outside their means but how to do that is up in the air.
 
The problem with Progressives though is there is quite literally never enough money that can be blown on kids, Bleeding Heart cases, etc. This is a perfect example of The System being setup to actually pay out in a F'd up manner. This has nothing to do with the founding fathers either. I really doubt they'd have been in favor of taxing earners so someone making minimum middle class - if not the lower bounds of upper middle class - can get social handouts.
 
IBMer said:
This isn't about progressives this is more about both sides having a point but not applying both points. Kids shouldn't be left behind because they were born into the wrong family. Its extremely clear that the founding fathers did not want an aristocracy to develop.
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of aristocracy. You do realize that we are talking about the people that restricted voting to white male land owners.

IBMer said:
The other side is there is not enough being done about the parents in these situations to deter them from going so far outside their means but how to do that is up in the air.
Click to expand...

I think you mean absolutely nothing being done. See the thread about the guy with 22 kids by 14 babymamma.
 
chucky2 said:
"...she's entitled to welfare benefits if she earns less than $119,000 in a year..."

WTF^infinity

How in gods name do we have Politicians allowing a system to be setup to actually pay out any welfare (short of disabled child/parent) to someone making that much per year?

Just when you think Gov can't get any more F'd up, you read about shit like this. Progressives wonder why people do not want to hear about their idiocy ideas of cutting here to give to there...gee, wonder why...
Click to expand...

It's cause she has 14 kids. I think raising 14 kids on $120k/yr would be pretty tough.
 
chucky2 said:
"...she's entitled to welfare benefits if she earns less than $119,000 in a year..."

WTF^infinity

How in gods name do we have Politicians allowing a system to be setup to actually pay out any welfare (short of disabled child/parent) to someone making that much per year?
Click to expand...

The system is based off how many children you have.

The more children you have, the higher the income guidelines.
 
silverpig said:
It's cause she has 14 kids. I think raising 14 kids on $120k/yr would be pretty tough.
Click to expand...

(1) Not really. You just need a lot of bunk beds and hand-me-down clothes 😀. By them time you reach that many kids the added marginal cost per-kid is not that high.

(2) And there is no reason the taxpayer should be supporting your lifestyle choice to have 14 kids. Maybe you should think about stopping having them when things got tight when you had the 12th kid?😕
 
And there is no reason the taxpayer should be supporting your lifestyle choice to have 14 kids. Maybe you should think about stopping having them when things got tight when you had the 12th kid?
Click to expand...

You think that its bad now. Wait until they throw in her jail. The taxpayer will then pay for her incarceration as well as for the kids. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. She should not be incarcerated. It should be a civil fine only.
 
bshole said:
You think that its bad now. Wait until they throw in her jail. The taxpayer will then pay for her incarceration as well as for the kids. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. She should not be incarcerated. It should be a civil fine only.
Click to expand...

The animal should have been put down the moment after she gave birth.

Then her children could have been adopted by actual people. There are people who go overseas to adopt babies.
 
piasabird said:
she's entitled to welfare benefits if she earns less than $119,000 in a year
Click to expand...

There is a problem there that is somewhat obvious. Aside from factoring in cost of living, it is obvious the number of children she has raised that income threshold for her significantly.

Only in America can you get welfare benefits of some kind if you make up to and only up to $119k...

I realize she is perhaps an extreme example of this, but still...
 
nehalem256 said:
(1) Not really. You just need a lot of bunk beds and hand-me-down clothes 😀. By them time you reach that many kids the added marginal cost per-kid is not that high.

(2) And there is no reason the taxpayer should be supporting your lifestyle choice to have 14 kids. Maybe you should think about stopping having them when things got tight when you had the 12th kid?😕
Click to expand...

Handmedowns only work with sequential births not litters of 8. I agree she shouldn't have abused fertility drugs though.
 
lagokc said:
Handmedowns only work with sequential births not litters of 8. I agree she shouldn't have abused fertility drugs though.
Click to expand...

And this is why all 8 of her litter should have been immediately taken from her at birth and given to families that would love to adopt a baby and aren't crazy.
 
nehalem256 said:
(2) And there is no reason the taxpayer should be supporting your lifestyle choice to have 14 kids. Maybe you should think about stopping having them when things got tight when you had the 12th kid?😕
Click to expand...

While I'm not in agreement with paying welfare to someone making $100K, you have once again misrepresented the situation.

The taxpayer isn't supporting the person choosing to have 14 kids, the taxpayer is supporting the 14 children. There is a very distinct difference.

This seems like another opportunity to point to a system as broken because there is opportunity to exploit it on the fringes. I believe that welfare in the US is broken, but this type of situation is extremely rare and is a distraction as opposed to something that needs attention.
 
The animal should have been put down the moment after she gave birth.
Click to expand...

Wow. I think you want her murdered. Quick questions.... Why would you want her murdered? Who would you want to murder her? Lemme guess, you are a fundamentalist Christian aren't you?
 
actuarial said:
While I'm not in agreement with paying welfare to someone making $100K, you have once again misrepresented the situation.

The taxpayer isn't supporting the person choosing to have 14 kids, the taxpayer is supporting the 14 children. There is a very distinct difference.
Click to expand...

If the goal really was to ensure the best interest of the children they would have been taken from octomom at birth and adopted out to couples that could care for them and weren't crazy.

As that did not happen we can safely conclude that the reason for welfare is to support this crazy animals choice.

actuarial said:
This seems like another opportunity to point to a system as broken because there is opportunity to exploit it on the fringes. I believe that welfare in the US is broken, but this type of situation is extremely rare and is a distraction as opposed to something that needs attention.
Click to expand...

What this case shows is that the purpose of welfare is to support women's choices not to ensure the well being of children.
 
bshole said:
Wow. I think you want her murdered. Quick questions.... Why would you want her murdered? Who would you want to murder her? Lemme guess, you are a fundamentalist Christian aren't you?
Click to expand...

People get murdered. Animals get put down.

"There is a very distinct difference" 😀
 
nehalem256 said:
(1) Not really. You just need a lot of bunk beds and hand-me-down clothes 😀. By them time you reach that many kids the added marginal cost per-kid is not that high.

(2) And there is no reason the taxpayer should be supporting your lifestyle choice to have 14 kids. Maybe you should think about stopping having them when things got tight when you had the 12th kid?😕
Click to expand...
You do realize she went from 6 kids straight to 14, right? How do you think she got the nickname Octomom?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top