Poverty is not the government's problem
I had a discussion with a friend recently who suggested that it wasn't the government's job to provide for the poor. I was more than a little upset by that assertion, but I decided to give it some thought. If that's true, then one must ask, whose job is it? For me, the answer is found in the Bible (Matt 25:31-46 amoung many others) - WE are to provide for the poor. Now, I could make the argument that government is mearly an extension of who WE are, but let's pretend that's not the case for a moment. The US poverty rate (US Census Bureau, 2004) is 12.7 percent. For simplicity of math (because math is not one of my strengths), let's be generous to ourselves and round that down to 10%. So, for every 9 of us not in poverty, there is one person living in poverty. If it is OUR job to provide for the poor, all WE have to do is get together with nine of our friends and provide for the needs of ONE person living in poverty. Sounds easy, eh? Let's see what that will cost us.
There are lots of ways to calculate this that require complicated math, but let me suggest something more simplistic. Let's say that WE want to bring that person up to OUR standard of living. Let's say each one of us makes $30,000 per year. If EACH ONE of us gives $3000 per year ($250 per month), then all ten of us will end up with annual incomes of $27,000. Let's not forget, of course, that the poverty rate is really 12.7%, the poverty rate for children is 17.8% and none of this includes the poor outside of the United States. So, this figure would have to grow substantially to be realistic.
I'd be remiss to not include a plug for my favorite charity, Compassion International and for their President and CEO's new book, Too Small To Ignore: Why Children are the Next Big Thing.
Now don't go off to to sit in the corner and feel guilty. Guilt will not produce real change. But do respond with your views and experiences on poverty.
posted by jared @ 10/27/2005
5 comments
5 Comments:
i feel there is an implied false dichotomy here: poverty is the problem of the government OR a problem of the people. shouldn't it be both?
to say it's the government's problem lets we as citizens off the hook.
to say it's the citizens' problem lets the government off the hook.
neither are really appropriate options.
do what you can with what you have WHILE ALSO demanding that the government step up. this seems best to me... but then, that answer isn't nearly polarizing enough to be very popular.
I agree with mdog, but I also don't think I buy into communism. Maybe in a biblical world-view (Christians sharing) but that is not what we are talking about here.
I also wrestle with the fact that people make choices and there are consequences to those choices. I know a person who didn't want to work when she was younger... wanted to travel the world. So she dropped out of school, took what money she had and disappeared for almost a year. Now, years later, she can't get a job, does not have health insurance, etc.
Am "I" obligated to bring her up to "my standard of living" after I spent all that time in college and work in cubical-ville so I can provide for my family? I'm serious.
Obviously 3rd world poverty is different... we all have obligations to those who have no power...but (and this is not a popular opinion today, especially in Christian circles) but much of what is seen as "poverty" today (or "financial struggle") is often the result of poor life choices.
Maybe someone should talk more about poverty PREVENTION. What kinds of things can be done to keep people out of poverty? Education. Job creation. Training, etc
I agree with mdog, but I also don't think I buy into communism. Maybe in a biblical world-view (Christians sharing) but that is not what we are talking about here.
for clarity, i was indeed speaking of sharing our possessions [are they really ours anyway?], not throwing them together into one communal free-for-all. heck, i don't buy into communism either.
otherwise, i'm pretty much in agreement with anonymous.
I think the communism remark was more directed at my idea of splitting out our resources evenly. I'm not suggesting that's required of us, but there is something inherently selfish about saying I'll give just enough so that it helps them without hurting me too much. I heard of a church once where the families committed to spending as much on a poor family for Christmas as they did on their family (effectively halfing their own Christmas lists or ringing up twice the credit card bills). This is what I'd put into the category of extravagant giving, not communism.
I can agree that 3rd world poverty is different than what we see in the U.S. But the poor in the U.S. often don't have any real power, so they can't always just help themselves. Sure, some U.S. persons in poverty are largely to blame for their circumstances (I have a lazy relative who is a prime example), but that does not account for the entire (I would argue not even half) problem of poverty in our country. I'm sure there is better research on the topic, but here are the perspectives of some folks who work with the homeless where I live.
Strangely third-world poverty does exist here in this country, though I doubt you'll hear any one ever talk about it.
I took a trip with some friends to West Virginia one fall to volunteer at a food and clothing drive that operates year round. The people we visited were left over from an old coal mining town and are living miles from the nearest town.
I remember the first time I saw the town, we came around a corner and there it was. a dirt road running in a circle with no more than 50 shacks made of cardboard, plywood and tarpaper. When the mining companies left none of them could get out, the mining companies paid in company money that could only be spent at the company store or the company gas station. When the company left any "money" the people had was worthless and they had no way to leave. Now they receive welfare, its barely enough to live on but is not enough to leave the town.
Chances are you'll never hear about these people again, but there is a level of poverty in this country that rivals other places. Many of these people are now the children of the miners, they didn't choose the life style, nor do they see any way to get out.
Post a Comment
<< Home