Welfare

During the last month some lady named Nadya Suleman had octuplet's and immediately went on the media circuit. I still cant see why anyone would want or need 8 kids at once, thats a personal decision. For all the critics of the current structure of the welfare system and entitlement programs, congratulations you have cause. It would be one thing if Ms Suleman had these children and had the means to raise them all, but I don't think most people have the means to raise 8 children. A recent report came out through MSNBC as a reaction piece to the interview she had on February 9th, in which she said ""I'm not receiving help from the government. I'm not trying to expect anything from anybody. [I] just wanted to do it on my own. Any resources that someone would really, really want to help us, I will accept, I would embrace.”

Nadya Suleman, the mother of the octuplets born last month, gets $490 a month in food stamps, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday evening. Three of her first children also get federal supplemental security income because they are disabled, the Times reported.

her publicist issued a statement to nbc for the article. (yes the lady who needs welfare has a publicist)

"In Nadya's view, the money that she gets from the food stamp program ... and the resources disabilities payments she gets for her three children are not welfare," he said. "They are part of programs designed to help people with need, and she does not see that as welfare."

When Mrs. Suleman was accused of having all of these kids for money she responded

“That's funny how untrue that is,” Suleman said. “Money? Money is necessary to raise children. But it's — it's paper. It is paper. To me, it is superfluous in contrast to the importance of my kids.”

the article further reports that it will cost millions just to get these children out of the hospital.

NBC chief medical editor Dr. Nancy Snyderman has estimated the cost of delivering the infants and caring for them until they are healthy enough to leave the hospital at $1.5 million to $3 million.

Though I know my view of this entire situation could be considered sexist, misogynistic, or classist. All I can see this situation is screwed up and simple.
Ms. Suleman doesn't see welfare as something for people in need, who else could welfare before Ms. Suleman? The rich, wait don't answer that after the bailout I can see i people can be confused about what welfare is, and is for. If she has 3 children already with disabilities that the government helps her out with, and she still cant afford to feed them. What does she possibly see her self as, not needy?
She cant afford to feed her family every month, she cant afford all the necessary care required for her 3 children at home, yet she can afford in vetro fertilization. BULLSHIT, doesn't that process cost thousands of dollars. How did a single mother afford that if she cant feed their kids, and why did she need them if she already had kids. I thought that process was only for people who have tried to have kids but for whatever reason could not. You don't see an in vetro clinic in the low income areas in Detroit, because poor people don't need 8 kids. I am sure that the million dollar bill from the hospital will be picked up by Ms. Suleman and not the government. If she really wanted a large family why didn't they adopt or get foster children. It sure would have been cheaper for everyone. The children would be taken out of the system, the government will save money by not paying a crappy group home to take care of 8 kids. At a fraction of the cost the government could have supplemented the Sulemans welfare with 50% of their savings from the children being out of group home. On top of that if she really does care so much about family her and her husband could have given 8 children in real need of a home. I
Its not the welfare system that pisses me off its the Ms. Sulemans blatant disregard or respect for the system. Not only do they abuse the system, they didn't even acknowledge the governments assistance. Damn most people are on welfare, its just not for poor people. Its for people in NEED
Welfare is financial assistance paid to people by governments. Some welfare is general, while specific and can only be invoked under certain circumstances, such as a scholarship.

Sarah Palin, has no idea what she is talking about

Sarah Palin seems like she has no idea what she is talking about. Following the video are excerpts from the interview conducted by Katie Couric on September 24, 2008.




Katie Couric: But he(John McCain) still has a stake in the company so isn't that a conflict of interest?

Palin: Again, my understanding is that he(John McCain)recused himself from the dealings with Freddie and Fannie, any lobbying efforts on his part there. And I would hope that's the case because, as John McCain has been saying, and as I've on a much more local level been also rallying against is the undue influence of lobbyists in public policy decisions being made.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Couric: Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?

Palin: That's something that John McCain and I have both been discussing - whether that ... is part of the solution or not. You know, it's going to be a multi-faceted solution that has to be found here.

Couric: So you haven't decided whether you'll support it or not?

Palin: I have not.

Couric: What are the pros and cons of it do you think?

Palin: Oh, well, some decisions that have been made poorly should not be rewarded, of course.
[What! you want to reward the banks but not help citizens that are paying for the bailout.]

Couric: By consumers, you're saying?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palin: Consumers - and those who were predator lenders also. That's, you know, that has to be considered also. But again, it's got to be a comprehensive, long-term solution found ... for this problem that America is facing today. As I say, we are getting into crisis mode here.

Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you. LOL, this is the VP that McCain choose. If this is an example of his decision making ability, I want him no where near monetary decisions or the oval office.



QUIET, the white house has something to say.