Posted on 02/12/2022 8:08:15 AM PST by grundle
Here is a recent article from the New York Times about a bunch of unmarried women and their out-of-wedlock babies.
The word “father” does not appear in the article.
Instead, the New York Times uses the following words and phrases to explain why these women and children are living in poverty:
“have few options”
“waiting for subsidized housing”
“18 people had been inside the four-bedroom public housing unit, triple the number of people who had moved in a decade earlier”
“mothers, sons and daughters”
“they had little choice”
“a growing family forced to crowd ever more tightly into the apartment it already had”
“According to a 2016 assessment of housing needs in the city, Philadelphia is supplying less than 12 percent of the publicly supported housing needed for its low-income households”
“Without enough funding to support a program like that”
“Shakia Miller, who lives in a three-bedroom unit at the West Park Apartments, which are owned and managed by the housing authority, applied for a bigger place when she was pregnant with twin boys. They are now 9 years old, yet the family, which includes Ms. Miller’s three older children, is still living in the same apartment.”
“There were six people on the lease at that time, a number that expanded, by the time of the latest lease, to 14. There were three sisters, Rosalee, Virginia and Quinsha, and a growing number of children”
“There should have been a lot more resources for the family”
“For the families that are in such a situation, there may not be much of a choice at all.”
So that’s what’s in the article.
According to the New York Times, these women had no control over anything, and the reason that these women and their children are living in poverty is because the government is not spending enough money.
The New York Times never asks where the children’s fathers are.
The New York Times never asks why these women had so many out-of-wedlock babies that they could not afford to take care of.
Shame on the New York Times for not asking, “Where are the fathers of these children?”
Shame on the New York Times for blaming their poverty on lack of government funding!
Shame on the New York Times for falsely claiming these these women had no choice and no control over their situation!
I’d like to propose a new policy. Instead of the government spending more money on unmarried women and their out-of-wedlock babies, the government should stop funding them entirely.
Unmarried women who have babies out of wedlock should not be rewarded with public housing and section 8 vouchers.
Whatever you reward, you get more of.
We should stop rewarding unmarried women who have babies out of wedlock.
An unmarried women who has a baby out of wedlock should never be eligible for public housing or section 8 vouchers.
Before the Democrats started their “Great Society” and their “war on poverty” in the 1960s, only 5% of babies in the U.S. were born out of wedlock.
Today, it’s 40%.
This chart shows the increase. The chart is from this link at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nonmarital_Birth_Rates_in_the_United_States,_1940-2014.png
And now I’d like to talk about the origination of the fire that killed those mothers and their children.
First, someone removed the batteries from the home’s smoke detectors.
And second, a very careless and negligent cigarette smoker left their lighter in a place where a five-year-old boy was able to get it and then use it to set the family’s Christmas tree on fire. I don’t blame the five-year-old boy. I do blame the adult smoker.
This incident happened in Philadelphia. And while I don’t know the statistics for Philadelphia, I do know that in New York state, low-income smokers spend 25% of their income on cigarettes.
Choices matter.
Choices result in actions.
Actions result in consequences.
Having babies out of wedlock that you can’t afford is a choice, no matter how many times the New York Times writes that “they had little choice.”
Taking the batteries out of smoke detectors is also a choice that can lead to disastrous results.
Leaving a lighter where a five-year-old can get it is irresponsible and negligent.
Smoking is stupid.
Spending 25% of your income on cigarettes when your own children don’t even have adequate housing is inexcusable.
Childhood poverty would be greatly reduced if people behaved responsibly. Let’s consider two groups of people in the U.S. The first group has a poverty rate of 2%. The second group has a poverty rate of 76%.
The first group consists of people who followed all three of these steps:
1) Finish high school.
2) Get a full-time job.
3) Wait until age 21 and get married before having children.
The second group consists of people who followed zero of those three steps.
Among people who follow all three of these steps, the poverty rate is 2%.
Among people who follow zero of these steps, the poverty rate is 76%.
My source for that information is this article, which refers to this PDF, and the relevant data is on page 15 of the PDF. The study uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Finally, I’m going to end this blog post by posting a video of the song “Love Child” by the Supremes from the 1960s. By today’s standards, this song would be considered extremely conservative, as well as racist and sexist. It’s a great song, with a lesson that needs to be taught more often:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdmGO-GvHyo
Remember, Dems don’t support the traditional nuclear family. They want government to be the daddy. They need for you to need them.
She’s not called the Old Grey Hag for nothing
Anyone who suggests that people reconsider the merits of the sexual revolution will have women dressed in “The Handmaid’s Tale” costumes at their front door.
Shame on anyone who expected anything more intelligent or truthful from the NYT.
“The government” is not doing enough. “The government” is actually taxpayers who are paying to support these perpetual freeloaders.
New York Times blames childhood poverty on lack of government funding.
***Jesus said “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me.”
Oh dear what a neglectful mother I was ... my children were raised without any government funding ...
Dinging the times for this is like dinging a psychotic serial killer for killing yet another victim. They are just being true to their nature.
Philadelphia does not lack for low-income housing.
It is a D-U-M-P.
Across the river Camden has plenty of housing units in need of non-lazy occupants.
It was government welfare in the 60’s, and the NYT wailing how heartless America is, that essentially destroyed the black family with one of the most deliberate, despicable acts by a government against its citizens. You see the results in the streets.
The NYT is a flagbearer of the gaslight media. Do not expect anything from them other than gaslighting!
Shame? You cannot shame these evil pricks. They are immune.
Could it be because the writers and editors at "The Failing New York Times" are bunch of b@st@rds themselves?
Our government isn’t just supporting irresponsible behavior. They are REWARDING it. It’s like they are putting Miracle Go on weeds. What did they think the outcome would be?
The NYT is not intentionally telling falsehoods. The writer, and the editor, really believe this nonsense. This is far worse than knowing the truth and deciding not to use it.
Stupid and evil both produce the same outcome.
Birth control is a choice.
I’ve seen it wih my own eyes. It’s pathetic! Where you baby daddy?
Society fell apart when shame eas vanquished from the village square. When peoole unflinchingly and even proudly use the term “baby daddy” while buying junk food with a government EBT card, it means the liberals won.
A lot of mothers don’t want the father’s involved except for his money. They prefer to have absolute control over the children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.