In my post of July 27th, I talked about the number of children in American who don't have enough to eat. If you recall, it was 18%. This post is an expansion on that subject.
While waiting for my daughter to complete an errand, I did some math in my head. I've always loved math. Actually, anything I can do with my hands that also engages my brain is fun for me.
Since 18% is so close to 20%, I will make the following statement: Nearly one in five children is financially supported by the other four children's families or caregivers.
According to a survey by the U.S. Census Bureau for years 2006-2008, there were 301,237,703 (million) people in the U.S. Of this number 24.5% were children ages Zero to 17.
Breaking that down further, of that 24.5 %, the under five age group was 6.9%, the five to fourteen were 13.3 %, and the fifteen to seventeen were 4.3%.
The actual number of children in the above groups were @75 million. Of this number 18% or 13.5 million do not have enough to eat and undoubtedly get help with other necessities as well. For if food is absent, it would be foolish to suggest that everything else is in abundance.
More simply put, for every person unable to provide any one of the necessities of life--food, clothing, shelter, health care, education--those able to provide it for themselves and their dependents bear the "cannots" debt as well.
While you may think that I'm voting for those who can against those who can't, I am not. In fact, I am not voting for anyone. I am simply telling it like I see it.
It would take a bit of time to determine how many parents or caregivers are attached to the hungry children. The number probably exists somewhere. But numbers just show us "how many", as if we have to reach a threshold before the problem is bad enough to address it.
I propose that one hungry person, young, middle of the road, or elderly, is too many! One is too many! It is not okay that these individuals and children must meet their needs through food banks, better- off relatives, soup kitchens, or food cards.
The last two sentences are the heart and soul of my beliefs.
If the above assistance groups and programs eliminated poverty, then I would be wasting good brain cells. But the above organizations and programs have not scratched the surface. Their efforts are laudable; and over the years have no doubt saved many a life. These generous hearts and spirits keep the poor from drowning outright. They understand that something has to be done and they do it.
But listen folks, in the end, you've only provided the man, woman or child crossing the endless desert with enough water to hallucinate after the next mirage. When they finally see it, they are still poor. Nothing has changed in their lives, not even the mirage.
Those who have more, either because of inheritance or occupation (forget all the other ways money is made; it starts with cash from a source and that source is not important), pay for the those who can't. It is simple math. Family 1 needs emergency care, but can't afford it. Families 2, 3, 4, and 5 have health care. The hospital must go on, the staff must be paid, supplies replaced. The missing twenty percent is added to the costs of those who can pay.
Oh, by the way, poverty is not the fault of the poor, just as wealth is not the fault of the well-to-do. It's not about fault; it's about people. Very few people choose to live on the streets or in poverty just for the heck of it. Certainly not the 13.5 million children living in it now! And this number is skewed by a government formula that designates the "poverty level." Nobody can live on the "poverty" dividing line or even several thousand dollars a year beyond it.
Those better off often bemoan the rising cost of entitlement programs that help the poor; they also bemoan their rising taxes. Why, they say, do I work so hard and see less and less? It's like running a calculator in reverse.
Nobody wins. Nobody. Think about it. Every problem has a solution. One that can benefit all. Why have we not solved this one?
No comments:
Post a Comment