A Plan to End Child Poverty

[Sapphire Blue]

A Plan to End Child Poverty
Britain's Initiative Has Helped 700,000 Kids. Why Don't We Have a Goal, Too?

By Jared Bernstein and Mark Greenberg
Monday, April 3, 2006; A19

For anyone interested in reducing child poverty, there was heartening bad news out of Britain last month. In 1999 the Blair government introduced an initiative to end child poverty by 2020, with an initial goal of cutting it by one-quarter by April of last year. Recently the government reported that it missed that target: The number of children in poverty dropped by "only" about 17 percent -- some 700,000 kids over the past five years.

If only we could have such problems in this country.

Since 2000 the number of American children living in poverty has risen 12 percent -- to 13 million. The initial growth was due to the economic downturn. But since then, despite the ongoing expansion, the poverty rate for children on this side of the pond keeps rising, largely because the benefits of the recovery have flowed so disproportionately to families at the top of the income scale.

But in the United Kingdom, the policy-driven focus on reducing child poverty has helped to ensure that economic growth is reaching those at the bottom of the income scale. Yes, they've missed an interim target, and some parts of the plan need rethinking, but they're making progress while we're backsliding.

(snip)

Is it even conceivable that we could adapt such a target here? Absolutely. In fact, a spate of recent news stories has pointed out that a major national party whose name begins with D is in desperate need of a big, unifying idea. What's bloody wrong with this one?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040201091_pf.html

[etherealtruth]

1. Those children are poor ...

... because their parents are lazy and vile ... they come from the same gene pool ... therefore; they are lazy and vile :sarcasm:

Isn't that how vilification of the poor works? We have no intention of dealing with poverty on any level here. I wish organized religion would get behind this as much as they get behind some of their bigoted ideals.

Yes, I know many religious groups do try to fight poverty (esp. childhood) ... but not with the unity behind "anti-choice," etc.

Upon edit: "God, I wish I could spell"

[pstans]

2. Thom Hartman talked about this today

It was pretty good. He got into it with a Rethug author named Ron Scarborough.

[Sapphire Blue]

4. I caught his show today... it WAS good... and Thom Hartmann was excellent.

... while Scarborough seemed to show concern only for cells developing inside a woman's body.

[SoCalDem]

3. Help the parent-help the child..

Children are poor because their PARENTS are poor.

Regardless of what the TV shows us, it takes $$$$$ to raise kids. They need a decent place to live, decent food, decent educating..and they need stability.. Those are things that come with decent well-paid jobs for their parents..

MOST parents can raise their own children, but SOME need financial help..

It always aggravates me when children are in foster care to the tune of thousands per month paid to strangers, and yet when the parents of the same kids asked for help, they were often (if not USUALLY) turned down.

The same money, devoted to the original family could have a much prefered outcome.

disclaimer: abusive families NOT included

[etherealtruth]

5. The "poor" have been villified ...

... for some time in this country. to be poor is to be "evil".

All you stated is true ... think about the stresses put on a parent that is unable to provide for their child(ren).

[Odin2005]

12. This comes from Calvinism.

Calvinism turned traditional Christian values of chairity on thier head by making wealth a sign of heavenly blessing and poverty a mark of damnation.

[etherealtruth]

13. I didn't know that ... thanks! eom

[november3rd]

6. unplug the war machine

america won't be able to help kids or posterity until we get over our megalomania.

disarm

shut the pentagon

government for the people

[Cleita]

7. Not until we get rid of the neo-cons running our country and

get progressive thinkers into government.

[Sapphire Blue]

8. But why isn't the Democratic Party focusing on poverty now???

As I remember, John Edwards was the only candidate in the 'o4 election who discussed poverty; since the election, he has become the Director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity. What are all of the other Dems doing? What is the Party doing? We may not be in power at the moment, but we need to unite the country behind this issue... so that we can get progressive thinkers into government... and we can do this.

[Cleita]

9. I don't know except that many of our Democrats in office are

almost as corrupt at the Republicans.

[electron_blue]

10. The U.S. is too busy having a class civil war right now

And, sadly, having more poor kids around helps the upper class win (for the moment).

[Sapphire Blue]

11. Well, the rich may have the power, but we have the numbers.

Now all the Democratic Party has to do is appeal to these numbers... lots of votes down here in the trenches!