Ah, the poor

This post concerns two-no-three recent WaPo articles, the first about how "high housing costs & an unpredictable job market" sends many into homelessness; the second how a young boy died of an infected tooth and the final one (today anyway) concerns childcare subsidies for poor "families." Secondly, this post is also about how liberal publications like to throw sob stories around as proof that we need to do more for the poor and our social services need to be "reformed" (read: more bloated with my tax dollars with still no end in sight).

In the first article about a couple who lost their jobs and because of aforementioned economic woes, is now "poor" and "homeless." It also mentions that the female is pregnant and that prior to their joblessness, they had been supporting children from "other relationships."

The second article is about a kid who had an infected tooth and by the time his "mother" found a Medicaid dentist, the infection had spread to the boy's brain - and he died. First, let me say, I feel bad for the kid - I cannot imagine the suffering he went through and I cannot imagine having such an irresponsible parent.

The third article, in today's WaPo is about all these "poor families" who desperately need childcare subsidies so they can stay off welfare. And they spotlight this single mother (is there any other kind?) who is staying home from her job to take care of her child because she's on a waiting list for childcare subsidies (VA state & federal funds - that means tax dollars to you and me).

Here are a few of my observations:

1. Liberal publications like WaPo like to find these sob stories (it's all about the CHILLLLDDDDRRRENNN!) and basically try to guilt the rest of us into supporting more government programs to help the PPPPOOOOORRRR! Then they manage, ironically, to find the least sympathetic people to highlight.

2. Case in point, if the folks cannot even afford to support themselves or won't take the steps to do that, why are they having children?

3. What? Ever hear of condoms, people? If the females in question can't manage their own contraception and are too irresponsible and weak to demand condom use from the dogs who are screwing them, perhaps they should just keep their legs closed.

4. A glaring omission in the last two stories: where are the sperm-donors and why aren't they contributing to the children's upkeep? I know, out impregnating other females! In the first story, it's stated that the dog is happily depositing his sperm everywhere with no care about consequences until bills come due.

5. Another glaring omission in the second story: why do/did these kids (both of them) have such rotten teeth? Answer: because their "mother" doesn't ensure that they're actually brushing their teeth - or for that matter, around to monitor their eating habits. Come on people - both items are part of parenthood! And I don't have to be a parent to know that - I had two who actually attended to those responsibilities! Go figure!

6. In the first article, these two are so irresponsible and plain stupid, it's hard (actually impossible) to feel any sympathy for their "plight." They abdicate thought mostly and pop out kids they have no way to support. Yet look suitably sad, desperate and pathetic for the Post's cameras. Yeh, it's all about the economy!

And if all of us (I mean folks who work, and live within our means, paying gobs of taxes for all these programs) just stopped working and keeping this industry (yes, poverty and its attendant helpful programs is an industry - and a self-perpetuating one at that!) humming along, what then? No matter what cosmetic actions politicians may enact to mollify us (conservative, responsibility-oriented "us"), there will be yet another pop-up program (see "childcare subsidies") to soak up more cash and accomplish - well, more programs! Welfare by any other name is still welfare. I suppose these liberal publications seek to elicit a response - and they do - in me it's anger.

Technorati topic: welfare