Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Why shouldn't taxpayers care?

Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Associated Press

A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman's 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California's taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red.

Answer Question

Asked by Anonymous at 12:08 PM on Feb. 12, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Answers (24)
  • I do believe that taxpayers SHOULD care. It is hard enough for families to survive on their paychecks, it has made many families decide not to have any more children. Now to learn that the taxpayers will be paying for one woman to support her 14 children is crazy. Something needs to be done about this.

    Answer by NewMommyin06 at 12:11 PM on Feb. 12, 2009

  • They should be. It is their money, and she is an ignorant woman that keeps purposely having babies that she has no means of taking care of herself. It is child endangerment at the least to me for her to do this. Not only does she have 14 children, but the majority have health and other issues that one woman can not address with little to no income.

    Answer by boy_or_girl at 12:13 PM on Feb. 12, 2009

  • Oh, by the ignorant i do not mean lack of educations......because the doctor that implanted her had a doctorate, and look what he did. Both should be held accountable, and he should pay back money to the state for doing such and inethical immoral thing. He is just as much to blame as her.

    Answer by boy_or_girl at 12:16 PM on Feb. 12, 2009

  • I think California has a right to be concerned if she needs taxpayers money. I think the US taxpayers have a right be concerned as well. If CA is seeks a Federal Bailout~ California's financial burden's very well may become the Nations burden.

    One should not CHOOSE to have children if one cannot take full RESPONSIBILITY [including full financial responsibility] for taking care of all of them. jmo.

    If she doesn't need government assistance, then no worries, her business, her responsibility.


    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 12:22 PM on Feb. 12, 2009

  • Because if we care about this one person who's abusing the system, we have to care about all of them. The resources necessary to find out who's abusing the system and who isn't would be huge. This particular woman is a grain of sand on a huge mountain.

    Answer by Ginger0104 at 12:31 PM on Feb. 12, 2009

  • Taxpayers should not have to pay for reckless inappropriate behavior by a woman who is obviously disturbed and by a psycho doctor who should be stripped of his license.

    Answer by Scorpio359 at 12:33 PM on Feb. 12, 2009

  • California is broke she may not get much like the rest of those who live off social entitlements.

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:34 PM on Feb. 12, 2009

  • I think they shouhld make an example of her and deny her aid. Make her get a job and work. She chose to be in this position because she knew she could DEPEND on the Government to take care of her. I know of 20 parents who would step up and foster those kids and do it WITHOUT taking a dime of Government Aid.

    Answer by Anonymous at 12:35 PM on Feb. 12, 2009

  • They should care. She's ripping off the system now with the disability claim on her child with ADHD and one with a delayed speech and slight symptoms of autism. Of course the government is stupid for paying that. My daughter has ADHD and I don't get money for her. I wouldn't want it anyway. She's using the system as much as possible and has no grip on reality. She says she wants to continue her work on her master's degree and support the kids on student loans. Wth? How on earth is she going to study while taking care of all those kids? She said she'd rely on the school daycare and volunteers to watch her kids while she attends classes. That doesn't sound like a person willing to take care of and love her children.


    Answer by Anonymous at 12:37 PM on Feb. 12, 2009

  • The problem that I see with this is that other women are going to do or are doing the same thing. Not just in California but in other states. Then you have a bunch of women living off PA at the taxpayer’s expense. In other words having their cake and eating it too.


    Answer by Anonymous at 12:40 PM on Feb. 12, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.