U.S. child poverty

[no1tovote4]

poverty isn't specious, No1. It's a real problem, which I'm curious how conservatives would confront, since you oppose a welfare state. How about addressing the issue I raised, which is that European children have it better than ours? I'm not trying to compare our system to that of a third world country. I'm trying to compare it to other capitalist economies which choose, as a society, to invest more in their people, while we choose a more individualistic path.

Mariner.

I am not a traditional Conservative, I am a Libertarian. I do oppose a welfare state, but largely because of experience. I grew up as apartment trash in a neighborhood where many were on welfare. I watched as people that were on welfare would limit their hours at work in order to continue receiving welfare, rather than work to be successful.

I also watched those that made it out of the situation and how they worked, in almost every case they worked hard and made it out without the help of the government. The first step was to get off the rather specious "help" of the government handouts, only then were they able to get out of the "poverty".

Now, when you say European kids have it better than ours what is your evidence but this one article? Comparisons to lifestyles of poor Americans is not really fair in countries that share hot water heaters and whose refrigerators hold about a day worth of food (and yes I am talking about Europe not third world countries).

The relative way they compare the lifestyles of those in the US with those in Europe shows a bias towards Europe and a distinct and purposeful ignorance of the lifestyle of the "poor" in the US. I would much rather be poor here than there, there is a higher chance of getting out of poverty here than there is there.

 

[CSM]

So what's the conservative take on child poverty? The rising tide of reduced taxation has not lifted the boats of children--child poverty reached a low in the 70s and then began rising. We have by far the highest rate of child poverty in the industrialized world--one in six American children. Corporate profits have grown immensely since the 70s, but wages have stagnated. CEOs now make 900 times the salary of their average worker, the highest number since the age of the robber barons. The average worker keeps a smaller percentage of his own productivity than at any time in the past 35 yeras--the corporation keeps the rest. Who suffers from all this? Children, our future.

Here's a summary. The website itself has a very interesting graph showing how we compare to various other countries (www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_06232004):

"Social expenditures and child poverty—the U.S. is a noticeable outlier.

All advanced industrialized countries make an effort to reduce the number of children who live in poverty, but poverty remains a harsh reality for many children in every country. Child poverty is defined as children living in households where income is less than 50% of household median income within each country. Although children bear no responsibility for living in poverty, they are penalized not only in childhood but later in life if their health or education suffers from a lack of resources.*

All economies face the trade-off between how much money should be spent and what level of childhood poverty is acceptable. The data used in the figure below compare social economic expenditures and child poverty rates of the United States to that of 16 other rich, industrialized countries that, like the United States, belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The United States and these other countries face similar global conditions with respect to trade, investment, technology, the environment, and other factors that shape economic opportunities.* Thus, this comparison provides a yardstick for gauging the commitment of the U.S. government to reducing child poverty and its lifelong effects.

[graph]

The figure clearly illustrates that those countries with higher social expenditures — as a percentage of gross domestic product, or GDP — have dramatically lower poverty rates among children. The blue line in the figure shows the correlation between expenditures and child poverty rates for all countries. Individually, the Nordic countries — Sweden, Norway, and Finland — stand out, with child poverty rates between 2.8% and 4.2%. The United States stands out as the country with the lowest expenditures and the highest child poverty rate — five times as much as the Nordics.

The paucity of social expenditures addressing high poverty rates in the United States is not due to a lack of resources — high per capita income and high productivity make it possible for the United States to afford much greater social welfare spending. Moreover, other OECD countries that spend more on both poverty reduction and family-friendly policies have done so while maintaining competitive rates of productivity and income growth."

Mariner.

Maybe all that social spending also explains why the EU was formed to hold the US economic might in check. It may also explain why the Nordic countries haven't had any significant global impact since the Vikings went out slaughtering monks. I am sure all the poverty here in the US is why our immigration rate is so low and why we dont have a problem with illegal immigrants; after all, who would want to live in a country where there is so much poverty?

Again, I wonder why the hell anyone bothers to live her in the US.

Sarcasm folks.

 

[no1tovote4]

Maybe all that social spending also explains why the EU was formed to hold the US economic might in check. It may also explain why the Nordic countries haven't had any significant global impact since the Vikings went out slaughtering monks. I am sure all the poverty here in the US is why our immigration rate is so low and why we dont have a problem with illegal immigrants; after all, who would want to live in a country where there is so much poverty?

Again, I wonder why the hell anyone bothers to live her in the US.

Sarcasm folks.

This was my point in my original post, people come here for a reason and it isn't because life is so good where they live. There are three French immigrants at my work, they came here because they like the opportunity, not because they like to live poor.

 

[dmp]

If you know of a kid who needs to escape poverty, have them find a local recruiter. I don't know of anyone who was ever too poor to join the army.

 

[CSM]

If you know of a kid who needs to escape poverty, have them find a local recruiter. I don't know of anyone who was ever too poor to join the army.

WHAT??? You want them to work for a living??? You want them to become mindless robots; dehumanized by the training so they will commit horrific acts?
You want them to actually sacrifice their humanity just to make a little money? How cruel you are!

 

[dmp]

WHAT??? You want them to work for a living??? You want them to become mindless robots; dehumanized by the training so they will commit horrific acts?
You want them to actually sacrifice their humanity just to make a little money? How cruel you are!

That's what my father did. The fourth son of 9 kids, living in Kentucky, in poverty - some years, My Grandfather would make less than $100 all year; even in 1945-60 dollars that is not a lot of money. My father remembers Christmas gifts consisting of fruit. Yep. Imagine a 11 year old excited because he got 'a' banana for Christmas.

At 17 years of age, he enlisted and off he went. The Army brought him out west, to Boeing - where we worked as an Industrial Engineer; Winning IE of the Year for Boeing once, of the quarter several times. All with only a GED and a couple years of Bible College as his only education. My father had (has) something else though. My father never claims to be a victim of his circumstances, rather claws, fights, and prays his way thru rough times in life.

Now, at age 62 he's retired from Boeing, running a Tax business part of the year - living quite well.

I wish more people would know what you obviously know about 'serving', my friend. How can former soldiers like you and I and a few others get people to understand that Serving in the Military is not just a good way out of one environment, but could be the stepping stone to a new, better life - one not dreamed of prior.

(sigh). Why won't people listen?

 

[no1tovote4]

That's what my father did. The fourth son of 9 kids, living in Kentucky, in poverty - some years, My Grandfather would make less than $100 all year; even in 1945-60 dollars that is not a lot of money. My father remembers Christmas gifts consisting of fruit. Yep. Imagine a 11 year old excited because he got 'a' banana for Christmas.

At 17 years of age, he enlisted and off he went. The Army brought him out west, to Boeing - where we worked as an Industrial Engineer; Winning IE of the Year for Boeing once, of the quarter several times. All with only a GED and a couple years of Bible College as his only education. My father had (has) something else though. My father never claims to be a victim of his circumstances, rather claws, fights, and prays his way thru rough times in life.

Now, at age 62 he's retired from Boeing, running a Tax business part of the year - living quite well.

I wish more people would know what you obviously know about 'serving', my friend. How can former soldiers like you and I and a few others get people to understand that Serving in the Military is not just a good way out of one environment, but could be the stepping stone to a new, better life - one not dreamed of prior.

(sigh). Why won't people listen?

It is hard to hear over the protestors standing next to them. They have to actually actively listen in order to hear, and it is very difficult to find people who "care" so much and are willing to actually listen not only to what you are saying, but to what they are saying as well.

 

[CSM]

That's what my father did. The fourth son of 9 kids, living in Kentucky, in poverty - some years, My Grandfather would make less than $100 all year; even in 1945-60 dollars that is not a lot of money. My father remembers Christmas gifts consisting of fruit. Yep. Imagine a 11 year old excited because he got 'a' banana for Christmas.

At 17 years of age, he enlisted and off he went. The Army brought him out west, to Boeing - where we worked as an Industrial Engineer; Winning IE of the Year for Boeing once, of the quarter several times. All with only a GED and a couple years of Bible College as his only education. My father had (has) something else though. My father never claims to be a victim of his circumstances, rather claws, fights, and prays his way thru rough times in life.

Now, at age 62 he's retired from Boeing, running a Tax business part of the year - living quite well.

I wish more people would know what you obviously know about 'serving', my friend. How can former soldiers like you and I and a few others get people to understand that Serving in the Military is not just a good way out of one environment, but could be the stepping stone to a new, better life - one not dreamed of prior.

(sigh). Why won't people listen?

You have to remember that it is only recently that soldiering is considered an "honorable" profession (though there are still many like sagegirl who see soldiers as baby killers); many still see the military as some sort of second class alternate route; military people cant ever possible be as smart and enlightened as the college educated person. AND joining the military involves a committment to both yourself and the military instead of sitting on ones ass and waiting for the government to hand them success on a gold platter.

 

[Mr. P]

You have to remember that it is only recently that soldiering is considered an "honorable" profession (though there are still many like sagegirl who see soldiers as baby killers); many still see the military as some sort of second class alternate route; military people cant ever possible be as smart and enlightened as the college educated person. AND joining the military involves a committment to both yourself and the military instead of sitting on ones ass and waiting for the government to hand them success on a gold platter.

Yea...a bunch of second class folks we are..Not very intelligent at all..Take a couple of my best friends from
High school..Mike..he joined the Army and became an Arabic translator, a Ranger and Green
Beret. He got out, has a PHD and is a Professor at a College here in Georgia. Another good friend,
Fred, that poor slob joined the Navy went to medical school, got out and is an ER Doc in an Atlanta hospital.
And poor ole Mr. P..got all that flight training from the Army got out and helped save a few lives with medevac
flights.

What a sorry low class bunch of losers we are!

 

[CSM]

Yea...a bunch of second class folks we are..Not very intelligent at all..Take a couple of my best friends from
High school..Mike..he joined the Army and became an Arabic translator, a Ranger and Green
Beret. He got out, has a PHD and is a Professor at a College here in Georgia. Another good friend,
Fred, that poor slob joined the Navy went to medical school, got out and is an ER Doc in an Atlanta hospital.
And poor ole Mr. P..got all that flight training from the Army got out and helped save a few lives with medevac
flights.

What a sorry low class bunch of losers we are!

yeah I know, my friend joined the Army and ended up with A PhD in Mathematics, the stupid oaf. Somehow I ended up with a couple of BS degrees, that's how stupid I am!

 

[Mr. P]

yeah I know, my friend joined the Army and ended up with A PhD in Mathematics, the stupid oaf. Somehow I ended up with a couple of BS degrees, that's how stupid I am!

Maybe someday we can live up to the left wing liberal expectations of "being poor".

 

[Said1]

Maybe someday we can live up to the left wing liberal expectations of "being poor".

I think I'd measure up.

 

[no1tovote4]

I went in, became a Russian Translator. I then got out and went to college and became an Engineer. Hmmm. I guess I was just stupid.

 

[Mariner]

anyone who works his/her way out of poverty: good for you. My father's family lost everything they owned when Pakistan separated from India. They arrived in Delhi, and managed to put 7 kids through graduate school. My mother's family also lost everything in the Partition, and similarly was able to rebuild their lives. I have no argument with the idea that people can work their way out of poverty. But for whatever reason, many people can't do it--and their children suffer.

Also, I agree with No1ToVote4 that welfare needed reform--I supported Clinton's welfare reform. Now there is hardly any old-fashioned welfare left any more--it's all workfare. Problems still remain, i.e. people cutting back their work, or working under the table, because they otherwise lose benefits.

The only answer you've suggested so far to child poverty is that parents should work their way out. But is that realistic always? Have you read some of the descriptions of life on minimum wage? Americans are the most productive people on earth--we generate $37,900 per capita for our employers. But over the past thirty years, employers keep an increasing percentage of our productivity. During the recent "recovery," corporate profits increased, but wages haven't budged. This is where redistributive taxation and corporate taxes are crucial, along with increasing the minimum wage, to truly "lifting all boats."

Mariner.

 

[MissileMan]

anyone who works his/her way out of poverty: good for you. My father's family lost everything they owned when Pakistan separated from India. They arrived in Delhi, and managed to put 7 kids through graduate school. My mother's family also lost everything in the Partition, and similarly was able to rebuild their lives. I have no argument with the idea that people can work their way out of poverty. But for whatever reason, many people can't do it--and their children suffer.

Also, I agree with No1ToVote4 that welfare needed reform--I supported Clinton's welfare reform. Now there is hardly any old-fashioned welfare left any more--it's all workfare. Problems still remain, i.e. people cutting back their work, or working under the table, because they otherwise lose benefits.

The only answer you've suggested so far to child poverty is that parents should work their way out. But is that realistic always? Have you read some of the descriptions of life on minimum wage? Americans are the most productive people on earth--we generate $37,900 per capita for our employers. But over the past thirty years, employers keep an increasing percentage of our productivity. During the recent "recovery," corporate profits increased, but wages haven't budged. This is where redistributive taxation and corporate taxes are crucial, along with increasing the minimum wage, to truly "lifting all boats."

Mariner.

There are some people who are destined to work their entire lives for, or at near minimum wage. They are either too stupid, or unmotivated to progress further. These people need to realize that they can't afford to have a dozen kids and plan appropriately. Welfare should be a hand up, not a hand out. "Lifting all the boats" is a wonderful idea...but let's hand all the passengers a bucket and make them help bail.

 

[freeandfun1]

During the recent "recovery," corporate profits increased, but wages haven't budged. This is where redistributive taxation and corporate taxes are crucial, along with increasing the minimum wage, to truly "lifting all boats."

Mariner.

Have you ever thought that profits being generated today are currently paying for debt incurred over the past 5 years since the beginning of the decline? Once the debts are paid off, I am sure the companies will once again start raising wages. I am in the tech industry and I can tell you that things are picking up fairly nicely. If a company runs a deficit for several years in an attempt to keep employees, once profits return, that does not mean they are immediately relieved of their debt. Many companies recording profits today, ran in the red for several years...... hence the need to keep interest rates low over the last 6 years.

It is obvious the decline began before Bush took over, as the FED began cutting rates in 1998 in an attempt to prevent a recession.

 

[CSM]

anyone who works his/her way out of poverty: good for you. My father's family lost everything they owned when Pakistan separated from India. They arrived in Delhi, and managed to put 7 kids through graduate school. My mother's family also lost everything in the Partition, and similarly was able to rebuild their lives. I have no argument with the idea that people can work their way out of poverty. But for whatever reason, many people can't do it--and their children suffer.

Also, I agree with No1ToVote4 that welfare needed reform--I supported Clinton's welfare reform. Now there is hardly any old-fashioned welfare left any more--it's all workfare. Problems still remain, i.e. people cutting back their work, or working under the table, because they otherwise lose benefits.

The only answer you've suggested so far to child poverty is that parents should work their way out. But is that realistic always? Have you read some of the descriptions of life on minimum wage? Americans are the most productive people on earth--we generate $37,900 per capita for our employers. But over the past thirty years, employers keep an increasing percentage of our productivity. During the recent "recovery," corporate profits increased, but wages haven't budged. This is where redistributive taxation and corporate taxes are crucial, along with increasing the minimum wage, to truly "lifting all boats."

Mariner.

I don't know where you work but I suspect that since you are in the medical profession your annual income is not too bad. I also am willing to bet that it is substatially higher than most folks' on this board. I am against the redistribution of either my or YOUR income. I have not seen anywhere in the US constitution where it says the government shall redistribute the wealth of individuals.

My wages have risen reasonably over the past several years. My net income is what the US government terms as "middle class". My whole concern is that I at least stay middle class and hopefully move on to "upper middle class" (whatever the hell that is!). If the government decides they need more of MY money so some crack whore can have more food stamps...I get angry. I not only get angry, I get concerned. I am concerned that my boat will not float at all, never mind rise.

 

[Said1]

It is obvious the decline began before Bush took over, as the FED began cutting rates in 1998 in an attempt to prevent a recession.

Thank you, and a little research will varify that!