Which Is More Deserving of Public Funds? The Octuplets or Halliburton?

Nadya Suleman may need public assistance to raise her babies. This is no big surprise. 13 million American children---18% of our young people---live in poverty.

http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html

Everyday, unwed mothers all across this country require federal and state aid to make ends meet. Unlike most moms, Ms. Suleman has been getting death threats and comments like:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2009/02/nadya-sulemans.html




Dick Cheney saddled Halliburton with a shitload of asbestos debt through his inept management. Brown&Root needed a war ASAP. He crafted the mother of all quagmires in Iraq.

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/



I wonder what Michele thinks about KBR? Does she spend a lot of time wishing that Dick Cheney would die?

Let me rephrase that - the mother of the octuplets doesn't deserve public funds. Then again, I think her children should be taken away from her - she's mentally unfit and can not take care of them properly. If those children need public funding however of course they should receive it - in their new homes!

I'll need to think about that and get back to you. :sarcasm:

Unfortunately there are hateful people out there like "Michele" who write crap; doesn't mean Suleman deserves taxpayer money.

Let's get surreal here.

:rofl:

Whomever her doctor was needs to lose his license stat.

The octokids deserve the money, but not her mother. Personally, I think the kids should be taken away from her.

Hmmmm. Normally DU would say yes.

able to birth 1,000's of children at a time; then some could go to Halliburton, some could go to Nadya, and some could vote their conscience

or guideline.

By my calculation, she'll need a gross income of $60,800 to be above the poverty guideline (with the usual poverty threshold being a bit higher than that). For a single mother, that's pretty good wages.

Of course, she needed public assistance for the first 6. It helps that 1/2 of the first batch were disabled in some way.

I've been quite surprised at the attitudes of some here on DU concerning the birth of these babies. Without a doubt, Ms. Suleman took a risk for herself and her babies and I question her motives, the wisdom of her decision and the ethics of her physician. I believe some poor choices were made, but, in the end it all boils down to a matter of choice. We defend a woman's right to choose when she desires to limit the size of her family, but we apparently feel it's acceptable to vilify women who choose to have large families.

As far as taxpayer dollars go, I would imagine that since the birth of these babies, hundreds, if not thousands, of babies have been born that will be dependent on those same dollars but I haven't heard anyone condemning their mothers or calling for their children to be taken away and put up for adoption. If there are any reports of abuse or neglect of Ms. Suleman's older children that would warrant this action, I haven't seen them and I'm sure there was any evidence of it, we would have seen it by now.

So, what would some of you like to see done to prevent another situation like this in the future? Shall we have means testing for parenthood that allows only those who have a certain level of income to have children? Should there be some legislation to limit the number of fetuses a woman can carry and force selective reduction of the rest, regardless the method of conception? Should we set limits on family size and sterilize people once they have reached a certain number of offspring?

Halliburton - well, that's obvious.

The Octopussy - well, she's just a hoarder. If she'd collected that same number of cats, with as little ability to care for them properly, the Humane Society would intervene and we'd all applaud it. Do babies deserve less protection, that they can be left to the "mercies" of an irresponsible caretaker with less consequences? Meh, I'm a misanthrope who doesn't really like kids much so it's no skin off my nose either way.

I made MY small donation this cycle to help care for Australian wildlife suffering because of human sadism (arson) - That I do consider worthwhile.: http://www.wildlifevictoria.org.au/cms/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=43

It's useful to describe what I feel about Octopussy to people who just don't get it.

and yet we've all known of someone who was more into the thrill of new acquisition and the self-image as "rescuer" than, y'know, meeting their longterm daily needs. And we're rightfully appalled at it when animals--living in squalid, cramped conditions with no chance of sufficient individual attention--are involved.

I've known a few women obsessed with pregnancy and babies who lose interest in their older kids once they're not so cute and helpless anymore. It's the creepiest fucking thing on earth. This is an extreme case. I definitely think her children should be helped--but they also shouldn't be allowed to stay in the same state as her. They should be put up for adoption just like the theoretical cats would be.

Notice I said the Octuplets -- not the mother -- which is what your question asked.

The children didn't ask to be put in this situation. They're the victims. They deserve the support they need to lead decent lives -- as do ALL children.