An update to my Ticker "What The Nation Is Up Against", we have this from the LA Times:

Nadya Suleman has 14 children, including newborn octuplets. She has no job, no income and owes $50,000 in student loans.

Still, the 33-year-old Whittier woman said she's confident that she can afford to raise her huge family, insisting she can do it without welfare. In an interview Tuesday with NBC, she said she could use student loans to make ends meet until she finishes graduate school and gets a job.

So she said.

The truth?

Well, go read the article.  Here's the money quote:

"Suleman also bristled at suggestions made by some commentators that she was being irresponsible for having so many children with no income or partner to help raise them.

"No. I am not being selfish. . . . If I were just sitting down watching TV and not being as determined as I am to succeed and provide a better future for my children, I believe that would be considered to a certain degree selfish," she said."

Like I said originally - "I want, therefore I'm entitled to, irrespective of whether I have the ability to pay for it."

California has a budget problem and wants the federal government - that is, everyone in this country - to bail them out?  This, after they have a fertility clinic licensed in their state that took a deliberate action which (according to the cited paper above) led directly to the state being billed for the delivery of eight children and their neonatal care?  Couple of million bucks there eh?

Case closed.

Hint to lawmakers: Some people and institutions really do need to go bankrupt and live under a freeway overpass to learn that there is no such thing as a Unicorn that craps out pretty colored candies.  May I make a recommendation for two of the first candidates - one an individual, and the second a state?