Re: Number Of Americans Living In Poverty Hits 52-Year High, 27.4 Percent Of Blacks U
Poverty does nothing more than to degrade the value of living and overall strength of the nation; it is therefore imperative to combat against it by any possible means. The first course of action is to analyze how people fall into poverty in the first place, and subsequently what means can be taken to get them out of it.
Many individuals of the political spectrum argue different reasons for why people are poor, but often make the judgmental error that that is but only method as to how people become poor. Some argue that it's the result of economic conditions beyond ones control, some it it's the fault of the poor people, etc. However all such reasons can be true depending on how certain individuals became poor in the first place.
The means to live an adequate and happy life are not guaranteed for anyone in society; often the means to success require being in the right place and at the right time, in addition to natural born skill, access to resources needed to advancement to higher careers, knowing the right people, etc. In this regard, it isn't hard to see why some fall somewhere along the line in the struggle to make ends meet. As an analogy: imagine if everyone needs to live and adapt to the wilds of the jungle in order to survive. Most might make it through the dangers well enough, but there will be some whom eventually find themselves hurt by the forces of the jungle. We should of course assist them, it would only be the moral and compassionate thing to do. However the problem of helping to much can result in the willful dependency of those whom become hurt, thus only further hurting everyone else in the process. Therefore some level of balance is key.
In terms of welfare, this means that although we should provide assistance where needed, it cannot be overdone nor can it be done blindly. Helping is essential, but spoiling is wasteful. Therefore I propose that those on the welfare system be managed by a supervisor, or some level of supervision, to help ensure that they can find jobs, or more adequate means of work; in addition to ensuring that they don't abuse their assistance.
There also the matter of practical living by numbers; the number of working people in any given household effects the overall gross income. Those attempting to live by themselves will find greater difficulty in securing decent income (especially more difficult it they're trying to support others as well). Therefore, people should strive to live with others instead; no one needs to immediately move out at age 18, rather they should work but remain with the family as a means of collective economic support (for both themselves and their family members). This principle can also apply to living with friends.
Too many young people also saddle themselves with the debt of college; chances are, they didn't need a degree in some obscure subject that won't get them a job, so I would advise that young adults avoid college unless they have the direct monetary means to make it through with minimal debt, or actually get a degree in something useful (granted even those with what should be useful degrees struggle to find good work).
Of course there's also the matter of the current economy and lack of jobs; we need more jobs to ensure that every capable person is working (and possible wage increase, but if people are smart and live with others, then this might not be necessary).
But one of the greatest problems of poverty is the culture of poverty. I could expand on this, but I don't really feel like adding another wall of text (note: may do this later though).
Concerning the food debate: practicing good nutritional and diet habits isn't actually that difficult even when one is strapped for cash. All it takes is some ingenuity, knowledge of healthy eating tricks/habits and thrifty spending at the store. And putting down the cake.
