Wait a minute: We're attacking Bachmann for taking in foster kids?

There are so so many valid policy reasons to oppose her. Taking in foster kids is not one of them.

fostering 23 kids is "easy money"?

:rofl:

Heck, just taking care of their schooling would be a nightmare, unless you started your own school so you could hide the neglect and abuse from public employees....

Oh wait. She did.

geez louise.....

K-12. So they "weren't home schooled".

she took in foster kids. It's because she made a bundle doing so. Given that this is someone who wants to cut safety nets it's kind of ironic.

She got a lot of money from that big bad government to take in fosterkids. She gets a lot of money from farm subsidies, too. That is something that we should be calling her on, too.

the system? I know a couple who have taken in 17 foster kids. I can assure you they did not do it for the money.

I have no idea what her motives were. Maybe they were pure; maybe not, but I still find it questionable that someone who's motives may have been altruistic would be so down on the poor an middle class now.

taking in foster kids!!!

That is a huge lie. (Unless you're one of those that feed them nothing and don't clothe them, etc...)

Those "stipends" barely cover expenses - did I say "barely"? I meant RARELY? They come to you with the clothes on their backs and little else. They still have activities and needs and wants and "stuff"...

I answered a question as to why Bachmann is being criticized for taking in all the foster children.

Bachmann is anti-government, anti-safety net. The private sector is what she is all about, yet she had no problem taking money from the government for foster children. Therein lies the criticism.

My sister in law took in foster kids over the years too, until she was diagnosed over a year ago with a brain tumor.

She probably took in as many as Michelle Bachmann did. All of them teenaged boys who would have been living on the streets otherwise.

She didn't become a millionaire doing it.

and not for charitable reasons. Spending the money on her kids and not the kids that they took in. So far evidence is kinda slim. Not the kind of thing likely to stick in the press.

I may not like the "message" she was drilling into their heads while they were there -

but she did it. It's damn hard.

It's work - a LOT of work. More than a "regular kid" - not just the feeding and clothing and school and daily routines - but the paperwork and the bullshit and the bio parents and the social workers and the appointments and the more than "average" issues that fosters usually have above and beyond . . .


I may have a problem with just about everything about the woman, but that's not one of them.

of what's involved.

It's a job. A 24/7 job.


And you need a certain level of commitment to do it successfully.

I can't believe people are ragging on her for doing a job that maybe most of them wouldn't even consider doing because it IS so hard.

for fostering. I guess you're just a huge fan of institutions and warehousing of kids.

Whether she truly hates the government or just panders, that's yet another topic for debate.....

why is it then good enough for her? Seems a legitimate question to ask a person so anti-government as her. And yes you are correct.

but Michele is anti-government when it comes to anything other than tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

I would not be surprised that cuts she would propose would deeply affect social services.

And DUers are criticizing her for it?

She is against all forms of "government intervention" yet she was obviously deeply involved in a government program that clearly she felt "worked".

I've also read that she takes farm subsidies - another government program that obviously she is deeply involved in.

So unless she fostered those kids and didn't take ANY government assistance while doing so, or she protested that the government had a hand in helping the kids at all - she actually IS being a tad bit hypocritical.

That said, fostering is damn hard work and trying to walk a nuanced line with Bachmann's positions on government funding of public programs, and her fostering, would be damn near impossible.

I also say it's best to just leave it alone until or unless we get someone who can get the hypocritical message out about it.

then it's perfectly ok to ask her if this type of government spending should be eliminated.

Until then, nothing to see here.

turn on the righteous indignation because people are attacking HER? Give me a break.

You people are so crazy! I adopted a kid. I always joke with him and say "Price check on aisle four, little blond haired Ukrainian kid".

You can find the exception, but it just doesn't work that way. B-)

it against them.

or something?

She may be a hypocrite for railing against government social services while taking money for foster kids, HOWEVER, she's at least a pro-lifer who seems to put her energy where her mouth is. I can't stand pro-lifers who want to force women to have babies and then refuse to do anything to help struggling mothers or their children.

Though I get nauseous every time the woman stands up to spew her usually-factually-incorrect nonsense, I'll give the woman a modicum of credit for taking care of some kids other conservatives wouldn't lift a finger to help.

doing so.

is capitalizing on that. She does not strike me as a person who has one iota for humanity so she is doing it for the big money!

I adopted a "foster kid". She is my daughter. If her foster parents were running for office, she'd be out there speaking on their behalf. We haven't heard one peep from any of these kids.