Octomom files for bankruptcy in California | General Discussion Topics | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Octomom files for bankruptcy in California
May 1, 2012
5:22 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10239
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Who didn't see this coming from day one? Another thread that concerns debtors prison, maybe this person qualifies. Yesterday, just before filing bankrupty, whe went out and spent $520 getting a haircut, and we are giving her $4000-5000 per month in welfare. She as reported to child services for the children using training pottys in the back yard, because the one toilet was broken, and they were filthy. They found no violations after inspection. The list of people she owes to include Verizon, sparketts, all her utilities, has not paid rent in one year. But she has $500 for a haircut???

"Octomom" files for bankruptcy in California
Reuters – 12 hrs agoEmailShare10PrintRelated ContentCalifornia Octuplets mom Nadya …
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The California mother of octuplets, dubbed "Octomom," filed for bankruptcy on Monday, after previously admitting she was on public assistance to support herself and her 14 children.

Nadya Suleman, 36, gave birth to eight babies as a single mother in 2009. But goodwill turned to anger in the media after it was revealed Suleman had undergone fertility treatments when she already had six children, and questions were raised about her ability to provide for her family.

Her children became only the second set of octuplets known to have survived birth in the United States.

Suleman, who lives in the Southern California suburban community of La Habra, has less than $50,000 in assets and owes between $500,000 and $1 million, according to legal papers submitted to U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California and posted at entertainment website E! Online.

Suleman told ABC News last week that she had received $4,000 to $5,000 a month in public assistance.

(Reporting By Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Edith Honan)

@yahoonews on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

May 1, 2012
5:32 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Does $5ooo cover 8 kids?

"it is easy to grow crazy"

May 1, 2012
5:52 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10239
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

She has 16 kids, she already had 8 kids before the fertility doctor gave her these 8 more babies.

Welfare is full of cases where the women keep having kids intentionally, just for the welfare money, never work, and we pay for it. There should be accountabity for the money, every dime of it should be proven to go to actual expences for the children. When you completly stiff some of the places the money is intented for, like utilities so the kids will be warm, have hot water, and a refrigerator with milk and food, rent, etc. The state just hands her the money, and she does what she wants with it.

What is her next step to take? She is now talking about doing porn, which acutally would be a legal job. We just fired a Ventura country teacher who they found out made a porn film before she was a teacher. If a teacher who did one porn film, can not be a teacher, how can they allow a porn star to raise children? Seems like a double standard to me.

This really begins to raise many questions about who should and should not be allowed to have children, but we are a free society and free people to make these choices. What we should do or never can do when this kind of abuse occurs in our welfare departments, while those who actually are in need get turned down for some kind of Aid.

May 1, 2012
6:04 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

$5000 doesn't seem to be enough to pay for expenses for 16 kids.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

May 1, 2012
6:25 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10239
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Whats your point? Give her more?

She now gets money from Social Security for disability, and food stamps according to the ariticals. I'm sure it also is based on the number of children, however what is the nature of her disabiltity, that does not allow her to get a job and work? Anyone that can handle 8 babies all day long, plus another 8 kids, couldn't be very physically disabled IMHO.

When you do recieve legitimate social security, its based on your lifelong working record, and how much you put into the system. AFter a certain age you begin to recieve annual reports on your earnings and how much you will collect. You see every year of work in black and white, year by year. (Actually the are in green ink). At her age, and working level, I doubt if she had gotten to the minimum amount of crediting years, so her SS disabilty is probably based on the kids she has. For people to proove permanant disabilty, is very difficult if you read the rules about it, most people probably pull it off with a lawyer helping them. Wouldn't it be nice if we all could get SS disabilty becasue we are "Stressed out" with our lives or current job? Disability for her is ludicras, when you can see she is not physically impaired, isn't all hunched over, limping, or in some sort of visible pain, how is she disabled?

Millions of people have lost their jobs and homes due to our economy, who can not feed their families, from no fault of their own, and this person openly makes a mockery out of our laws, claiming disabilty, stiffing everyone while soaking up taxpayers money, and now spends $520 for a haircut, before going to file chapter 7? The taxpayers are held hostage to her klds, and she is getting away with it.

May 1, 2012
6:33 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"greeney2" wrote: Whats your point? Give her more?

My point was that $5000 doesn't seem to be enough to support 16 children. If she is disabled and/or qualifies for welfare then, yes, I think she should get enough to cover 16 kids.

She now gets money from Social Security for disability, and food stamps according to the ariticals. I'm sure it also is based on the number of children, however what is the nature of her disabiltity, that does not allow her to get a job and work? Anyone that can handle 8 babies all day long, plus another 8 kids, couldn't be very physically disabled IMHO.

In California at least you can't get food stamps if you are on disability from social security.

Disability for her is ludicras, when you can see she is not physically impaired, isn't all hunched over, limping, or in some sort of visible pain, how is she disabled?

Visible pain, yes. In this case, it may be pain from a mental illness-related disability. I don't know as I haven't reviewed her medical records and you must admit that you don't know either.

Millions of people have lost their jobs and homes due to our economy, who can not feed their families, from no fault of their own, and this person openly makes a mockery out of our laws, claiming disabilty, stiffing everyone while soaking up taxpayers money, and now spends $520 for a haircut, before going to file chapter 7? The taxpayers are held hostage to her klds, and she is getting away with it.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had direct control over what programs we fund with taxes? While you'd make sure that welfare receives none of your tax dollars, I would make sure that an oversized military receives a minimal amount of my tax dollars (hypothetically speaking).

"it is easy to grow crazy"

May 1, 2012
7:20 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10239
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I never said anything of the kind about not funding welfare to those deserving. I said people who deserve it get screwed out of it, and 7 out of 10 do get turned down, and have to appeal it, which starts with having lawyers pull it off for them. Most people just give up, but some people become experts at using and abusing the system, at everyone elses expence. When I see someone collecting the welfare, and stiffing who its intended to help with, thats fraud, give something to whats its allotted for. When I see the basis is a premise you are disabled and you really are not, thats fraud. When I see the only income a person has is from the taxpayers helping her, and she spends it on a $520 haircut, its fraud. That has nothing to do with the cost of an aircraft carriar, fighting terrorism or the buttons on a army uniform.

Welfare money should be required to be accountable, not used for things like lotto tickets, cigarettes and liquor, or $520 haircuts.

I have no idea about the food stamps if you are on SS disabilty, it just said she collected both, it didn't specify at the same time, but that all comes from the taxpayers. Whe should not be allowed to have those debts disolved that public assistance gave her money for, but how do you make her pay? How many are just like her, on our welfare?

May 2, 2012
2:50 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"greeney2" wrote: When I see the basis is a premise you are disabled and you really are not, thats fraud.

That's the definition of fraud, yes.

Welfare money should be required to be accountable, not used for things like lotto tickets, cigarettes and liquor, or $520 haircuts.

I understand where you're coming from but how is that going to be regulated? Can I buy kraft cheese or am I forced to get the generic? Can I get coffee? How about dog food? Where do you draw the line?

"it is easy to grow crazy"

May 2, 2012
3:56 am
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10239
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It should not be that hard to regulate. They could regulate it by sending your money in the form of a credit card with a expiration date good only in the benefit month, along with an ID code where only you can use it. Second, no merchant will be allowed to accept it for certain items, like what I mentioned, or for high dollar items like Lobster, gourmet meats, Caviar, Fancy waters, and fancy deli party items. Which many people have done just to spite the government. You could buy clothing with it, from regular department stores, but only basic needs things. No Victoria Secrets, the lastest $150 tennis shoes, sports cloths, or nightclubing outfits. I would see nothing wrong with generics of food, like the Ralphs brands products, or equivilants being required. NObody expects people to eat garbage or Dog food, which we should not be paying for on welfare. Feeding their pets is not the taxpayers responsibility, so NO it could not be used for pet foods.

May 2, 2012
4:58 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The restrictions you're describing would be hard to regulate.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
64 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10239

bionic: 9870

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Tairaa: 2842

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24144

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8733

Posts: 123504

Newest Members:

neil zhang, Lynn, Joe1821, Jenny C, Cassandra, Deirdre McMahon, ieltsindia, Von wahlde, lyon smith, Andrew Witmark

Administrators: John Greenewald: 585, blackvault: 1776