PDA

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



Carol
06-14-2011, 10:31 PM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1297892)


cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-14-11 09:50 PM
Original message
Wait a minute: We're attacking Bachmann for taking in foster kids?

Edited on Tue Jun-14-11 09:52 PM by cali
There are so so many valid policy reasons to oppose her. Taking in foster kids is not one of them.

Electric Monk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-14-11 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. No, it's for milking the system and being a hypocriteTaking in foster kids is milking the system?

mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-14-11 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. you honestly think

fostering 23 kids is "easy money"?

:rofl:

boppers (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-14-11 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. If you're doing 23 kids, you've not giving them enough attention.

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.So she had 23 kids all at the same time?

Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-14-11 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't think it's because

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.
So she's called for an end to the fostercare system? Oh wait....she didn't.

mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-14-11 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. you DON"T MAKE A BUNDLE

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"...

riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-14-11 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
11. I agree but with a caveat....

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.Liberals are all about nuance.....unless it is about a conservative. Then if they participate in ANY government program they are a hypocrite even if they have never called for an end to the program. The get to "pretend" that conservatives are against ALL government programs.

It says more about them than those they criticize.

Joe the Revelator (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-14-11 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
13. Wait a minute: After all the bullshit Bachmann has put the country through, we're going to.....

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

JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-14-11 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
19. It's good to attack it. The point of swiftboating is to attack someone on their strength and turn..

it against them.

Joe the Revelator (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-14-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Exactly.There you have it.

Cali better watch out or she'll get tombstoned for calling the DUmmies on their outrageous claims.

The previous thread is here:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1297152

notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Jun-14-11 07:40 PM
Original message
Michelle Bachmann's Baby Farm.


A Wonkette operative says Bachmann has five kids of her own and raised an astonishing 23 foster kids. A nice person would say, “Oh, that’s a nice thing.” But our cold-hearted operative notes that Minnesota pays $30 a day, tax free, per foster kid.

“So if Bachmann has fostered 23 children, let’s say for an average of five years, that would come out to a non-taxable $1,259,250,” the Wonk-Op writes. “No wonder she’s anti-abortion. Children are a cash crop for her.”
http://wonkette.com/211978/michele-bachmanns-baby-farm

NJCardFan
06-14-2011, 11:13 PM
These people are beyond sickening. What they don't realize is that there are more kids than foster parents. If fostering was such a cash cow then maybe they should do it. Oh, and I highly doubt that she had 23 children at the same time.

djones520
06-15-2011, 12:15 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=439x1297152

notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Jun-14-11 07:40 PM
Original message
Michelle Bachmann's Baby Farm.


A Wonkette operative says Bachmann has five kids of her own and raised an astonishing 23 foster kids. A nice person would say, “Oh, that’s a nice thing.” But our cold-hearted operative notes that Minnesota pays $30 a day, tax free, per foster kid.

“So if Bachmann has fostered 23 children, let’s say for an average of five years, that would come out to a non-taxable $1,259,250,” the Wonk-Op writes. “No wonder she’s anti-abortion. Children are a cash crop for her.”
http://wonkette.com/211978/michele-bachmanns-baby-farm

That comes out to an average of $10,950 a year to raise each kid. Average annual cost of raising a child is around $12,700.

So how exactly is she making cash off of this? Bueller? Bueller?

NJCardFan
06-15-2011, 12:42 AM
That comes out to an average of $10,950 a year to raise each kid. Average annual cost of raising a child is around $12,700.

So how exactly is she making cash off of this? Bueller? Bueller?

And I'm sure that she pocketed every cent for herself and left those fostr children to fend for themselves.

djones520
06-15-2011, 12:44 AM
And I'm sure that she pocketed every cent for herself and left those fostr children to fend for themselves.

Well duh. She is a rethuglican. :rolleyes:

aka:PBS
06-15-2011, 05:42 AM
riderinthestorm (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-14-11 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. I just tried Google Image and only came up with pics of 5 Bachman children
none of the foster children came up no matter how I searched.


God what an asshole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

djones520
06-15-2011, 06:20 AM
God what an asshole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How dare she not post pictures of other peoples children onto the internet! What a bitch! :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
06-15-2011, 07:00 AM
How dare she not post pictures of other peoples children onto the internet! What a bitch! :rolleyes:

And if she had posted them, she would be using them to make herself look good, abusing their privacy, making targets out of them, etc. Look at Palin, if she left her kids home, she was neglecting them. If she brought them along but didn't have them on stage, she was hiding them and dumping them on someone else. If she brought them onstage with her, they were props to make her look good. There is absolutely nothing Bachmann could do that won't draw criticism from some quarters. Period.

ralph wiggum
06-15-2011, 09:25 AM
Please DUmmies, I implore you to push this issue even harder. Criticizing a Presidential candidate who has generously and selflessly taken in a lot of foster children will win you a lot of votes. :rolleyes:

txradioguy
06-15-2011, 10:11 AM
It's not to hard to understand why the DUmmies have a hard time grasping why someone would want to be a foster parent when they believe it's easier to suck a baby into a sink via abortion than actually care for and love one.

Speedy
06-15-2011, 10:20 AM
And if she had posted them, she would be using them to make herself look good, abusing their privacy, making targets out of them, etc. Look at Palin, if she left her kids home, she was neglecting them. If she brought them along but didn't have them on stage, she was hiding them and dumping them on someone else. If she brought them onstage with her, they were props to make her look good. There is absolutely nothing Bachmann could do that won't draw criticism from some quarters. Period.

This reminds me of when Penn Gillette was on Bill Maher's show. Maher was screeching about how few books President Bush had read in the past year and Penn asked him, "How many books does he have to read for you not to bitch about it? Give me a number? And thern you would probably bitch that he spent all his time reading instead of running the country. Tell me, Bill. How many fucking books?"

Maher just stuttered like the idiot that he is.

noonwitch
06-15-2011, 11:44 AM
Foster parents in Michigan get paid $14.24 a day for kids under 13, a little more for teens. They get some limited assistance with clothing, and we pay out of other funds for teens to take driver's ed or to take the ACT/SAT. We pay higher rates for kids with special needs, but the foster parents must demonstrate that the child's needs cause higher expenses and more work. Nobody gets rich doing this for this money.

I would even say that Ms. Bachman dips into her personal funds to take care of the kids in her care. Athletics, scouts, clubs, school photos and yearbooks, and many other things are not covered by the
state's FC payments. Neither is orthodontics for kids whose parents still have rights.

Zafod
06-15-2011, 01:02 PM
riderinthestorm (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-14-11 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. I just tried Google Image and only came up with pics of 5 Bachman children
none of the foster children came up no matter how I searched.

Thats because your not supposed to make any images of foster kids available to the public. Its against the rules.

NJCardFan
06-15-2011, 01:50 PM
Thats because your not supposed to make any images of foster kids available to the public. Its against the rules.

The ignorance of some people is mind boggling.

Zafod
06-15-2011, 01:51 PM
The ignorance of some people is mind boggling.

yup.

Odysseus
06-15-2011, 02:01 PM
And if she had posted them, she would be using them to make herself look good, abusing their privacy, making targets out of them, etc. Look at Palin, if she left her kids home, she was neglecting them. If she brought them along but didn't have them on stage, she was hiding them and dumping them on someone else. If she brought them onstage with her, they were props to make her look good. There is absolutely nothing Bachmann could do that won't draw criticism from some quarters. Period.
This is something that our leaders need to understand. It's like dealing with terrorists. You may get a concession now and again, but never lose sight of the fact that their ultimate goal is your death or destruction. Conservatives need to learn that about liberals, and liberals need to learn that about... well, terrorists.

This reminds me of when Penn Gillette was on Bill Maher's show. Maher was screeching about how few books President Bush had read in the past year and Penn asked him, "How many books does he have to read for you not to bitch about it? Give me a number? And thern you would probably bitch that he spent all his time reading instead of running the country. Tell me, Bill. How many fucking books?"

Maher just stuttered like the idiot that he is.
Has Penn Gillette been back on the show since?


Thats because your not supposed to make any images of foster kids available to the public. Its against the rules.

But they will demand that she do so, and then turn around and claim that she broke the rules by complying. I wonder what will happen when one of those kids comes forward and speaks well of her. Will the DUmmies admit error?

CueSi
06-15-2011, 06:55 PM
No. They will say the child is brainwashed. You know how this game works, LTC.

~QC

Hawkgirl
06-15-2011, 09:36 PM
Wow, how sickening, What is it with liberals and kids? First they dragged Palin's children through the mud,now they're targeting Bauchman's foster kids? What is it with their insane infatuation with women who care for their children?

NJCardFan
06-15-2011, 09:49 PM
Wow, how sickening, What is it with liberals and kids? First they dragged Palin's children through the mud,now they're targeting Bauchman's foster kids? What is it with their insane infatuation with women who care for their children?

Because they feel that a woman should either abort a child or if she decides to carry it to term, she should turn the kids over to the government for a proper rearing.

Jumpy
06-15-2011, 10:00 PM
Many in the DU thread actually get it.

Those that don't are partisan stupid. They constantly whine about pro lifers NOT taking in babies and children. Now they see a pro lifer who does, and suddenly she is a hypocrite.

Odysseus
06-15-2011, 10:41 PM
Wow, how sickening, What is it with liberals and kids? First they dragged Palin's children through the mud,now they're targeting Bauchman's foster kids? What is it with their insane infatuation with women who care for their children?


Because they feel that a woman should either abort a child or if she decides to carry it to term, she should turn the kids over to the government for a proper rearing.

No. A lot of the rage at stay-at-home moms or mothers who actually put their kids first comes from feminist moms who have bought the line that they are nobody unless they have careers, and that feminism is about putting yourself first. They leave the house every day, and their kids are raised by nannies, if they are affluent, or day care centers, but at the end of the day, they come home to strangers. The guilt gnaws at them and whenever someone comes along who actually nurtures their kids, that guilt drives them into a rage.

noonwitch
06-16-2011, 09:53 AM
No. A lot of the rage at stay-at-home moms or mothers who actually put their kids first comes from feminist moms who have bought the line that they are nobody unless they have careers, and that feminism is about putting yourself first. They leave the house every day, and their kids are raised by nannies, if they are affluent, or day care centers, but at the end of the day, they come home to strangers. The guilt gnaws at them and whenever someone comes along who actually nurtures their kids, that guilt drives them into a rage.



Don't judge all feminists by the DUmbasses. Economic conditions have made it so that it is advantageous for moms and dads to work, in order to best provide for their kids. I don't know too many of my coworkers (who are all pretty much liberals and feminists) who feel guilty about being working moms. The DUmbasses are just looking for reasons to trash Bachman because they don't like her politics. They are obnoxious to attack someone for being a foster parent.

There are also plenty of conservative families in which mom works, the obvious example here being Michelle Bachman.

Odysseus
06-16-2011, 11:44 AM
Don't judge all feminists by the DUmbasses. Economic conditions have made it so that it is advantageous for moms and dads to work, in order to best provide for their kids. I don't know too many of my coworkers (who are all pretty much liberals and feminists) who feel guilty about being working moms. The DUmbasses are just looking for reasons to trash Bachman because they don't like her politics. They are obnoxious to attack someone for being a foster parent.

There are also plenty of conservative families in which mom works, the obvious example here being Michelle Bachman.

Don't get me wrong, the DUds are being their typical hateful selves, but there is still a lot of guilt out there. It's not the single mom or the married woman who has to work in order to make ends meet that feels that guilt, it's the yuppie wife whose job pays for the perks of yuppiehood, above and beyond what her husband earns, who is putting her SUV and the family vacation in Paris ahead of being there for her kids. Harry Stein, in his book, How I Joined the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and Found Peace of Mind, wrote about how he had once done a very mild piece (no endorsement, just the facts, ma'am) about a study that indicated that kids in daycare had more behavioral problems than kids raised at home, and found himself inundated by hatemail from working moms. They considered his article a personal attack on their decision to work and not be with their kids during the workday. Also, a lot of the women in his office became cooler towards him. It wasn't until one of the producers explained that they were all married, upper-middle-class women who had made a conscious decision to put their careers ahead of their children, and felt guilty as hell about it, that it made sense.