Report: One in Six Children in the U.S. Are Hungry
Published May 14, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
A new report (pdf) released last week by Feeding America claims that one in six young children (those who are five-years-old and younger) in 26 U.S. states face a constant threat of food insecurity. That adds up to 3.5 million young children in this country who do not have adequate access to healthy food.
The statistics in the report—Child Food Insecurity in the United States: 2005 – 2007—were compiled using data collected by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS).
Perhaps an even more disturbing statistic is that the rate of food insecurity in young children is 33 percent higher than the rate experienced by U.S. adults, where only one in eight live at risk of hunger. I personally find it deeply troubling that there are so many hungry children in this country who don’t have the ability to provide for themselves.
The rate of hunger in all children (those 18-years-old and younger) has also drastically increased in recent years when compared to USDA data compiled between 2003 and 2005.
Although USDA ERS releases a report each year detailing food insecurity across the nation, this Feeding America report is the first ever to look at child hunger on a state-by-state basis. The organization hired John Cook, PhD from the Boston Medical Center to conduct the state based analysis.
Here are some interesting and disturbing trends from the state-by-state report:
-In terms of young children, Louisiana has the highest rate (24.2) of food insecurity in the country followed by North Carolina (24.1), Ohio (23.8), Kentucky (23.3), Texas (23.3), New Mexico (23.3), Kansas (20.9), South Carolina (20.7), Tennessee (20.4), Idaho (20.2), and Arkansas (20).
-For all children, Texas leads the nation (22.1) in rate of food insecurity followed by Mississippi (21.5), the District of Columbia (21.4), Tennessee (20.5), Arizona (20.2), South Carolina (20.2), Louisiana (20) and Missouri (20).
-Doing a quick regional analysis myself, it seems as though New England does the best job of ensuring its children have access to healthy food. All of the states in the region have rates of food insecurity under 20 percent with only Maine and Vermont having rates higher than 15 percent.
Besides the fact that it is every persons basic human right to have access to healthy food, there are many long-term health consequences to food insecurity, especially in the early years of life. As the report's lead researcher notes:
The first three years of life are the most critical period of brain growth and development. Child hunger causes physical and mental impairment that may never be reversed. Child hunger also creates tremendous costs that are completely unavoidable. There is no better investment in a prosperous future than investing in ending childhood hunger.
I've talked in the past about the need to expand the federal WIC program and other food assistance programs to meet the growing need of the country's hungry families. This report shows that these actions are needed now, not years down the road. As the country continues to feel the pains of our worst recession since the Great Depression, the number of hungry children is likely to continue to grow in the months and years ahead.
Now that the tragedy of childhood hunger has been documented in each state throughout the nation, there is no time to waste. While donating time, funding and food to hunger relief organizations is a fantastic short-term way to solve this problem, we need federal and state policies in place that will provide an adequate safety net to all of the nation's children.
(Photo credit: babasteve on Flickr)
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
When School Lunch Goes on Summer Vacation...
-
Poverty + Food Insecurity = Obesity
-
1 in 5 Elderly are Poor
Comments (77)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Greg Plotkin is currently a grant-writer living in Washington, DC. As a two-year AmeriCorps member teaching in DC Public Schools, he saw families struggling with poverty on a daily basis and has become particularly interested in hunger, nutrition and food access issues. He has also viewed poverty through the lens of his work with Habitat for Humanity and Charlie's Place--a DC soup kitchen and homeless support center.
Featured Poverty in America Actions
-
-
-
Repeal the Hyde Amendment!
87 People
-
Repeal the Hyde Amendment!
At the Capital Area Food Bank, which is literally just minutes away from the US Capitol building, we see the effects of hunger on our region every day. 633,000 people in the DC metro region - right in Congress' backyard - are at risk of not getting enough to eat. 200,000 of them are children.
Mr. Plotkin makes an excellent point when he states that policy changes are key to lasting solutions to this issue. The CAFB actively seeks to support such change by educating the community about hunger, and empowering its supporters to be advocates for social justice.
Until poverty has been eradicated, however, food banks play an essential role in helping our neighbors access the vital nutrition they need to grow and thrive. The child who can focus in school today because he or she has eaten breakfast is more likely to succeed tomorrow.
Learn more about the Capital Area Food Bank's work and plans to expand at www.GrowTheFoodBank.org.
Posted by Hilary Salmon on 05/14/2009 @ 02:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Leigh, this is crisis more immediate than the shortage of health care. No person of any age should ever go hungry in this country. America exports more food to starving people than any country on the planet. I don't want that to stop, but this is absurd!
Posted by Charlie Reed on 05/15/2009 @ 05:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Agreed!
Shame on us for living in a country that has access to more resources than any other nation in the world and starves it's own children!!
Shame on us!
Posted by Who Knew? ... on 05/15/2009 @ 06:53AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The WIC program and the SNAP program (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, "food stamps") need to be integrated.
WIC is superior in that it describes precisely what food is covered. Unfortunately, SNAP covers any "non-deli" human food--without regard to nutritional value.
Posted by C W on 05/15/2009 @ 06:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Cecily, Although normally I believe government should keep it's nose out of telling people what to eat, in this case I tend to make an exception and agree. If We are trying to make sure kids get the nutritious food They need to be healthy and do well in school, then We need to do that first and worry about treats further down the road.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 05/15/2009 @ 08:10AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Let's keep the local food banks stocked. It's the only way to help our neighbors in need. We have to keep the government out of our communities - particularly the federal government. If it gets involved the problem will only be worse and cost the taxpayers more.
Posted by Richard Forrest on 05/15/2009 @ 01:54PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Under your proposal millions would starve and die.
In a more convincing note, SNAP and other federal nutrition assistance programs are market solutions to hunger. The idea being, if people are hungry, give them money to go to the store. This is an economic stimulus, and promotes small business.
Besides, the government is already involved. Where do you think Food Banks get the large majority of their food? It comes through government commodity purchasing programs, such as TEFAP, CSFP, and others at the state and city levels. They cost a lot. Which leads me to the final point: charity is expensive. Food charity costs the United States about $14 billion annually. And, the kicker, it doesn't do a very good job at ending the problem.
With just another $10-12 billion invested annually in the SNAP (formerly known as Food Stamps) program, most experts agree we could do away with food insecurity.
You do the math: $14 billion for a low-impact charity approach, or $12 billion which could potentially generate $20.4 billion in food purchasing in local communities (for every $1 invested in SNAP, about $1.70 is generated in economic activity). I say we do what's cheaper, more efficient, and allows for consumer freedom.
Posted by Michael Paone on 05/24/2009 @ 08:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael has a point here. An awful lot of "charity work" for the poor isn't done with the use of local donations. It's done with the use of national grants or with money from grants from the government and quite often, most of the money comes from federal grants. Why? Because such charities don't receive nearly enough donations to do what's needed to operate only on donations.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/24/2009 @ 08:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Charity begins at home! Stop sending billions of dollars worth of food to the African muslims who hate us and kill our troops until all of our own United States children are fed, and that includes the poor white children living in Appalachia!
Posted by Leonard Meyer on 05/15/2009 @ 02:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I would truly like to know WHY one in six children in the U.S. are not adequately nourished. I suspect there is a combination of several factors. I assume some people would say that benefits are not adequate, but there must be more to it than that.
Posted by C W on 05/15/2009 @ 03:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
To a good degree it IS inadequate benefits, but that's not really the direct answer. It spins from inadequate funding of benefit programs and inadequate assessment of need because the Federal Poverty Line vastly underestimates the real cost of living in this country and thus equally underestimates the amount of need and number of impoverished.
That said, there are many who for various reasons won't or don't sign up for or use the benefits for which they actually are eligible or who don't know that they are eligible for various benefits. There are also others that neglect or abuse their children - or fellow adults for that matter - and underfeeding/malnutrition seems to be a common method of choice for this. So inadequate benefits in food programs aren't the only reason, just one of several. Pride, education, better Child and Adult Protective Services, better domestic violence services and better mental health services all could factor in as things that might help prevent or cause inadequate nutrition.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/16/2009 @ 10:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is sad especially since we live in the wealthiest nation in the world.
Posted by Casey Williams on 05/16/2009 @ 08:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The problem with making SNAP or food stamps or whatever the latest name for the program is work just like WIC is that it presumes EVERYONE can eat the same diet which is flat out untrue. I personally CANNOT eat the level of fiber provided in a WIC diet - something that drives me nuts because I LOVE fresh veggies and whole grains. If I eat the amount of veggies and whole grains that WIC or standard dietary info says I'm supposed to be eating I end up very ill. I have to eat low fat too due to some of my illnesses. A one size fits all program wouldn't take people like me into consideration any more than SNAP does. The problem isn't how the funds are provided. The problem often isn't even that people don't know what to buy. The problem quite simply is that aid - no matter how provided - is NOT adequate when you pause to consider the actual cost of things like living in this country or even JUST the cost of healthy foods. If you want to make it to the end of the month with your food stamps and not spend a ton of your personal funds on food, trust me you're eating a ton of junk food - and quite likely not just junk food but whatever junk food is on sale when you're shopping.
As to claims of food stamp shoppers regularly buying nothing but cakes and steaks, I'd love to know how they're doing that. I teach friends and family members how to shop because they're all so impressed with how well I can shop for groceries (I was the only one who paid any real attention to Grandma's I-survived-the-Depression shopping tips), but even *I* can't buy stuff like that. We live on pasta or rice and whatever meat I find in the bargain bin when the sales are changing and by doing stuff like this, using coupons and my club card I can usually save about half off my average grocery run and minimize what cash I spend to roughly equal my food stamps. Still, steak - even cheap cuts - is very rarely seen in our home. Fish is pretty rare too unless you count canned tuna and canned salmon and once in a while some imitation crab. But if I serve much more chicken, I swear we'll start growing beaks and feathers. Cakes though? Would a once a year angel food cake to go with the annual strawberries count? Does that make me wasteful?
BTW, there ARE limits beyond "you can't buy deli food". You can't buy gourmet cheeses, certain beverages, and I'm not sure what else.
Realistically and honestly though, people on food stamps are already suffering the burdens and realities of poverty is it really fair or necessary to make them suffer the indignities and inhumanity of publicly inspecting and commenting upon the contents of their grocery carts? Believe it or not, it's far from uncommon for that to happen. People seem to think that because it's "my tax money" paying for "your food" that they have some sort of innate right to say what the person with food stamps should or shouldn't be buying - comments on healthy foods, comments on luxury foods, comments on "wasteful foods", even comments on "what someone like you" shouldn't be eating. Dagnabitall, we're poor people trying our damnedest to survive, not lab rats or zoo critters wandering about for inspection and/or weird entertainment.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/16/2009 @ 09:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You do raise a good point, and I know because my husband also has special diet needs and can't drink cow's milk so we have to buy more expensive goat's milk.
What I would like to see is programs where all healthy foods are included and things like soda and processed foods are out of the question.
Posted by Shannon Simmons on 05/19/2009 @ 08:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What? A person shouldn't have the option to even once in a while buy a bottle of soda, hot dogs or cakes (or a cake mix) because that's less than ideal on someone else's arbitrary list - and as a result steal all the joy that might come from stuff like birthday celebrations, Fourth-of-July picnics and bunny cakes at Easter all because poor people don't deserve such? This seems awfully discriminatory and dehumanizing. I could see expanding the budget so that encourages and allows the purchase of more healthy foods and perhaps also more restrictions on cheap heat-and-eats like mac-and-cheez or $1 frozen dinners but even the poor can be trusted - and should be allowed to make some choices and have some flexibility - to buy at least a few treats and not all treats need to be pure health food.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/19/2009 @ 09:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks, Danetta. But in all fairness, this topic is malnourished children. If one has a limited amount to spend on food, and SNAP allegedly does limit the value of what one can buy--and if one is accompanied by several children who are running amok--it is logical to think that the children might benefit from fruits and vegetables.
Posted by C W on 05/16/2009 @ 10:21PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I used myself only as an example. Another great example is WIC's strong emphasis on peanut butter. What about the many people with nut or at least peanut allergies? Are they supposed to give up that large source of protein? Hmm? What if I were a child? Would my Mom be supposed to simply not feed me because I can't eat the foods she's allowed to buy me? Would she get in trouble with CPS because I got even further malnourished than I tend to naturally be because of my mix of GI disorders (that I've had for life, BTW) because the new program only allowed her to buy foods I can't eat and she couldn't afford to buy the foods I can (they're quite expensive)? Would the parent(s) of a child like me be mandated to institutionalize their child or give them up for adoption to someone who "could afford" the necessary special diets? Worse, what if the case with my husband and I was instead duplicated with children instead - we're supposed to eat diametrically opposed special diets where the only thing in common is low fat but even in that we're supposed to be eating different fat sources? Is the family just supposed to curl up and die slowly of starvation because they're not allowed to buy anything other than the chosen diet? This is ALREADY a problem whether you're talking WIC or food stamps. WIC figures you can either eat what they provide or you can choose between starving and buying it yourself. Food stamps figures that you've got to figure out how to make the tiny pittance they give you (which figures out to around $21/week) buy enough food for basic survival - never mind healthy and certainly you can forget special diets.
Think of it this way too, if one is accompanied by children is it logical to think of feeding them a few fruits and vegetables or is it more logical to think in terms of "what's more likely to keep their bellies full and to do so for more meals on more days"? Unfortunately, for all too many of the poor, this is the choice that meal planning comes down to - eat what I/we should or buy what lets me/us eat more often. This is why cost assessments and poverty assessments really NEED to be truly ACCURATE - something they're very far from being right now.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/16/2009 @ 10:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, you are right. WIC does need to have more flexibility to accommodate special dietary needs--whether health based or philosophy based. (I'm vegan and a group of us are trying to persuade the local public school district to provide vegan protein options in the school lunch program.)
I allow myself $1.00 per day for food (am very thin, but according to the MD, surprisingly healthy). But I am old, there is no way a younger person--and certainly not a child--could survive on that. Fortunately, I'm not allergic to peanut butter. (No, I don't receive food stamps--sorry, SNAP.) In fact $3.00 per day is a stretch when the price for a "lowly" can of store brand spinach has increased more than 100% since last summer.
Another problem is food accessibility. I live within a mile of three chain supermarkets--an easy walk for me--and a farmers market in a local park one day a week. In the "economically depressed" areas of this city there are very few supermarkets and zero farmers markets.
Posted by C W on 05/17/2009 @ 06:15AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I've worked a lot with people on WIC, I'm on whatever they want to call food stamps (and renaming a program neither fixes it nor makes any of the underlying problems go away). I know from those with whom I've worked and from personal experience that there's this one-size-fits-all approach in both programs. Whether you want to look at that as an issue from physical limitations like I've mentioned or philosophical ones like you did, even a lot of us who've bought clothing know one-size-fits-all really fits no one.
Going with me, only because that's the example I know best, as an infant I was hospitalized for 2 weeks where the only thing I could eat was apple juice - which at the time baffled even doctors. Eventually it got figured out I could take low or non fat cow's milk or goat's milk - but what put me in the hospital was I got so malnourished because I literally couldn't tolerate breastmilk. Slowly over the years we've figured out over the years more foods I could eat. It wasn't until I was 39 that someone figured out I have "idiopathic gastropareses" to explain at least part of this mess. Someone with gastroparesis needs a limited diet decidedly different from the standard diet - doesn't matter what their age. Someone with celiac would have trouble with a WIC type program too since they can't eat anything with the tiniest bits of gluten. My GI doc said she is just floored that the existing programs allow no room for adjustment for people with dietary restrictions until their malnutrition is bad enough to qualify them for meal replacement drinks - under medical supplies. There is something decidedly wrong with this picture.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/17/2009 @ 08:26AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
We have the technological capability to introduce flexibility in these programs. We should be using it.
For example, "My Pyramid"--a government produced nutritional "bible" (it has some flaws but. ..) lists several sources of protein. It would seem that government agencies would permit the distribution of all these sources in food assistance programs.
Posted by C W on 05/17/2009 @ 08:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As evidenced above by contributors, the tentacles of poverty and hunger are shape shifters hiding in many forms.
Please, for the edifiacition of those preyed upon by corporate evil, please re-instate my posting.
Contributions to the systemic evil of hunger and poverty is not spamming .
Please.
Posted by Frederic Starchenkov... on 05/17/2009 @ 09:48AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Frederic, I've been away and not monitoring the comments on this post as closely as I usually do.
I apologize if for some reason your comment was deleted, but unfortunately I cannot repost it.
Please do continue to contribute to the conversation.
Posted by Greg Plotkin on 05/17/2009 @ 07:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
In all fairness, can someone PLEASE explain how on earth paying an employee by debit card rather than via paycheck - particularly an employee who doesn't have any bank accounts in which to accept direct deposit (which is usually the only condition under which an employee can be required to accept payment by debit card because generally the states allowing payment by debit card allow "automatic payments" meaning the employers can require employees to either have a bank account set up for direct deposit or accept payment to a debit care) some how "steals" from employees and further pushes them into poverty?
A debit card isn't a credit card. Anyone who thinks it is doesn't understand what a debit card really is. And isn't is the EMPLOYEE'S responsibility to track their finances no matter how they receive their pay - cash, check, direct deposit, debit card, whatever? It's not a bank's fault, a debit card company's fault or their employer's fault if they're unable to keep track of their finances and certainly not if - and many people do - they're trying to intentionally kite a few checks or debits for a day or two just before payday. How can resultant fees be anyone's fault but their own?
OK, sure, many people at all income levels could clearly after this recent financial debacle clearly use some much better financial education - but I still fail to see where Mr. Starchencov's repeated claims about debit cards as a form of payment to employees bear truth rather than being misleading and/or misinformation at best in many instances.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/18/2009 @ 12:01AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dear Greg Plotkin, please no apologies, i apologize that maybe i did not state clearly enough before, but will endeavor to be more succinct now.
And i appreciate Danetta Amschler's questions that i will try to peal back the layers leading to clarity by way of response.
Posted by Frederic Starchenkov... on 05/18/2009 @ 01:43AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Also (1) some banks assess charges for your debit card if you don't use it a certain number of times during a statement period, and (2) some (particularly discount) grocers won't accept debit cards. For example, at least here, Aldi's accepts only cash or EBTF.
Further the the banks/debit card companies "own" your debit card and can assess various charges. Basically when you're paid by debit card, a middleman is inserted.
Posted by C W on 05/18/2009 @ 05:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Technically, how is that different than being paid in anything other than cash? If paid by check you still have to cash it. This means paying check cashing fees (ouch!), money order fees (ouch again!) and then trying to keep any remaining cash safe. Or you can deposit it into a checking account and hope your bank is trustworthy and that you know how to do banking - which I know from growing up, not everyone does (some people are miserable at banking - like my Dad who quit writing checks when the overdraft notices started arriving). I fail to see how either of these is honestly any worse than a debit card - and both already involve middlemen.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/18/2009 @ 06:02AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Unfortunately I live in Texas where it has seemed more important to do many things before feeding the hungry. Don't know exactly what those are but I know that I have seem a change since 1992. I was on foodstamp0s and WIC from 1993 to 1997. I found out that I had a child with a disabilility.
History: Got Food stamps and Wic 1992
1994 had to be looking for a job to recieve benefits. Eventhough I had no one to watch my son, and daycares could not do it because of the liability of watching a child with a disability. Texas Workforce Commission.
1996 If I owned a vehicle, it was considered assests and i could not recieve Foodstamps. So if you are in Texas you can't have a car, even if it is a handicapped van for your child to go his therapies. I got my food from the many extra agencies here in the state we have to have to survive.
Posted by lynda Lyons-James on 05/18/2009 @ 09:27AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That's where it would immensely help if the Feds would step in, make a set of guidelines, make those guidelines firm and then nationalize them with a possible exception for some flexibility ONLY on income limits or amount of help due to the difference in the amount it costs to live in various areas. A car to many is a NECESSITY, not a luxury. Want to work? Have someone in your family with a disability that limits their mobility? That car is a necessity. Live outside of town even if neither of the aforementioned applies? The car is still likely to be a necessity. Sure, I could see saying that people on food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare Savings Programs, TANF, or various other help programs shouldn't own brand new Hummers, Mercedes, etc - but NO car or ONLY a car that's just waiting for an excuse to join the junkyard? This is where guidelines need to start getting realistic.
Same thing with the insistence upon work. Sure, I can see working IF work is reasonably possible AND the adult(s) involved are capable - with reasonably possible and the adult(s) involve are capable all being key words. It doesn't matter if the adult(s) is/are capable if support - like training or baby sitting - isn't available. It also doesn't matter if all the support necessary to make work reasonably possible for the average adult IS available but the adult(s) is/are disabled. This nation is in all too many cases trying to make people work where the support necessary for them to work simply isn't there and/or to make them work where they simply are too disabled and/or there aren't employers willing to work with their level or types of disability. Welfare-to-work and all our nation's other attempts to return people to work require a lot more than "go get a job". It needs to be more than an attempt to reduce the budget - it MUST be an effective attempt to return those dependent upon said help to work WHILE reducing the budget. Anything less is cruel.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/18/2009 @ 11:13AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't know because "any way, you pay". I don't know that any method is inherently evil. Frederic, would you please post a couple of examples?
Posted by C W on 05/18/2009 @ 09:28AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
America is suffering right now.So what we need
to do is raise taxes.But not to much that everyone
gets mad and bring factorys back to the US.
If we bring factorys back we have jobs and
other countrys will buy are produact.Their for
raiseing the economy ending the debt and createing
millions of jobs.
List on how to do this.
1# Raise taxes
2# Bring back factorys
3# Sell US made products
4# Invest in are schools
I dont care how we do it.
We could even sell food.
And everyone knows America
is known for most taste full
foods.Not saying we should
not feed the children but
by all means do so.
If your afraid of americans
not voteing because the raised
taxes.Then dont raise them.
But do bring factorys back
To the US.
Hope This Helps
Posted by John Gormay on 05/18/2009 @ 12:33PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you, Greg Plotkin.
Posted by Frederic Starchenkov... on 05/18/2009 @ 03:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The problem isn't HOW people are paid. The problem is WHAT people are paid. All too many employers refuse to pay employees anything above a poverty wage - never mind a "livable" wage. All too many employers refuse to let their employees work anything anywhere near full time or to give them a way to get benefits like health insurance (or to afford them if they are available). These things have all long been problems, since payroll converted to cash. Since then, banks started charging to cash payroll checks and then check cashing "stores" popped up quickly followed by pay day advance "stores".
The problem also is that food - any food - costs too much and aid simply isn't available, plus what aid does exist is basically delusional about the cost of living so you can be honestly impoverished and still get told you "should be able to afford what you need". This is also the problem with stuff like medical care and housing. I'd still like to know where on earth the federal government thinks you can find anything to rent for $389 - because if it does exist, I'm moving there. I can't find a thing that isn't subsidized under $425 - in any state.
As stated before, I also know all too well that many adults mismanage funds. I honestly do know a LOT of people who abuse credit and/or who think balancing their bank account means to quit writing checks or using their debit card when the bank sends overdraft notices. How is this the fault of employers or any part of the finance, banking or credit industries? Those are basic parts of financial management that anyone should know about.
I also know from personal experience that all too often money - and food - are part of how abusers abuse their family members. This isn't the fault of anyone but the abuser - however that there are so few resources available for escaping abusers is a mix of family and societal problems. It's not nearly as simple to leave as "he or she is a jerk, I'm walking out the door today". You've got to find housing (at least a place to go temporarily like a shelter - and the shelters are all too often full and cherry picking who they'll take), gather minimum supplies like documents and medications, and wait for just the right moment to sneak away safely.
Many states already allow payroll to be paid by direct deposit or debit/pay cards without issue. The SSA at least has seriously considered implementing (if they're not already working to implement) a similar plan where everyone would have to either be paid via direct deposit or via a debit/pay card issued to them by the SSA. I honestly fail to see where this is a civil rights issue, where it threatens the "American way", where it "steals" from anyone, where it could compare to "cancer", "slavery", or any other misery. A debit/pay card is simply another method of dispensing pay. It's the recipient's responsibility to learn how to use it and manage it properly just like they'd need to do with their pay no matter how they received it.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/18/2009 @ 04:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you all for your comments. I've been craving the chance to sit down and contribute to the conversation and have finally managed to put some time aside to do so.
Moving back toward the issue of hunger in America, I think the simple truth is that the systems that are designed to ensure an adequate supply of food for all are broken.
Our food system is broken. Our social safety net is broken. This isn't a private sector or public sector problem, it's everyone's problem, and we all have to do our part to fix it.
As I and others have suggested, government food aid programs must better support each other. A standard set of eligibility requirements nationwide would work to alleviate many of the headaches associated with applying for and receiving benefits. (Although, as others have suggested there would have to be some flexibility for differing income levels in regions of the country.)
And as I've talked about before, the way that we think about, purchase and consume food is far from what it should be like. Yes, I know that obviously not everyone (and not really many people for that matter) are able to afford shopping at their local farmers market. But buying food directly from farmers is not about paying $4/lb for tomatoes. It is about making an effort to distance ourselves from a food system that is dominated by corporations telling us what we want to eat, and telling us what we should eat.
I'd like to envision a time where food pantries and soup kitchens have given way to regional food systems designed to support the nutritional needs of everyone. Healthy, local food doesn't have to be as expensive as it is. Now, these products are considered "specialty items" and farmers market to who will pay the most. And who can blame them? Everyone needs to make a living. Maybe someday when this sort of food is the status quo, everyone will be able to afford it and hunger will be no more.
In the meantime, we need the government to do its part and design a system that is effective and efficient, and meets the needs of everyone. Especially the one in six hungry children in this country.
Posted by Greg Plotkin on 05/18/2009 @ 07:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Odd you bring that up about local foods. I remember growing up in a farm town. When I was a child, my parents could go directly to the farmers or even to the processors quite a lot of the time and buy produce directly. Buying food that way cost a small fraction of what it did even in the local supermarkets though you had to settle for whatever produce was in season and often had to buy it by the case - though this wasn't a problem if you were willing to can or freeze the extras. Now, as you mention, try the same thing and suddenly it's a premium thing and costs even more than whatever is at the local supermarket. On the bright side, the local growers are more likely to be selling ripe tomatoes and berries so if you have the money it's worth the extra cash for the quality for these and a few other items. I'm thinking though, knowing as many farm families as I do from growing up and from among my relatives, that a good part of this may be a result of our own government's farming and food policies that have helped to encourage things like factory and corporate farming. Things that have really squeezed out many of the "little guys" and a lot of the crops beyond certain commodities in many areas.
Having seen life on both sides of the poverty line (as defined by the Federal Poverty Line) and having worked and lived among those in poverty quite a bit of my life, I'm growing more and more convinced though that a huge part of the problem is how poverty itself is defined and thus how aid programs are defined and funded. For example, the 2009 FPL poverty guideline for a family of 2 is $14,570. If I were capable of the necessary level of cruelty, I'd force some policy makers to live for at least 6 months on just that amount (or the amount applicable to their actual family size for 100% poverty), making sure they got no outside help beyond JUST that typically available through their state of residence's welfare programs for those in their family - and see how well they do on those funds with just that help. The FPL wasn't figured correctly from the beginning as as time has progressed it's gotten increasingly inaccurate in assessing poverty. Yet the government still insists that it works and arbitrarily applies the figures asserted by the FPL's formula no matter what proof is available that one or more parts aren't working. For example, there's plenty of documentation that the housing allowance - or even how it's figured as a percentage of income - is off by a very large amount. And if we continue to fail to recognize the actual state of poverty - and continue to shame and degrade those in poverty - not only will there never be enough aid or properly administered aid programs, but many of those who most need the help will be too ashamed or embarrassed to go get the help out of worry over what others might think should they realize how much in poverty they are...
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/18/2009 @ 08:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
First, all government food assistance programs should be processed through a single venue, single agency. The current mess of subprograms (SNAP-WIC-school lunch) is enefficient and--apparently--extremely ineffective.
Second, we have the technological capability to "tailor" the resulting program to permit legitimate flexibility. For example, to permit non-meat protein options for vegans, or (say) a string cheese alternative for peanut butter for someone who is allergic to peanuts.
Third, eligible food should be restricted (somehat in the manner of WIC) but with some flexibility within the protein-vegetable-fruit groups to permit substitution for legitimate health or philosophical reasons.
Posted by C W on 05/19/2009 @ 09:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree with you in terms of modernization of food assistance programs. SNAP and all, are demonstrably difficult and punitive in comparison to things like Unemployment Insurance and SSI. It's like night and day.
That said, I would favor rewards or supplemental benefits for purchases of fresh food over other items, ON TOP OF, normal benefits. The idea being, if you want to stretch the benefits, here is a smart way to do it and be healthy at the same time. Restriction and nit-picking certain items deemed 'unhealthy' at best would dog down the program in a quagmire of debate and rule creation, and at worst, be pretty demaning and restrict consumer choice, the very dignity the programs aim to provide.
Posted by Michael Paone on 05/24/2009 @ 08:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
My post regarding "steaks and cakes" was removed because "This kind of moralizing and ignorant judgment is not welcome here". Yes, I am aware of how many taxpayer dollars go into other public services. I am also aware of some of the abuses connected with recipients of these taxpayer dollars.
Despite what I have seen, I apologize since apparently SNAP clients never abuse the system.
Posted by C W on 05/20/2009 @ 10:05AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You're welcome to insult SNAP clients elsewhere based on your personal experiences. But it's not welcome here. Get used to it.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 05/20/2009 @ 10:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you, Leigh.
Posted by C W on 05/20/2009 @ 11:21AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Here is a bit of up coming information on Poverty and Hunger. Any editor is free to write about theupcoming event.
t Spalding University in Louisville, Kentucky from Thursday July 16-Sunday July 19.
This nation wide conference is the first of its kind. It's for every race and color. It's for grass root and well known leaders against homelessness. Its Aim is to undo most harm caused by poverty.
Foods stamps came out of the 1969 act. It is now called snap. Out of the first nation wide poverty conference can come an end to all Hunger caused by poverty. Let us find the nswer
We must put aside or fears to end hunger, by trying something new paying a livable wage to all.
The poverty threshold must begin Not as its been the past 50 counting only the costs of food. People, need rents, refrigerators, stove on which to store to cook the food.
They need the cost of health care,utilities, transportation to the docters to work and to get food. They need the prices of repair, and once a year charges as insurance-What every human being requires is enough to cover the basic's and have recreation.
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 05/21/2009 @ 08:16AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Exactly. If we're going to honestly help, we need to help the adults ENOUGH so that they can at least minimally meet ALL of the family's basic expenses - food, rent, utilities, transportation, etc. - without having to do things like figure out which meals can be minimized or even skipped and what bills not to pay at all. Which means we need guidelines based on a poverty line that honestly recognizes the ACTUAL cost of living. Not the one we have now based on Molly Orshansky's presumptions about what family/household budgets ought to look like and were then projected into what the various family sizes could/should live on as a minimal (poverty) income - because the current poverty guideline (the Federal Poverty Line or FPL insists upon things like an imaginary $389/mo apartment, I'd still like to know where to find one of those - it's almost $200/mo cheaper than anything I can find).
The other thing, whether many adults like it or not, is that we as a society desperately need a child protective services agency that works EFFECTIVELY and APPROPRIATELY. One that actually investigates allegations of abuse, but that can recognize the difference between real and false allegation. One that doesn't take their frustrations out on the parents (or foster parents) when someone points out that CPS has done something wrong or when someone questions something CPS has done. Why? Because, unfortunately for children, not all children who are hungry - or who go without clothes or medical care - are that way because of money. There's a noteworthy number who suffer in silence because of abuse and/or neglect and many - including in many cases children - are as afraid of CPS as they are of the abuse. This isn't right and it's certainly not in the best interest of the children.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/21/2009 @ 08:48AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Everyone always wants to help the kids but forgets that all the adults raising those kids were once kids they felt were worthy of help but couldn't get it because their parents never got it. We need to build dignity into the system because without dignity it is harder to overcome your situation and believe that you are worth more than your circumstances. We need to increase minimum wage to livable wage because we have CEO's who make millions and single mothers who can't work because daycare would counteract their paycheck almost entirely.
What's wrong with this picture?! It disgusts me that our society condones this. My stomach turns when I hear someone say that our poor are just "living off the system" or "on my paycheck". Never was a more ignorant, disgusting phrase spoken.
I'm a little off topic here but I just wanted to get this down.
Posted by Michele Rodriguez on 05/21/2009 @ 02:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Word, Michele.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 05/21/2009 @ 02:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well said, Michele. Gotta respect the adults enough to honestly help them if we're going to make the help available to the children beyond school lunches and breakfasts.
It's the second paragraph that really spoke to me though. Much of what you mentioned seems to be behind efforts of welfare "reform" and attempts at controlling how the poor use their welfare funds and/or food stamps like making them into the programs over into vouchers or converting food stamps into something more like WIC where they tell you exactly what you can buy and therefore eat is - at least in my experience - rooted in how many people view the poor at least as much so as in any assessment (especially an HONEST) of the program and its functionality. Personally, having lived on both sides of the "poverty line" - having been a tax payer and someone who pays no taxes - I'd much prefer to have well funded, functional, effective programs that ensure that no one starves, goes homeless, goes without medical care, etc. than worry that maybe I could have saved a couple of bucks in taxes or that someone is mis-spending "my" taxes now that it's theirs via one or another of our nation's assistance programs. How people don't get that it's no longer THEIR money once it's been paid in taxes is really something I don't get - particularly not when they continue to be so convinced it's THEIR money that they think they can comment down to the most minute of details as to how someone is spending or using their assistance (welfare, food stamps, etc.).
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/21/2009 @ 07:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Exactly. We need to loudly blame those who pay less than a livable wage.
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 05/21/2009 @ 03:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
L.S. if our government can afford billion dollar bail outs and employer's can afford vacation homes then employees who work hard for their money deserve to be paid enough to live in a decent home, feed, clothe and raise their families in areas that provide great education.
Why is it the same population that is the target of anger when they receive help from the government is also told over and over again that they can't be paid a livable wage by employers because it would hurt the employer too much. Strange isn't it?
Capitalism is not a bad thing but capitalism without conscience is disgusting and this is a system that is in place all over America.
Posted by Michele Rodriguez on 05/22/2009 @ 07:28AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Also, I'd like to add that where I'm from $10 an hour isn't a livable wage--not by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by Michele Rodriguez on 05/22/2009 @ 07:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
LS. I hear your pain! Too many people share it. For all I know YOU CAN BE ONE OF THE 80 "UNCOUNTED" POOR. American politics like it like that then we bicker among ourselves leaving employers free to pay us enough to survive-by not to thrive. Anyone making under the livable income are poor-Think on it if are making $14.00 an hour that is under the Livable wage.
70% of all workers are inadequately paid, under the livable wage. So if we decease that to 1 in ten, it comes down from still too few of 3 in ten. I stronger feel that is too few people being paid a livable wage. It should be 9 or 10 in 10 who are paid a livable wage.
A logical Poverty threshold takes in all the basics, required to support human life in a tolerateable fashion. Rent, repairs, once a year payment as insures, taxes. as well as , health care, prescriptions, transportation, to work, health care, Utilities, and food. Right now the American poverty level accounts for just food.
We are in an important time in history. Hunger caused by Poverty, can end. We have a president who can be taught. There is a National conference in July which will include many of the poor themselves, who are usually not included. I meant Cheri Honkala on a sat. the phone 20 year before this. Saw this powerful women in person, last month.
http://old.economichumanrights.org/docs/2009_savethedateflyer.pdf
One of the leaders of the conference talked about, getting scholarships for those in need. Voices are needed
We need to entice people to Change.Org then get them to write Obama once a month at www.whitehouse.gov. I cannot get the recruit button at change to work, but I can send messages to all people I know on my regular email.
It is time for a new Civil Rights Movement for people of all color.
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 05/22/2009 @ 08:20AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't live in America, but we have the same problems. Poverty is creeping up the scale into the middle class (who are also losing jobs and houses). In raising a family as a single parent, I've made my shopping dollar choices go as far as possible, mostly by buying in your equivalent of "Thrift Shops". I get the goods and the money goes elsewhere to feed someone else. A whole generation isn't consuming like we used to and it's intergenerational. My children might like the brands, but they'll search for them in those very shops. Ultimately, the top end, that 10% who still have the cash to splash will just be selling to THEMSELVES. It won't work! Here's your Civil Rights Movement. We drive the economy with the choices we make.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 05/23/2009 @ 07:54AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
North Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Idaho and Arkansas --- ALL OF THE STATES LISTED in this report --- all allow the beating of school children with paddles as per the "Danger Zones" list on the NoSpank.net website, here:
http://www.nospank.net/eddpts.htm
I highly doubt this is any coincidence. Child abuse has been associated with depression, poor work performance and work ethic, suicidal tendencies, violent tendencies, criminal activity, and SO MUCH MORE.
The continuance of the practice of corporal punishment has also been associated with poverty as well.
17 states still allow abuse in schools and I do not think it is any coincidence at all that every one of the states listed as having high rates of food insecurity among children appears on the list of states that permit school paddling.
Perhaps the best approach to stopping the cycle of joblessness, inadequate provisions for families and financial/social support of those who can not or will not take care of themselves in each of these states starts with treating children better. They grow to become the people who will either provide for themselves or rely on us to provide for them. They grow to become successful or unsuccessful. Perhaps we should treat them with self respect and model good behavior for them so that they can grow to do the same for themselves and for others.
We reap what we sow.
Posted by Christine Clarke on 05/22/2009 @ 01:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Here's another more detailed list showing every single state listed as having high rates of food insecurity among the worst states for school child abuse ("paddling" and "corporal punishment") also:
http://www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=statesbanning
I am sure this is no coincidence. Again, we get back from 'society' what we invest into it.
Posted by Christine Clarke on 05/22/2009 @ 01:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Where in the world did my comment go? (This one will probably get deleted too.)
Yes Mrs. Clarke, we do reap what we sew! Our greed has reaped Americans right out of their jobs, homes, and futures.
While we were busy taxing away the," Rich-capitalists'," money; they went ahead and sewed a new seed over seas.
I don't think food or money will stop corporal punishment. Rich and famous people, still seem to beat their partners. I see very poor people, that wouldn't dare strike their children. But, you can throw money at this, if you think it will help. Religion plays a big role, in the way people choose to punish their children. (And we all know, we can't mess with religion.)
We can end hunger in America though. We have enough land; we grow food for the entire world......so, why are kids hungry again? Oh yeah, because they can't afford food, because their parents have no income, because all of our jobs went over seas!
Do away with NAFTA! This will bring Ag. jobs back to the U.S. This will stop farmers from sending our safe food to other countries, and leaving us with imported poison! Plus, it will give U.S. farmers more money, which means they pay more taxes. This will also keep labor contractors from exploiting illegal immigrants;( because, if all the Ag. jobs are taken by Americans, there will be no need for slave contractors, I mean labor contractors.)
My grandparents worked in the fields. My parents worked in the fields. Now this seems to be looked down upon. It's an honest job that can pay a good wage. I'd rather be picking olives or oranges, than waiting for someone to feed me.
Just a suggestion.....that I'm sure will go to the recycle bin.
Posted by L.S. hope on 05/23/2009 @ 01:07AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Laws don't prevent murder altogether. But they do prevent most people who would consider it from acting out on it for knowledge of consequences.
The same can be done with child protection laws.
The U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment says that all American citizens are granted equal rights to protection under U.S. laws. That would include the protective power of the assault laws. Citizenship is granted at birth, not withheld until the age of 18. There is no good reason for state "child protection" laws to exist in contrast to these citizenship rights by allowing corporal punishment without enough language restricting its use -- thus permitting a virtual free for all in schools and homes nationwide. It's a crime that those laws exist, and in their current condition, because they rob children of what would otherwise be their birthright to live in freedom from fear of personal injury -- just like all other U.S. citizens.
If we continue to deny children human rights and instead inflict damage upon them in homes and schools, and if those of us who don't directly do this damage turn a blind eye to it or 'tolerate' it, we are raising a society that will not only have violent tendencies and be more likely to continue the same patterns of familial violence with their own families (including spousal assault, including assault upon their own children, including sibling violence, including verbal violence, including a general idea that it's okay to lash out physically when provoked), but we are raising criminals (as there are many, many studies proving the link between criminal violence and childhood exposure to & receipt of violence), mental illnesses (depression, suicidal tendencies, self doubt and poor self esteem -- all linked), and more.
I do not believe there is ANY coincidence at all in the fact that the states listed in this article as having food insecurity ARE ALSO THE SAME STATES that allow the corporal punishment of children in schools. The same paddling actions upon an adult could be prosecuted as aggravated sexual assault. It isn't right to allow this to happen to children -- and yet 17 states still do, including every single one on this food insecurity list.
If we want to fix the social problems we see in these states including food insecurity we have to root those problems out at the source --- stop allowing schools to abuse kids and compromise healthy development of our young people.
Posted by Christine Clarke on 05/23/2009 @ 06:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Dear Ishe
your post is partly what I joined up for. To find out how are things in different states, and around the world.
What country are you in?
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 05/23/2009 @ 10:36AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hi Jan,
I'm in Australia. Here the talk is about a two-tiered economy operating independantly of each other. Another term often bandied about is "false economy". The way I look at the times we live in and the crisis that brings, is that we are in the middle of sorting out which one is true and which false. It's all good, bring it on.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 05/23/2009 @ 05:34PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, and another way to describe this is a "shadow economy". In my mind, this is what our emergency food system is. You give people a commodity product (rather than cash), which provides barely any economic value to a community. This product (surplus or donated food) is purchased by a third-party (government) and distributed using free labor (food pantries / soup kitchens, places of worship, etc.). Big food companies get tax write-offs for donations and commodity purchasing prevents their surplus from becoming food waste, thus averting lost profits. Who really benefits here?
It's a bit backwards that in the richest country in the world, we still provide food aid / charity, very similarly to how we do in the poorest countries.
If that isn't a well crafted vicious economic cycle (i.e. bad investment), I don't know what is!
Posted by Michael Paone on 05/24/2009 @ 08:54PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Does'nt quite work that way here. The cycle is much smaller. A charity, a school (to raise funds) or a church collects goods, usually clothes, manchester, books, household furniture, pretty much anything people want to donate that is still usable. In the case of the charity, the proceeds go to vouchers for families in need to make whatever food purchases they want from the supermarket nominated excluding cigarettes and alchohol. In some ways it's a bit more of a closed system. Except that someone first had to purchase the items new. It's especially useful to clothe children since they only where something for one season before growing out of it ... take it back to the store.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 05/25/2009 @ 12:15AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
*wear* I mean. This is one micro/grassroots answer. It isn't THE answer, but it sure beats what we have been doing since the industrial age.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 05/25/2009 @ 02:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh, my example was specifically about emergency food assistance (food pantries and soup kitchens and the entire food banking system), as it works in the United States. Sorry for any confusion.
Posted by Michael Paone on 05/25/2009 @ 07:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
P.S. What is manchester?
Posted by Michael Paone on 05/25/2009 @ 07:41AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Manchester is a throwback to our colonial roots. Its things like blankets, linen, towels (maybe drapes) and perhaps they might have been made in Manchester once, I don't really know.
This recycling subculture has doubled it's pricing in the last year with the demands on it. Another curious development is the for-profit outlet for minimally defective goods. Should that be a concern? Yes and no. On one hand we reduce waste and resources, but we also accept dodgy goods as a standard.
If we could come back to the centre of the extremes of gift/profit, we could make quality products that, with respectful treatment, will last longer than the built-in obsolescence we have become used to. A bit of pride in workmanship comes along with it. Now THAT I'd like to see.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 05/25/2009 @ 06:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Mrs. Clarke, I always say," it's just a matter of time, before every cause on change.org, run smack! into each other." Your corelation between hunger and beating, is a real leap though.(Yes, I read you provided data.) It just seems to me, that there are many other factors that could contribute to abusive behavior. I read once; when the football team, "The Colts," loose, domestic violence goes up in the South.(I don't know if that's true, but can you see my point? Maybe, it could be due to the fact that many people have Sundays off, and football is played on Sundays.)
Now, "sustainable food," is a much closer related subject, for ending hunger. Ms. Chart has answered most of the questions you are all asking. Check out her cause.
Posted by L.S. hope on 05/23/2009 @ 04:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It's not such a long shot. If you read the work of Dr. Straus, available online, there are multiple factors that contribute to the prevalence of violence in any given area and most of them have to do with factors that increase stress, such as joblessness, work stress, hunger, number of mouths to feed in a household, etc.
I do not have a study between this one, and all of those factors that contribute to abuse, available off of the top of my head to "prove" that beating schoolchildren (as is legal in each of these food-insecure states) directly causes food insecurity.
But there ARE many, many studies available that show that assaulting children causes depression, anxiety, sometimes suicidal tendencies, the idea that 'violence is justified' sometimes thus contributing to crime (yes, proven), outward aggressive tendencies towards other people, anger, health issues from stress, etc.
Combine those effects with how they influence 'how a person turns out,' whether or not a person has a healthy sense of personal ability and accountability, and whether or not someone will become a productive member of society or in the care of the society --- and suddenly the fact that all of these listed 'food insecure' states are also states that still permit school paddling, becomes much more significant.
How we treat our children is connected to everything that society 'produces' and becomes. I can not tell you with certainty just how much hunger could potentially be eliminated if we remove the degrading, barbaric practice of paddling from U.S. schools and homes, particularly in these especially violent AND especially hungry states. But I can tell you that the benefits of treating children with respect for their U.S. citizenship rights to 'equal protection' and the right to live free from fear of personal injury, will have positive benefits that stretch across many social issues including but not limited to food insecurity.
Posted by Christine Clarke on 05/26/2009 @ 10:54AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Violence is a result of poverty. People are told, through actions "You're not worthy of decent pay. Or enough to cover all the basic needs as rent etc, they start to take it life is meaningless. They feel abused-so the abuse others."
Do we want a better way of life? Most of us do. So people here, can start to change the world with their beliefs. It is time for CIVIL Rights for the poor of all colors.
There are four heads to the monster of poverty-Hunger, homelessness, violence, and Imposed Silence of the poor.
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 05/24/2009 @ 07:37AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I wouldn't necessarily say violence happens only among the poor...
That said, you're likely onto something important. Poverty is very degrading and in many ways it's dehumanizing. Worse, how society recognizes and treats its poor can be even more degrading and dehumanizing - like the ever present rot about pulling ourselves up by bootstraps of boots we can't afford and admonishments about getting jobs that don't exist and wouldn't pay above poverty wages if they did.
If, as our society seems to like to do based on how many locations' policies about stuff like housing and homelessness (or even just how many individuals talk about things like the "unsightliness" of the poor"), you try to more or less herd (for lack of a better word) all the poor into ghettos or sorts where they can't or won't be seen by anyone else, don't provide them with decent educations, don't provide them with any opportunities for decent jobs, don't provide them any decent assistance (welfare, food assistance, medical assistance, etc.), sooner or later you'll get at least some who give into the pressure to "do what's necessary to survive" - and all because the pressure and dehumanization is just too much for anyone to take after a while.
When society at large has conspired to deny the poor every basic need and many of their human rights - what right does ANYONE have to complain about adverse results of the horrendous social experiment? At a certain point, we MUST recognize that the ONLY way this is going to stop is to realize and accept that certain things ARE human rights and MUST be provided to all without regard to things like social status or ability to pay. Society is also going to have to quit herding the poor around like some sort of infestation - after all, we're poor PEOPLE, not insects or vermin.
And really, you're right that poverty should be a civil right. It's long been documented that without regard to race or ethnicity, poverty alone puts one at a myriad of disadvantages and particularly if the poverty appears in childhood.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/24/2009 @ 08:25AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You are absolutely right! The upper class are the people not paying livable wages. They inflict the first blows of violence.
We are already a Constitutionally "Protected class" the poor. Only the courts is the ones with all the power. Its built of with upper class guys or women who play ball with the white guys.
The thing is us all are Human Beings-even the rich, they should not be hated just because they wear a suit. A lot of the upper middle classes do not think of class hatred reaching them. They either believe they are beyond being hated for being upper middleclass.
Or if you share your story of a personal class bias, they think you are alone, and you hate them personally.
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 05/24/2009 @ 01:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Anyone here seen the movie "The Bucket List"? The rich guy and the poor guy needed each other. It might take awhile, but when the richer people only have a client base of 10%, it might just dawn on them the way they got there was with a much broader base. If you are rich, you have a responsibily to manage that energy maturely, maybe even consider the greater good. It will mean growing from adolescence into adulthood. I look forward to that!
While I'm back, I might also bring up my first post. It made me think how important words are and the effect they have on people. In America you have Thrift Shops, here we call them Opportunity Shops (OP Shop for short), a subtle but enormous difference in perspective. Both are just a recycling culture. I prefer the concept of being presented with an opportunity rather than thinking of myself as thrifty. Accept the invitation to grow your own vegies, in boxes if you have to. Co-opt with neighbours where you grow one type of food that you seem good at and share the love. Good luck to you all and stay solid.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 05/24/2009 @ 05:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Per a report published on the Prevent Child Abuse America website, conservative estimates show that we spend $103.8 BILLION dollars every year in programs and efforts to rescue abused children.
If we were to eliminate the conflicting state "child protection" laws that fail to prohibit assault of children, even though the 14th Amendment of the Constitution grants all citizens (from birth) "equal protection" under U.S. laws incl. from assault -- and instead make those child laws line up with the criminal laws that say assault of citizens is illegal -- how many hungry families do you think the freed up funds out of that $103.8 BILLION could feed?
Posted by Christine Clarke on 05/25/2009 @ 07:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is a terrible and tragic consequence of the recession! We can talk about reforming the guidelines of WIC and SNAP, but when you have no money, you're going to buy the cheapest products available, regardless of the nutricional value. A good point is the dollar menus at fast food restaurants--when I worked at Burger King, families pretty much fed their kids dinner through the dollar menu...
My family and I have gone through times when we were hungry, when we would have to wait all week til Dad's paycheck came, and I know how hard it is to walk into your kitchen and be hungry and have virtually nothing to eat. We couldn't qualify for food stamps, so I wonder what the families who cannot qualify for assistance are going to do...
Posted by Lashawn Chillious on 05/26/2009 @ 02:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Lashawn, this is the point that people who've had the privilege of never experiencing poverty miss. It doesn't matter what you call the "help", if the "help" isn't enough it doesn't matter - the most important thing rapidly becomes quantity and NOT quality. Unfortunately, between how unrealistically our nation figures the poverty line, how unrealistically it funds the assistance programs and how unrealistic the program guidelines are when you compare what they figure should be a month's food budget (by the time you add your assistance to the "estimated family contribution" or whatever they're calling it now on the worksheets) to what prices actually are it's quite obvious they figure you can buy a month of groceries on what's MAYBE 2 weeks worth of funding. The allowance of $21 or per person per week won't even buy the USDA's budget menu and not even at cheap stores. I have no idea how they expect people to survive this way - I just know that they clearly do...
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/26/2009 @ 10:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
A few do not survive. But like the foreclosure thing, we need millions losing their life, health etc., before our society does anything about it.
What ever you do do not scrimp on vitamins. I did and I ruined my health and my eye sight. Good point my cataracts went away, when started taking vitamin daily.
When you say it becomes quantity Not quality you are half right. But the government misses the boat on both.
Its not give us your poor your huddle masses we will give 1/2 of them 1/3 of what they need on the statute of liberty.
Tomorrow I walk to the next town, and hand out flyer's that the non-profit I am with needs help to get from Maine to Kentucky. It will be called Beat feet to Kentucky to Poverty.
I do NOT wish anyone here to give money. I expect to gather it all in Maine. Just telling you what as an activist, I am up to.
Sat. I go and argue about the Maine bill of economic rights containing right to speak and right to use the courts. To have the facts of the matter actually heard, not simply dismissed before action is taken.
Anyone here can you believe good people who want to fight hunger and homelessness do not want to place freedom of speech or right to use the courts, in the mix. They are trying to be kept out as being political? I will keep asking how do we fight for fair pay, when the news will not cover the story?
pay it the news will not carry we are under paid.
Feel better after that rant. And might be more affective at the meeting Sat Morning.
In the afternoon I will be 20 miles over, ready to take part in an insurance rally. I attend fewer meetings then most of the non - paid work on Sat.,or Sun. activist I know of statewide or nationally. There is just a rash of meetings or gatherings right now.
Remember its not give 1/2 of our people, 1/3 of what they need. Its 100% be it food, rent whatever.
Thanks Jan
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 05/28/2009 @ 01:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hi Jan,
Could you give us more information on this Maine bill of economic rights? Sounds very interesting.
Posted by Michael Paone on 05/28/2009 @ 02:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It is somewhat the Universal Declaration of Human Right adopted in 1948 by the US. Where I run into trouble is the enforcement area. The writers of the 1948 universal version, saw the need to include, Human rights along with plain economic rights as the rights to: A job paying a decent wage,Housing,Medical care, water.were the right to travel, freedom from slavery, freedom of speech, and the right to use the courts.
Just because these words are placed upon paper does not mean employers will gladly pay us more. We are going to have to use are Freedom of speech to convince people, anyone working should be paid an adequate wage according to their needs.
Seems years ago when they got this idea, I was agreed upon only rights which has a strict economic nature should be included.
I asked then and now what is the harm of providing a wee bit more protection in them? No answer ! But they are right. And I have to do it my way.
I realize that There are topics the press will not give ink to. They will NOT show anyone how broken the sysytem is. The use the guise to deny disliked topic editorials space, they do not wish to be sued. This protects them against that. So takes away the excuse from local and national news.
Talking about everyone benefiting from better pay could bne the next non-ink topic. So in this way it IS economical.
Telling people who qualify for aid, that they do not, is another Speech topic having a great economic impact, when the wrongly denied SSI, or General Relief, cannot afford to pay their rents - they become homeless. News not carrying this topic means no freedom of speech-Unless you can pay for such. The Bill of Rights does not afford the messenger carrying the news enough protection.
Thanks for letting me place my concerns into words I might do better at convincing them Sat. because you asked.
Here is what I got. It will be changed in format if not in form.
Any ideas out there on how to win my point, Im listening.
MAINE's Bill of Economic Human Rights
Everyone in the world is entitled to human rights in Maine we set out some of the rights our residents are entitled to enjoy. Rights are what people seek and defends, as the right to have their basic needs met regardless of their financial capabilities.
Society must guarantee that these basic needs will include but are not limited to: work with dignity; food and clothing; secure, affordable, permanent shelter; accessible and affordable health care; quality, accessible and affordable child care; and to a standard of living that is adequate for their economic security and well-being.
Also:
"These rights include but are not limited to the right to travel, and to speak out against governmental wrongs, as well as business or corporation wrongs. The right to publish ideas with the person publishing, being solely responsible for content, as to liable. No Media shall make any policy revoking free speech."
The following rights are guaranteed by society:
1. Every Maine resident has a right to basic needs--adequate food and clothing; secure, warm, affordable, and permanent shelter; accessible and affordable health care; and to a standard of living that is adequate for their health and well-being.
2. Every Maine resident has a right to income--either through employment and/or entitlements--to secure those basic needs
3. Every Maine person has a right to adequate health care
4. All Maine residents have freedom of speech, and the one paying for or causing free speech is responsible for any liable.
5. The right to travel or not to travel, is recognized by Maine
6. Every Maine resident has a right to a clean environment that is sustained economically in a way that allows future generations to utilize its resources in obtaining needs.
7. Every Maine resident has a right to equal economic opportunity to succeed and thrive.
8. Every Maine resident has a right to work, to a free choice of employment and protection against unemployment, and to favorable conditions of work.
9. Every Maine resident has a right to equal pay for equal work and freedom from discrimination in obtaining their basic needs.
10. Recognizing the importance of the worker, means paying them a full livable wage.
12. Every Maine resident has a right to human dignity and respect for their participation in the Maine economy.
13. Every Maine resident has a right to form and join labor unions and other groups which protect their interest and to work in businesses or cooperatives which provide maximum opportunities for economic democracy. And the right to refuse to join a union.
14. Every Maine resident has a right to education and training to obtain the skills to allow them to participate in the Maine economy.
15. Every person in Maine has the right to bring civil action, and have the matter receive a full and un-biased decisions based upon the facts. If the state or federal courts refuse to hear these matters, Economic and other rights may be taken to any tribunals set-up by the United Nations or its agencies to deal with human rights.
16 Every person residing in, or passing through Maine, has the right to be have water.
17. Every Maine resident has the responsibility to exercise these rights to their maximum ability. And we have a duty to respect the rights of others.
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 05/29/2009 @ 06:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It is somewhat the Universal Declaration of Human Right adopted in 1948 by the US. Where I run into trouble is the enforcement area. The writers of the 1948 universal version, saw the need to include, Human rights along with plain economic rights as the rights to: A job paying a decent wage,Housing,Medical care, water.were the right to travel, freedom from slavery, freedom of speech, and the right to use the courts.
Just because these words are placed upon paper does not mean employers will gladly pay us more. We are going to have to use are Freedom of speech to convince people, anyone working should be paid an adequate wage according to their needs.
Seems years ago when they got this idea, I was agreed upon only rights which has a strict economic nature should be included.
I asked then and now what is the harm of providing a wee bit more protection in them? No answer ! But they are right. And I have to do it my way.
I realize that There are topics the press will not give ink to. They will NOT show anyone how broken the sysytem is. The use the guise to deny disliked topic editorials space, they do not wish to be sued. This protects them against that. So takes away the excuse from local and national news.
Talking about everyone benefiting from better pay could bne the next non-ink topic. So in this way it IS economical.
Telling people who qualify for aid, that they do not, is another Speech topic having a great economic impact, when the wrongly denied SSI, or General Relief, cannot afford to pay their rents - they become homeless. News not carrying this topic means no freedom of speech-Unless you can pay for such. The Bill of Rights does not afford the messenger carrying the news enough protection.
Thanks for letting me place my concerns into words I might do better at convincing them Sat. because you asked.
Here is what I got. It will be changed in format if not in form.
Any ideas out there on how to win my point, Im listening.
MAINE's Bill of Economic Human Rights
Everyone in the world is entitled to human rights in Maine we set out some of the rights our residents are entitled to enjoy. Rights are what people seek and defends, as the right to have their basic needs met regardless of their financial capabilities.
Society must guarantee that these basic needs will include but are not limited to: work with dignity; food and clothing; secure, affordable, permanent shelter; accessible and affordable health care; quality, accessible and affordable child care; and to a standard of living that is adequate for their economic security and well-being.
Also:
"These rights include but are not limited to the right to travel, and to speak out against governmental wrongs, as well as business or corporation wrongs. The right to publish ideas with the person publishing, being solely responsible for content, as to liable. No Media shall make any policy revoking free speech."
The following rights are guaranteed by society:
1. Every Maine resident has a right to basic needs--adequate food and clothing; secure, warm, affordable, and permanent shelter; accessible and affordable health care; and to a standard of living that is adequate for their health and well-being.
2. Every Maine resident has a right to income--either through employment and/or entitlements--to secure those basic needs
3. Every Maine person has a right to adequate health care
4. All Maine residents have freedom of speech, and the one paying for or causing free speech is responsible for any liable.
5. The right to travel or not to travel, is recognized by Maine
6. Every Maine resident has a right to a clean environment that is sustained economically in a way that allows future generations to utilize its resources in obtaining needs.
7. Every Maine resident has a right to equal economic opportunity to succeed and thrive.
8. Every Maine resident has a right to work, to a free choice of employment and protection against unemployment, and to favorable conditions of work.
9. Every Maine resident has a right to equal pay for equal work and freedom from discrimination in obtaining their basic needs.
10. Recognizing the importance of the worker, means paying them a full livable wage.
12. Every Maine resident has a right to human dignity and respect for their participation in the Maine economy.
13. Every Maine resident has a right to form and join labor unions and other groups which protect their interest and to work in businesses or cooperatives which provide maximum opportunities for economic democracy. And the right to refuse to join a union.
14. Every Maine resident has a right to education and training to obtain the skills to allow them to participate in the Maine economy.
15. Every person in Maine has the right to bring civil action, and have the matter receive a full and un-biased decisions based upon the facts. If the state or federal courts refuse to hear these matters, Economic and other rights may be taken to any tribunals set-up by the United Nations or its agencies to deal with human rights.
16 Every person residing in, or passing through Maine, has the right to be have water.
17. Every Maine resident has the responsibility to exercise these rights to their maximum ability. And we have a duty to respect the rights of others.
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 05/29/2009 @ 06:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I would be interested to know how it went for you Jan. Good on you for taking some action. Change needs to be in hearts and minds first. A piece of paper is still a piece of paper at the end of the day.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 05/29/2009 @ 05:55PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Nothing accomplished today. But I am on the team which will re-draft the two formats into one. And I know what to say next week when I see them, "I want the Rights to be a strong as they can be".
I do not know why the writers of the Universal Declaration of Rights (UDHR) had in mind when they included what this group would call civil rights as the to freedom, to associate with whom ever we choose. What ever their reason they had is just or more valid today. "If for some unthinkable reason the bill of rights were removed I want teeth in those their economic rights, to make them valid, in one document."
And you are correct people need to hear that Housing, Health care, decent wages, adequate food, are Human Rights. Not just something which would be nice, if we can afford it. And stockholders vote on those rights.
I went to the one payer Health Care rally across the street at the state house. And wondered How that gathering would take place if it were not for our freedom of speech.
Thank you for asking. Laws and treaties are just pieces of paper- Its you and I who make them important. It is ideas which sets us free.
I am looking forward to the Kentucky Conference the 16-20th of July. That is where in the sponsors words "They will pick up in fighting for human rights, where Martin Luther King Jr. Left off."
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 05/30/2009 @ 04:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Maybe we need a Universal Day of Human Rights. Everyone gets out into the street. Get visible, make sure the words on that piece of paper translate into votes in the street.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 05/31/2009 @ 04:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.