Child poverty in U.S. is at highest point in 20 years, report finds

"Child poverty in America is at its highest point in 20 years, putting millions of children at increased risk of injuries, infant mortality, and premature death, according to a policy analysis published Monday in the journal JAMA Pediatrics.

As the U.S. emerges from the worst recession since the Great Depression, 25% of children don’t have enough food to eat and 7 million kids still don’t have health insurance, the analysis says. Even worse: Five children die daily by firearms, and one dies every seven hours from abuse or neglect.

“It shouldn’t be this hard for kids to grow and thrive in the world’s richest, most powerful nation,” co-author Bruce Lesley, president of the Washington-based child advocacy organization First Focus, said in a written statement.

The report -- co-written with Dr. Glenn Flores, professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern -- notes that although 24% of Americans are children, only 12% of the National Institutes of Health’s 2013 budget was devoted to pediatric research.

Lesley and Flores called on the federal government to take 10 specific steps to turn things around for kids, including:

-- set a national target date for the elimination of child poverty;

-- cut maltreatment deaths in half by 2018;

-- step up funding for pediatric research;

-- invest in children’s nutrition programs;

-- extend Medicaid insurance programs for children;

-- enforce a mandatory criminal background check for every firearm sale; and

-- increase the number of mental health-care providers by enhancing Medicaid reimbursement rates.

“Child well-being in America has declined since the most recent recession,” Lesley and Flores wrote. “Overwhelming, bipartisan support by American voters exists for measures that would enhance our nation’s investments in and focus on children’s health and well-being. ... The needs of our nation’s children have never been greater.”

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-child-poverty-20141021-story.html

Very sad situation.

Sal wrote:Why do you post this?

The budget that Paul Ryan proposed and which received Republican praise and support would've slashed domestic programs and safety nets that literally put food in these kid's bellies, while awarding the wealthiest Americans with a 15% tax cut.

Hell, you can see glibertarians on this very forum advocating for more hungry kids, because "hunger is a great motivator".

Are you trying to burnish you're centrist credentials?

Sorry, you don't have any.

Get back to your regularly scheduled Obama bashing.

If you have a point in you're latest batch of gibberish you hid it well. Who cares about "proposed" bills that didn't go anywhere? You and your fellow bigot BoF are hilarious in your ignorance. Thank you for again establishing yourself as one of the least useful idiots here.

So, giving more handouts is the answer. Ignore the root of the problem.

gatorfan wrote:Lesley and Flores called on the federal government to take 10 specific steps to turn things around for kids, including:

-- set a national target date for the elimination of child poverty;  

-- cut maltreatment deaths in half by 2018;

-- step up funding for pediatric research;

-- invest in children’s nutrition programs;

-- extend Medicaid insurance programs for children;

-- enforce a mandatory criminal background check for every firearm sale; and

-- increase the number of mental health-care providers by enhancing Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Rather than list all of these bullet points, they could have just said "Don't vote for republicans."

gatorfan wrote:"Child poverty in America is at its highest point in 20 years, putting millions of children at increased risk of injuries, infant mortality, and premature death, according to a policy analysis published Monday in the journal JAMA Pediatrics.

As the U.S. emerges from the worst recession since the Great Depression, 25% of children don’t have enough food to eat and 7 million kids still don’t have health insurance, the analysis says. Even worse: Five children die daily by firearms, and one dies every seven hours from abuse or neglect.

“It shouldn’t be this hard for kids to grow and thrive in the world’s richest, most powerful nation,” co-author Bruce Lesley, president of the Washington-based child advocacy organization First Focus, said in a written statement.

The report -- co-written with Dr. Glenn Flores, professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern -- notes that although 24% of Americans are children, only 12% of the National Institutes of Health’s 2013 budget was devoted to pediatric research.

Lesley and Flores called on the federal government to take 10 specific steps to turn things around for kids, including:

-- set a national target date for the elimination of child poverty;  

-- cut maltreatment deaths in half by 2018;

-- step up funding for pediatric research;

-- invest in children’s nutrition programs;

-- extend Medicaid insurance programs for children;

-- enforce a mandatory criminal background check for every firearm sale; and

-- increase the number of mental health-care providers by enhancing Medicaid reimbursement rates.

“Child well-being in America has declined since the most recent recession,” Lesley and Flores wrote. “Overwhelming, bipartisan support by American voters exists for measures that would enhance our nation’s investments in and focus on children’s health and well-being. ... The needs of our nation’s children have never been greater.”

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-child-poverty-20141021-story.html

Should not be a surprise to anyone.  Our government has done everything conceivable to discourage the marriage of couples and THEN having kids.  The government ENCOURAGES women to have kids without being married by giving them larger rewards than were they married.

Other than the dollars, the primary difference between children being raised in poverty or not is the fact as to whether the parents are married or not.

Your suggestions simply provide more incentives for people to NOT marry and take care of THEIR children. Some of your proposals are simply worthless.

How about this, getting each and every of the leading race baiters, and victim baiters to quit preaching that everyone is a victim and step up and take personal responsibility. Get an education, stay in school, DO NOT have unprotected sex before getting married, have a job and are established?

Instead they preach that they are victims and nothing is their fault, and it is the responsibility of someone else to take care of them.

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Lesley and Flores called on the federal government to take 10 specific steps to turn things around for kids, including:

-- set a national target date for the elimination of child poverty;  

-- cut maltreatment deaths in half by 2018;

-- step up funding for pediatric research;

-- invest in children’s nutrition programs;

-- extend Medicaid insurance programs for children;

-- enforce a mandatory criminal background check for every firearm sale; and

-- increase the number of mental health-care providers by enhancing Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Rather than list all of these bullet points, they could have just said "Don't vote for republicans."

Thank you for further confirming your drastic misinformation. Please explain why all these categories of poverty have radically increased since semi-retired President Barack Hussein Obama took office.

Great we are all in agreement that we should do more to help American Children. Some believe more individual responsibility is required, I agree. Some believe voting Republicans out of office, I agree.

All I know is I am watching a record harvest and my friends are getting 40k dollar subsidy under the farm bill and the food stamps to families in poverty was just cut by $12 a month. Can we all agree that subsidies which are 100 fold more expensive to wealthy people need to be reduced before we take $12 away from families in poverty.

I am now seeing newer and larger grain bins which can hold a million dollars of corn. When you see three of those on a farm which is getting a 40k subsidy check each year, you begin to understand that it is no wonder American children are in poverty.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Lesley and Flores called on the federal government to take 10 specific steps to turn things around for kids, including:

-- set a national target date for the elimination of child poverty;  

-- cut maltreatment deaths in half by 2018;

-- step up funding for pediatric research;

-- invest in children’s nutrition programs;

-- extend Medicaid insurance programs for children;

-- enforce a mandatory criminal background check for every firearm sale; and

-- increase the number of mental health-care providers by enhancing Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Rather than list all of these bullet points, they could have just said "Don't vote for republicans."

Thank you for further confirming your drastic misinformation.  Please explain why all these categories of poverty have radically increased since semi-retired President Barack Hussein Obama took office.  

Poverty rates for children have been on the rise since 2000. This isn't a phenomenon that started with Obama.




With that said, I suspect that this trend - which has been in place since the 80's - probably has much to do with it.

Give of your time and resources to help those in need.

Sitting around asking why doesn't do a dang thing for a hungry child.

Politicians don't give a flip...red or blue.

There are too many who fall between the cracks and are not eligible. They make just enough for a governmentally established poverty line to tell them they don't qualify for help

Thankfully there are food banks that meet people where they are.  

Give.

Volunteer.

Put your money where their mouth is.

Here's a start:

http://www.bayareafoodbank.org     Type in your zip code and find a place to offer your food, money, and/or time.

Any of you in your 60's we used to read about this back in the late 60's and every decade since, so wth is new?

Give.

Volunteer.

Put your money where their mouth is.

Here's a start:

I do, but turning over half of America into beggars because of flawed policies which has stolen the joy of work, the pride of home ownership, and made hungry children all too common is not answered simply by feel good donations. How about cutting the farm subsidy checks in half and take only 10% of those cuts and apply them to food stamp benefits for families who do not have to depend on private charity. How about increasing the minimum wage so that large multinational corporations who have turned our nation into serfs actually have to pay a living wage which is not subsidized by government. Because in the end we are subsidizing those corporations. Having watched my parents taking boxes of food to neighbors who had lost their jobs or whose bread winner had died leaving a family, there is no higher honor than those who serve their church and private charity who help families, but this is not the way our forefathers wanted this nation to operate. A nation of beggars kneeling to the monied British Aristocrats, and thankful for the crumbs they left. Hell NO. Fix the fricking corruption and special interests.....that requires voting for those individuals who care about America. It is time to take this country back.

The buck stops here. Communities fail. Neighbors fail. Families fail.

Uncle Sugar owes no one anything. The three branches of government were never meant to be in the kitchens, dens, and bedrooms of the family home.

Family responsibility. Communities and neighbors caring for others in need.



Government is not the answer.

Big business is not the problem.

SheWrites wrote:Give of your time and resources to help those in need.

Sitting around asking why doesn't do a dang thing for a hungry child.

Politicians don't give a flip...red or blue.

There are too many who fall between the cracks and are not eligible.  They make just enough for a governmentally established poverty line to tell them they don't qualify for help

Thankfully there are food banks that meet people where they are.  

Give.

Volunteer.

Put your money where their mouth is.

Here's a start:

http://www.bayareafoodbank.org     Type in your zip code and find a place to offer your food, money, and/or time.

So many fall into this category, at the same time many are on assistance that are capable of working but won't. We all know having another out of wedlock baby gives the baby momma more time on welfare.

Government is not the answer.

Big business is not the problem.

Absolutely wrong! Government may not be the answer to some questions, but be the exact answer for other questions. Big business may not be the problem, yet in other situations it is the problem.

Policies matter when government executes those policies. Providing for the general welfare of our citizens does not mean giving subsidy to the rich with tax cuts, tax credits, and outright payment, nor should it allow our wealth as a nation to be plundered leaving almost half our citizens near the poverty line. I contribute to three agencies which help those in poverty. One a homeless center with a food pantry, the other is a regional food bank, and the third is the Salvation Army. I have helped establish a food bank in a church and see hundreds of volunteers working to help their fellow man. That is not the answer. We are becoming indentured servants and are being rendered to colonist status where we collectively are begging the 1% for our share of America. Return the tax rates to 1982 levels and invest in infrastructure, job credits, and education and Americans will earn their way back to prosperity, or we can simply beg and be impotent to the stealth wealth transfer which has devastated this country.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Lesley and Flores called on the federal government to take 10 specific steps to turn things around for kids, including:

-- set a national target date for the elimination of child poverty;  

-- cut maltreatment deaths in half by 2018;

-- step up funding for pediatric research;

-- invest in children’s nutrition programs;

-- extend Medicaid insurance programs for children;

-- enforce a mandatory criminal background check for every firearm sale; and

-- increase the number of mental health-care providers by enhancing Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Rather than list all of these bullet points, they could have just said "Don't vote for republicans."

Thank you for further confirming your drastic misinformation.  Please explain why all these categories of poverty have radically increased since semi-retired President Barack Hussein Obama took office.  

Poverty rates for children have been on the rise since 2000.  This isn't a phenomenon that started with Obama.  




With that said, I suspect that this trend - which has been in place since the 80's - probably has much to do with it.

When you find something going up to TODAY, let us know. My gosh, you're trying to defend THIS administration with graphs that stop two years before he took office.

How about showing the average and median household income since semi-retired President Obama took office.

Joanimaroni wrote:So,  giving more handouts is the answer. Ignore the root of the problem.

And just what is "the root of the problem?"

What about making sure workers are paid a living wage? Or is that too caring for you and your lot?

Wordslinger wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:So,  giving more handouts is the answer. Ignore the root of the problem.

And just what is "the root of the problem?"  

What about making sure workers are paid a living wage?  Or is that too caring for you and your lot?

Usually wages are based on education, technical training and ability. My lot has to comply....how about yours?

Free education.....all you have to do is show the fuck up.

Wordslinger wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:So,  giving more handouts is the answer. Ignore the root of the problem.

And just what is "the root of the problem?"  

What about making sure workers are paid a living wage?  Or is that too caring for you and your lot?

Mr (Heinz) Kerry, other liberal politicians, and posters who scream about people being at a job interview while baking their children in a hot car, are free to open or reopen their factories here or offer a job to the needy at those wages instead of moving their factories overseas or spending it frivolously at the poker table, thereby showing us all how it should be done.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0kcet4aPpQ

Usually wages are based on education, technical training and ability.



So that is what you believe wages are based. I worked as a machinist in two factories. I had a college degree. In one factory I got paid $3.50 an hour and the other one year later I was paid $6.00 an hour. Both factories made bearings. Both factories were American owned. However, one factory was owned by a family for a century, and the other had fled Detroit to escape Unions. Guess which factory was Paying $6.00. I had the same training. I worked hard, but one I was not represented in the negotiation for the wage paid, and the other I was represented by a Union.

Both companies have now left America for Mexico and China, and right before they left do you think wages were based on worker education or training? really? If those bearings can come back into this country tariff free the employer could care less what your education is.....they are going to make unlimited profit on not paying their employees anything.

That family owned company and the union both prospered. It was only two years ago when they finally shut down American operations, but this naive idea that wages are based on worker skills and not macro based economics.....is disengaged from reality. Tell me how many skills a person has to have when the wage is 60% less.

2seaoat wrote:Usually wages are based on education, technical training and ability.



So that is what you believe wages are based.  I worked as a machinist in two factories.  I had a college degree.  In one factory I got paid $3.50 an hour and the other one year later I was paid $6.00 an hour.  Both factories made bearings.   Both factories were American owned.  However, one factory was owned by a family for a century, and the other had fled Detroit to escape Unions.  Guess which factory was Paying $6.00.  I had the same training.  I worked hard, but one I was not represented in the negotiation for the wage paid, and the other I was represented by a Union.

Both companies have now left America for Mexico and China, and right before they left do you think wages were based on worker education or training?    really?   If those bearings can come back into this country tariff free the employer could care less what your education is.....they are going to make unlimited profit on not paying their employees anything.

That family owned company and the union both prospered.  It was only two years ago when they finally shut down American operations, but this naive idea that wages are based on worker skills and not macro based economics.....is disengaged from reality.  Tell me how many skills a person has to have when the wage is 60% less.

But counter help should make $15.00 an hour at McDonalds.

But counter help should make $15.00 an hour at McDonalds.


Maybe not 15, but certainly 9 or 10 right now would start to solve the subsidy the American people are giving Macs as their employees get food stamps and other help from government all the while Macs makes record profits.

I worked my way through college on minimum wage jobs....a kid today cannot do that in eighty hours a week.

Minimum wage was $2.00 an hour in 1974, $2.10 in 1975, and $2.30 in 1976 .