Octuplets' Mom On Welfare, Spokesman Confirms

[Againsheila]

Let me get this right? You support paying disability to disabled children EXCEPT when you think the mom has to many kids? You support paying disability to someone injured on the job EXCEPT when it is a woman that has more kids then you think she should have? You support Food Stamps, EXCEPT when it is to a woman that you think has to many kids?

Do I have all that right?

Remind me how in the other thread you all were screaming at the top of your lungs you wanted what is best for the kids, while now you are whining that children with disabilities should not receive payment because you think the mom has to many kids.

Once again to restate, YOU ALL think someone with a valid disability should not receive payment for that disability if she has some magic number of kids over what ever YOU decide is acceptable?

You all think children with valid disabilities should have the payments stopped because the mom had more kids. Do I have that about right?

I think a woman that already has 3 disabled children should not be bringing more disabled children into the world.

If she really wanted more kids, she could have adopted.

 

[Againsheila]

Who are you talking to, RGS? I think we as a society should foot the bill for these kids because they are Americans and it isn't their fault their mother is a fruit loop.

Then you would be in the minority and failed to pay attention in the other thread where everyone was claiming she should not get one penny no matter what she was getting it for.

And then of course the claims all her children should be removed from her and placed in foster care so they can be raped and brutalized and we can pay EVEN more to take care of them. All of course for the good of the children.

I know several foster parents, and I object to the insinuation that they are rapists and child beaters.

Personally, I think her kids would be better off in foster care, considering what they have for a mother, but then again, who would take in 14 kids at one time, and I do believe siblings should be kept together whenever possible.

 

[Care4all]

yeah, she said she does not consider food stamps and SS disability checks for 3 of her children as welfare.... and technically, it is not Welfare, TANF.

technicallly that's retarded.

SS disability is not welfare....that i agree with, it is an insurance policy in which all disabled children would receive a check for it....or disabled adult as well....

and Food Stamps, that's the technical one....if one qualifies, anyone can receive food stamps....they do not have to be on Welfare/TANF to receive them.....many working people receive them or qualify that are NOT on WELFARE/TANF....so, IF this can be described as such.....can receive food stamps but NOT BE ON WELFARE, then it is most certainly presumed to be considered different entities/programs....not one and the same, no?

care

 

[doeton]

I think a woman that already has 3 disabled children should not be bringing more disabled children into the world.

If she really wanted more kids, she could have adopted.

seems like most agree she SHOULDN'T HAVE had the kids.

i wonder where folks think the government should be involved in saying she CAN't have more.

 

[doeton]

SS disability is not welfare....that i agree with, it is an insurance policy in which all disabled children would receive a check for it....or disabled adult as well....

and Food Stamps, that's the technical one....if one qualifies, anyone can receive food stamps....they do not have to be on Welfare/TANF to receive them.....many working people receive them or qualify that are NOT on WELFARE/TANF....so, IF this can be described as such.....can receive food stamps but NOT BE ON WELFARE, then it is most certainly presumed to be considered different entities....not one and the same, no?

honestly Care you may be technical correct.

but i think most folks use welfare in the broader sense to mean most if not all government assistance - and certainly to include food stamps.

most importantly i don't the reporter intended a diffence nor do i think the fruitloop baby machine would have had a clue as to the difference.

 

[Againsheila]

Who are you talking to, RGS? I think we as a society should foot the bill for these kids because they are Americans and it isn't their fault their mother is a fruit loop.

Except that reeks of moral hazard.

Let's just send the message to all other prospective fruit loops that you can irresponsibly pop out all the kids you want, because joe and jane taxpayer have you covered.

Actually, it's not the money, it's the shame. It's when society stopped treating unwed mothers as something to be ashamed of that we got so many. We've had welfare since the 30's but illegitimacy is a recent thing because we've taken the shame out of it.

Let me be the first to say "Shame on this woman for bringing 8 more kids into the world when she knows at least some of them will be special needs and she already has 3 special needs kids at home."

 

[Againsheila]

Who are you talking to, RGS? I think we as a society should foot the bill for these kids because they are Americans and it isn't their fault their mother is a fruit loop.

Except that reeks of moral hazard.

Let's just send the message to all other prospective fruit loops that you can irresponsibly pop out all the kids you want, because joe and jane taxpayer have you covered.

no seriously she just signed reality TV option and a book deal..she is a millionaire now
not that doesn't reek of moral hazard as well...

I will not buy any books about her, I will not watch any movies about her. Not one more dime of my money will she receive that the government doesn't already take away from me and give to her without my say.


Come to think of it, if there is a television movie, please let me know the sponsors and I shall be sure and write them my opinions as well.

 

[Anguille]

And those things are just the beginning of what I object to....

Care

Care, I support your and any woman's right to reproduce, and unlike some people here, I support all woman's right to reproduce regardless of income or means of financial support. I think the desire to have children is a strong one in many people and one we don't fully understand. I do not support any woman's desire to overpopulate this earth. All children are our children and we are leaving only so much of nature for them and their own future needs. My saying so harms no one and telling us we must not speak about it is harmful in itself.

I support any government policy which puts economic sanctions on any woman taking advantage of fertility techniques, religious claptrap or plain old sex to birth more than a reasonable number of children which IMO would be one, perhaps two. I would in no way punish the kids, just the mother and any willingly participatory fathers. I think tax de-centives and a pro birth control availability would do a lot to discourage these kinds of irresponsible parents. No need for, nor do ethical justifications exist for forced abortion (a part those extreme cases deemed by a court incapable of making informed decisions).
Public awareness and patriotic support of responsible parentage would do much to improve our country's chances for a good future.

 

[Againsheila]

It's not this woman Willow, it is all women that I am fighting for, and the sanctity of our Constitution....

you on the other hand, would rather go down a slippery slope because IT IS ABOUT YOUR OBSESSION with this woman imho... and that ain't a pretty picture, to say the least...again, in my opinion...in fact, it is damn firghtening to read some of the stuff most all of you guys have been saying....

I can't help it, it all seems wrong and i can't knock it.

Care

What precisely frightens you? That we may take away your ability to produce 14 children you will force us to feed?

My husband and I are not able to have children, although we have spent 20 years trying...I am barren...we are childless....and in my particular case, invitro would not help.... so NO CHANCE in the world would I be able to push out all those rugrats...no worries about me on that...!!!!

And there is no doubt that my own personal situation bears some of the weight, in my staunch stance on this issue....i am not foolish enough to think that it doesn't....i know i am carrying some "baggage" on this...

So here is what I am objecting to:

All of this negative peanut gallery talk about this woman- will HURT her children MORE than if you had just minded your own business...she will get more sponsors like Gerbers and Pampers supplying her needs, than she will if the whole country is in an uproar, tizzy fit, with their noses so far up into to this woman's own personal business....with a goal to make life miserable for this woman and her children.

She has already delivered them, with no major complications, she already has 6 other children at home, and the fertility doctor already implanted the 6 embryos...only God knows why...when he had already implanted the other 6 embryos of hers for her other children?

So looking at the here and now, what would be best for these children, it would be for all of YOU to just mind your own business instead of making this woman to be the Devil Incarnate.

Then there is the issue of the McCaughey Septuplets born here in the Usa in 1998, with one child at home....there was this same debate, on how many eggs should a doctor implant and/ or how many pregnancies should the doctor ALLOW a woman to carry if she chooses....after fertility drugs or implantation takes....only it was NOT as vicious as the cold heart people of today are being, imo...

Anyway, these people got all kinds of sponsors, and live in a 6500 square foot home now and all of the kids are doing great...college funds from donations....future home funds from charity etc, though two children do have mild cases of cerebral palsy.....so I suppose they too are getting a disability check for this, no matter how well off they are now...

Mrs Mccaughey, i believe they said had 9 heartbeats, refused to reduce her load...but nature killed off 2 of them early on in pregnancy....so she delivered only 7...plus she had a daughter at home as well...

Now, my fears are, that you all want our GOVERNMENT to tell women how many children they can have or not have, and not even JUST the women having fertility treatment help...and some of you would go as far as forcing abortion on to women who do not want to abort, all in the guise of ""hey they are getting, gvt assistance so this gives me the RIGHT to dictate, how they live their lives and they better damn well live their lives, the way I would" kind of thing or attitude...

this would not be living in a democracy based on freedom and personal choices etc....and that includes each individuals personal mistakes or what may seem just bonkers to us, as long as it is not criminal....

Also, our government was never given the Power through our constitution to rule our personal reproductive choices...

And those things are just the beginning of what I object to....

Care

As I pointed out before, that was a completely different case. Mrs MCaughey didn't have IVF, she took fertility drugs. The first time she gave birth to ONE child, how was she to know that by taking them again she would get pregnant with 7?

Also, Mrs McCaughey was married and self supporting, they weren't collecting our tax dollars and the children had both a father AND a mother. She didn't purposely decided to have as many children as she could so she could make $millions. In fact, with the exception of a yearly interview, she pretty much keeps her kids out of the public eye.

This woman hired a spokesperson and has already signed a $million deal.

I think it's clear this woman cares more about the money she gets for having so many kids at one time, than for her kids, especially the one's she's already got.

 

[Care4all]

SS disability is not welfare....that i agree with, it is an insurance policy in which all disabled children would receive a check for it....or disabled adult as well....

and Food Stamps, that's the technical one....if one qualifies, anyone can receive food stamps....they do not have to be on Welfare/TANF to receive them.....many working people receive them or qualify that are NOT on WELFARE/TANF....so, IF this can be described as such.....can receive food stamps but NOT BE ON WELFARE, then it is most certainly presumed to be considered different entities....not one and the same, no?

honestly Care you may be technical correct.

but i think most folks use welfare in the broader sense to mean most if not all government assistance - and certainly to include food stamps.

most importantly i don't the reporter intended a diffence nor do i think the fruitloop baby machine would have had a clue as to the difference.

that could be.....but we don't know for certain....

to me, ''Being on welfare'' means being on TANF/WELFARE..... if i got SS payments or VA disability payments, i would not say that my husband and i were ''on welfare''....but that's just me....or if i got food assistance or heat assistance....or assistance for my kids to go to college if i had any, or a grant to open a small business, Matt and I still would not be on WELFARE/TANF in my mind..... there is a difference.

 

[doeton]

I support any government policy which puts economic sanctions on any woman taking advantage of fertility techniques, religious claptrap or plain old sex to birth more than a reasonable number of children which IMO would be one, perhaps two. I would in no way punish the kids, just the mother and any willingly participatory fathers..

Anguille, how in the world would economic sanctions have affected Nayda>?

 

[Anguille]

SS disability is not welfare....that i agree with, it is an insurance policy in which all disabled children would receive a check for it....or disabled adult as well....

and Food Stamps, that's the technical one....if one qualifies, anyone can receive food stamps....they do not have to be on Welfare/TANF to receive them.....many working people receive them or qualify that are NOT on WELFARE/TANF....so, IF this can be described as such.....can receive food stamps but NOT BE ON WELFARE, then it is most certainly presumed to be considered different entities....not one and the same, no?

honestly Care you may be technical correct.

but i think most folks use welfare in the broader sense to mean most if not all government assistance - and certainly to include food stamps.

most importantly i don't the reporter intended a diffence nor do i think the fruitloop baby machine would have had a clue as to the difference.

that could be.....but we don't know for certain....

to me, ''Being on welfare'' means being on TANF/WELFARE..... if i got SS payments or VA disability payments, i would not say that my husband and i were ''on welfare''....but that's just me....or if i got food assistance or heat assistance....or assistance for my kids to go to college if i had any, or a grant to open a small business, Matt and I still would not be on WELFARE/TANF in my mind..... there is a difference.

Would you consider any of those charity?

 

[Againsheila]

What precisely frightens you? That we may take away your ability to produce 14 children you will force us to feed?

My husband and I are not able to have children, although we have spent 20 years trying...I am barren...we are childless....and in my particular case, invitro would not help.... so NO CHANCE in the world would I be able to push out all those rugrats...no worries about me on that...!!!!

And there is no doubt that my own personal situation bears some of the weight, in my staunch stance on this issue....i am not foolish enough to think that it doesn't....i know i am carrying some "baggage" on this...

So here is what I am objecting to:

All of this negative peanut gallery talk about this woman- will HURT her children MORE than if you had just minded your own business...she will get more sponsors like Gerbers and Pampers supplying her needs, than she will if the whole country is in an uproar, tizzy fit, with their noses so far up into to this woman's own personal business....with a goal to make life miserable for this woman and her children.

She has already delivered them, with no major complications, she already has 6 other children at home, and the fertility doctor already implanted the 6 embryos...only God knows why...when he had already implanted the other 6 embryos of hers for her other children?

So looking at the here and now, what would be best for these children, it would be for all of YOU to just mind your own business instead of making this woman to be the Devil Incarnate.

Then there is the issue of the McCaughey Septuplets born here in the Usa in 1998, with one child at home....there was this same debate, on how many eggs should a doctor implant and/ or how many pregnancies should the doctor ALLOW a woman to carry if she chooses....after fertility drugs or implantation takes....only it was NOT as vicious as the cold heart people of today are being, imo...

Anyway, these people got all kinds of sponsors, and live in a 6500 square foot home now and all of the kids are doing great...college funds from donations....future home funds from charity etc, though two children do have mild cases of cerebral palsy.....so I suppose they too are getting a disability check for this, no matter how well off they are now...

Mrs Mccaughey, i believe they said had 9 heartbeats, refused to reduce her load...but nature killed off 2 of them early on in pregnancy....so she delivered only 7...plus she had a daughter at home as well...

Now, my fears are, that you all want our GOVERNMENT to tell women how many children they can have or not have, and not even JUST the women having fertility treatment help...and some of you would go as far as forcing abortion on to women who do not want to abort, all in the guise of ""hey they are getting, gvt assistance so this gives me the RIGHT to dictate, how they live their lives and they better damn well live their lives, the way I would" kind of thing or attitude...

this would not be living in a democracy based on freedom and personal choices etc....and that includes each individuals personal mistakes or what may seem just bonkers to us, as long as it is not criminal....

Also, our government was never given the Power through our constitution to rule our personal reproductive choices...

And those things are just the beginning of what I object to....

Care

Thanks for sharing your situation so frankly. I remember watching a talk show program that featured couples who were childless by choice. Man, did the audience crucify them!

This is off topic, but I wonder why that is so? Personal choice seems to really piss people off. This woman chose to have 14 children. The couples on the program I mentioned chose to be childless. If you'd seen the audience reaction to the couple who chose to be childless it was a similar criticism of being selfish.

I think the audience was a plant. I have no problem with couples that decide not to have children, in fact, I respect them. They have every right not to have kids. Better that than having 6 kids implanted and giving birth to 8 and using them for your meal ticket.

 

[Anguille]

Anguille, how in the world would economic sanctions have affected Nayda>?

Birth tax. To pay child support. We make men pay it. Why not women?

 

[Paulie]

We're encouraging and enabling this kind of irresponsible behavior by rewarding it. I thought you were a conservative?

So punish the kids?

Rescue them from the mom if need be would be a better idea.

Punish isn't exactly the operative word. If the mom was unable to care for the kids they'd end up wards of the state anyway.

It's easy to say the kids would get screwed if the mom wasn't given a portion of all of our paychecks, but that completely ignores this moral conundrum to begin with. If all we have to do is sympathize with the kids to justify and rationalize this type of behavior, it only ends up being perceived as "profitable" in the long run to pump out baskets full of babies.

"I can have 5 kids, even though I'm poor, because the taxpayers will foot my bills, and I'll get a pass from society because of 'those poor kids'.

 

[doeton]

Anguille, how in the world would economic sanctions have affected Nayda>?

Birth tax. To pay child support. We make men pay it. Why not women?

come on.

she was oblivious to the financial circumstances she's in.

it would not affect her decision to have upteen babies.

on top of that, making her pay a tax - hurts the kids.

 

[xsited1]

LOS ANGELES — The Southern California mother of octuplets receives $490 a month in food stamps and three of her first six children are disabled and receiving federal assistance, her publicist confirmed Monday evening.

Spokesman Michael Furtney said Nadya Suleman did not want to disclose the nature of the disabilities, or the type or sum of the payments.

Furtney confirmed the public assistance payments after two sources told The Los Angeles Times that Suleman was receiving food stamps and federal supplemental security income

FOXNews.com - Octuplets' Mom On Welfare, Spokesman Confirms - Pregnancy

She must've seen all the illegals getting government money and decided to get in on the action. Good thing Obama's 'stimulus' bill will allow her to get more money in food stamps. Just in time!

 

[Againsheila]

yeah, she said she does not consider food stamps and SS disability checks for 3 of her children as welfare.... and technically, it is not Welfare, TANF.

technicallly that's retarded.

SS disability is not welfare....that i agree with, it is an insurance policy in which all disabled children would receive a check for it....or disabled adult as well....

and Food Stamps, that's the technical one....if one qualifies, anyone can receive food stamps....they do not have to be on Welfare/TANF to receive them.....many working people receive them or qualify that are NOT on WELFARE/TANF....so, IF this can be described as such.....can receive food stamps but NOT BE ON WELFARE, then it is most certainly presumed to be considered different entities/programs....not one and the same, no?

care

Food stamps IS welfare and so is SSI. In spite of the fact that I had two special needs children, we didn't get paid ONE dime for them while they were growing up. My first check came when my youngest turned 19. He was and is still in diapers. The ssi check was for slightly more than $300. In all this time, we've never gotten ANY respite care. NONE. I finally put my youngest in a home, I don't know how much it's costing the state but I'm sure it would have been a lot cheaper for them to fund 2 weeks for me to have off every year. BTW, the home is being paid for him being there FULLTIME, but he's here 4 days a week, except when my husband and I went to Vegas, then he was there for a week and 1/2.

Yes, my son is on welfare, but he is an adult disabled. He works part time but that may end as the state has cut the budget in his workplace by $124,000. It's sad, as he likes to work.

 

[Anguille]

Anguille, how in the world would economic sanctions have affected Nayda>?

Birth tax. To pay child support. We make men pay it. Why not women?

come on.

she was oblivious to the financial circumstances she's in.

it would not affect her decision to have upteen babies.

on top of that, making her pay a tax - hurts the kids.

We don't know what she would have done. Anyway she's an odd case, as far as we know. It wouldn't hurt the kids if they were adopted into smaller families where they'd get better care. Money is not the gold standard for good child care. Love and stability are better standards. Economics affects that but does not make good parents to begin with.

If she was rich, she might pay the tax on top of her regular bills. Money is power, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[Care4all]

What precisely frightens you? That we may take away your ability to produce 14 children you will force us to feed?

My husband and I are not able to have children, although we have spent 20 years trying...I am barren...we are childless....and in my particular case, invitro would not help.... so NO CHANCE in the world would I be able to push out all those rugrats...no worries about me on that...!!!!

And there is no doubt that my own personal situation bears some of the weight, in my staunch stance on this issue....i am not foolish enough to think that it doesn't....i know i am carrying some "baggage" on this...

So here is what I am objecting to:

All of this negative peanut gallery talk about this woman- will HURT her children MORE than if you had just minded your own business...she will get more sponsors like Gerbers and Pampers supplying her needs, than she will if the whole country is in an uproar, tizzy fit, with their noses so far up into to this woman's own personal business....with a goal to make life miserable for this woman and her children.

She has already delivered them, with no major complications, she already has 6 other children at home, and the fertility doctor already implanted the 6 embryos...only God knows why...when he had already implanted the other 6 embryos of hers for her other children?

So looking at the here and now, what would be best for these children, it would be for all of YOU to just mind your own business instead of making this woman to be the Devil Incarnate.

Then there is the issue of the McCaughey Septuplets born here in the Usa in 1998, with one child at home....there was this same debate, on how many eggs should a doctor implant and/ or how many pregnancies should the doctor ALLOW a woman to carry if she chooses....after fertility drugs or implantation takes....only it was NOT as vicious as the cold heart people of today are being, imo...

Anyway, these people got all kinds of sponsors, and live in a 6500 square foot home now and all of the kids are doing great...college funds from donations....future home funds from charity etc, though two children do have mild cases of cerebral palsy.....so I suppose they too are getting a disability check for this, no matter how well off they are now...

Mrs Mccaughey, i believe they said had 9 heartbeats, refused to reduce her load...but nature killed off 2 of them early on in pregnancy....so she delivered only 7...plus she had a daughter at home as well...

Now, my fears are, that you all want our GOVERNMENT to tell women how many children they can have or not have, and not even JUST the women having fertility treatment help...and some of you would go as far as forcing abortion on to women who do not want to abort, all in the guise of ""hey they are getting, gvt assistance so this gives me the RIGHT to dictate, how they live their lives and they better damn well live their lives, the way I would" kind of thing or attitude...

this would not be living in a democracy based on freedom and personal choices etc....and that includes each individuals personal mistakes or what may seem just bonkers to us, as long as it is not criminal....

Also, our government was never given the Power through our constitution to rule our personal reproductive choices...

And those things are just the beginning of what I object to....

Care

As I pointed out before, that was a completely different case. Mrs MCaughey didn't have IVF, she took fertility drugs. The first time she gave birth to ONE child, how was she to know that by taking them again she would get pregnant with 7?

Also, Mrs McCaughey was married and self supporting, they weren't collecting our tax dollars and the children had both a father AND a mother. She didn't purposely decided to have as many children as she could so she could make $millions. In fact, with the exception of a yearly interview, she pretty much keeps her kids out of the public eye.

This woman hired a spokesperson and has already signed a $million deal.

I think it's clear this woman cares more about the money she gets for having so many kids at one time, than for her kids, especially the one's she's already got.

So, you do not believe that divorced women on their own should have the same reproductive rights as a married woman sheila?

Mrs mccaughly had her first child naturally is what I had thought, and she needed help on more children....but i could be wrong on that...?

I have never heard of any woman only conceiving one child via using fertility drugs...it is most always multiples and they usually do selective reduction, they abort a few of the excess.

Don't you think the Mccaughly's were COUNTING on the money and the donations of others to help them with their 7 at once mouths to feed Sheila? I think they did....that, or on God to provide.

they thought she had 9, and she still did not reduce the number in her pregnancy....i mean, she too took the risk that some would be disabled or with special needs and with her own life as you made comment about with this other woman, and 2 of her septuplets do have special needs?

If you had 14 mouths to feed, would you turn down the book deal or magazine deal or Gerber food deal or Pampers for life deal, when your mom who you live with is having a nervous breakdown from you having all those kids and your dad is getting ready to head off to Iraq, the danger zone, to act as a translator so to make the bucks to support the grandkids?

It's just none of our business Sheila....I don't want to know....I wish them the very best...if she fails at this motherhood thing, as some mothers do (let alone a mother of 14)....then there is nothing I can do about it, as with all other parents that end up failing in one manner or anothe....r and hope the system that they fall to, does them well, and keeps them all close to one another....in the very least.... the chips will fall where they may.

That's the ups and downs of life.

Care