Today, the Children'��s Defense Fund is releasing a report entitled "��Ending Child Poverty Now"�� that calls this country'��s rate of child poverty '��a moral disgrace.'��

As the report points out:

"��America'��s poor children did not ask to be born; did not choose their parents, country, state, neighborhood, race, color, or faith. In fact if they had been born in 33 other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries they would be less likely to be poor. Among these 35 countries, America ranks 34th in relative child poverty ;�� ahead only of Romania, whose economy is 99 percent smaller than ours. "

It points out many of the corrosive cruelties of childhood poverty: worse health and educational outcomes, impaired cognitive development and the effects of '��toxic stress'�� on brain functions. It also points out the '��intergenerational transmission ' properties of poverty:

"��In one study, people who experienced poverty at any point during childhood were more than three times as likely to be poor at age 30 as those who were never poor as children. The longer a child was poor, the greater the risk of adult poverty. "

But the report is more than just an excoriation of the hollowness of our professed American values and our ethical quandary. It also serves as an economic manifesto, making the point that allowing child poverty to remain at these unconscionable levels costs '��far more than eliminating it would,'�� calculating that an immediate 60 percent reduction in child poverty would cost $77.2 billion a year, or just 2 percent of our national budget.

For context, the report puts it this way:

"��Every year we keep 14.7 million children in poverty costs our nation $500 billion — six times more than the $77 billion investment we propose to reduce child poverty by 60 percent."��



read more at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/charles-blow-reducing-our-obscene-level-of-child-poverty.html?_r=0

Child poverty is more than just about money. It also entails behavior of raising a child that is looked at. It would be nice if money was the only factor that causes this problem.

behavior isn't diverse enough to really account for being 33 out of 34 countries


this article is speaking specifically of FINANCIAL poverty,,,

'The report holds up Britain, which took some of the same steps as a case study of how such an approach can work because they “managed to reduce child poverty by more than half over 10 years, and reductions persisted during the Great Recession.”

We can do this too, if we just stop seeing helping these children as an us-versus-them struggle between makers and takers, if we stop getting so hung up on prudishness about sex and traditional views of what constitutes a family, if we stem our impulse to punish children for their mothers giving birth before marriage.

By the way, Britain’s out-of-wedlock birthrate is even higher than ours."

Yes I understand your speaking about finacial poverty, but the artical you referred to is suggesting poverty in the U.S. can be decreased by 60% if, finacial aid is provided. That would mean the other countries are not inculded in the needed $77.2 billion.

There are wealthy people who's children also end up in poverty and what is this caused by? Behaviour issues? I only pointing out what they are thinking.

I understand

the article points out there is no expectation to END poverty,, but to reduce it

This issue was discussed in a local debate for my province, and one of the main reasons is employment of professionals. Job losses. I know and agree it unfair, although part of this problems lies in other issues of life, such as high income individuals (which they deserve to live a great life), lack of professional jobs, which in return would create more advances in all area's of science.

Msharmony there are many poeople who do not like seeing poverty, but it is around the world and those laws that govern those countries also dictate what leaders, wealthy people, and professional people are prepared to do, to help there own. People think, because we live in a developed country, we have an easy life, but they do not see the sacrafices that were made years ago and in present day choices by many people.

part of the proposal has to do with jobs too,,,,

birth control, abstinence, abortion

they are all alternatives to creating or delivering life


but

the article also points out Britain has lower poverty even though it has higher out of wedlock birthrate,,,

What kind of jobs though? These jobs need to be permanent that span over 4 or 5 decades, not just twenty years or less.

We live in a modern society, but a lot of behavioural choices are very similar to centuries ago. Yes we have evolved in many ways', but the world still worries about who has the upper hand the the country or person beside them. People want more wage income which means employeers expect more responsibility from its employees.

Many people who are educated, but no careers related to there education or even professional opportunities. The settle to survive as a customer service rep, labourer, etc. which are need people and responsible people. The job market globally needs to create balance, which would mean that these professional jobs paying $100, 000 or more a year need to be divided. Break them up and offer two people employment each that may have superior skill levels in certain area's, but each can teach the other. The problem with this is once these employee's have developed required skills another employer will pay them more to accept a greater abundance of tasks/work load and responsibility all at the same time. The new employer is then saving money and creating a greater profit.

I really think our country could do better for children. Child care workers for example are some of the lowest paid professionals. That alone is a grim example of the value we place on our children.


Pay your child's provider more
have a longer leave after childbirth so between the 2 parents it would be at least a year (6mos each)with a guarantee of a comparable job retained. (this might be hard for corporations but what is more important our kids, or the corporate bottom line)? that question right there is the problem.

There are many people who cannot afford child care and therefore do not work. When a person pay's for one child $1000/month or more that is a lot of money for many average income people to pay. For a single employee business out of home child care that is $5000/month less associated cost. There morgage is also receiving a % for tax decutions.

I understand what you addressing, but it does not help the people or families that do not earn enough to afford child care.

Birth control reduce the worlds population as a whole, but does not change the poverty issue. Less people on earth does not fit into the equation of more jobs, because of the supply and demand chain of businesses.

It all comes down to simple basics.
If you can't afford them, don't have em.

Are you talking nationally or globally?

Is "common sense" national or global?

Being able to afford to raise children then in your opinion comes down to life style that one choses to live. Would this mean the wealthier people should have more children, or adopt children that live below a certain level of annual income?

If they want too.

If the wealthy people do not birth the new generations' of children and people, then who will replace the work force that is required to help supply the high standard of living their accustom to living on?

I don't know. Maybe this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNohGQv9o9g