Foster parents get paid a little too, so it's not like placing them with foster parents is going to eliminate the taxpayer burden. The decision to place them with foster parents is about them being neglected or in danger where they are now, not about finances.

What about adoption, though? Would-be parents who have everything to offer a child except genes?

And why would you have to start with people already on welfare? When you're slaying monsters, you don't hang around looking for the oldest or most monstrous one, you have to start with the nearest. So many things don't ever get started because people waste time looking for a good/fair starting point. Life isn't fair.

The kids would get over it -we are all destined to lose our parents at some point.

This site has a breakdown, in minute detail, of how our tax dollars are spent. It is more informative than the pie charts you see that lump all sorts of things into a giant category.

http://www.investorguide.com/taxtrackr/

Here is a chart:

Kill her, "Three Generations of idiots is enough"- US Supreme Court

Are we killing her with foot's big red X?

Sounds like a plan. I will go get some trash bags.

Maybe the authorirties could classify it as War on Stupidity and use some of that 43c to sort out that family?

I had some technical difficulty for a few minutes.

I posted this not in defense of octomom or her doc, both would make excellent fodder or fertilizer, I'm sure, but in aid of looking at claims of "I don't want my tax dollars supporting her"

I wonder if people think that they personally are supporting ocotomom rather than, let's say, .000003 cents of their tax bill is going to ocotmom, while maybe .40 cents of their tax dollar is going to the blanket category "military."

It's more of whitey's tricknology.

sorry foot3, but that only adds up to $1.00 - they spend more than that ;)

As the chart says it is from the 2007 period of spending. If they redid the chart for 2010 it would show that the deficit has tripled since Obama came to office and the amount of money spent in all the years of the wars from 2001 to present did not add up to the deficit since Obama took over.

But the point is not lost. Big government is not the answer.

Where my tax dollars are going has to bearing on that stupid bitch, I don't want to give her anything, nada, zip, zero. If they want to use my money to take the children and care for them, fine. But she can starve to death for all I care.

Well, in my opinion, the doctor made quite some mistakes.

With two healthy people, you can't forbid them to have children whether they have the means to support them or not.

In France, when you want to adopt a child, there are investigations to verify that you can really support the child. They are extensive and a real pain in the ass for the future parents.

I would assume that with assisted procreation, it should be the same.

You could make birth control a requirement of public assistance.

Would look quite bad in the land of the free or in whatever democracy.

China is trying to do it, and the price they will be paying in a few years is enormous. At the moment, the ratio between male and female birth is such that they are lacking something around 40 000 000 females.

What would be awesome is if we could pay our annual taxes and earmark where we are willing to spend the $. That way anyone who didn't want to pay for politician's lifetime pensions for serving a single term could leave that box unchecked. Don't want to fund artists who fling poo? Leave it unchecked. Ocotmoms? No thanks, etc.

It would be very interesting where people decide to spend their money.