Consider the following facts of life in America:
Today, 37 million Americans live in poverty, including nearly 13 million children.
The number of Americans living in poverty rose from 35.9 million in 2003 to 37 million in 2004, an increase of 1.1 million Americans.
12.7 percent of Americans are living in poverty today. This figure includes 7.9 million families, an increase from 7.6 million families in 2003. Today, 13 million children under the age of 18 are living in poverty. That's 17.6 percent of all children in America.
Both the number of Americans living in poverty and the official poverty rate have risen for four straight years from 2000 to 2004.
2004 marked the second consecutive year in which real median household income showed no change.
Between 2002 and 2003, the number of uninsured Americans rose by 1.4 million. In 2004, the number of uninsured American rose by another 800,000, leaving 45.8 million Americans without health care coverage.
More than 8.3 million children under the age of 18 remained uninsured in 2004.
18.9 percent of children living in poverty are uninsured.
The proportion of people who receive health insurance from their employer continued to drop between 2003 and 2004, from 60.4 percent to 59.8 percent, the lowest levels in a decade.
Meanwhile, the number of people receiving assistance through government health insurance programs continues to rise. In 2004, 27.2 percent of Americans received some sort of government-sponsored health insurance, an increase from 26.6 in 2003.
24.7 percent of African Americans are living in poverty, making the poverty rate among African Americans nearly twice the national rate.
21.9 percent of Hispanics live in poverty.
24.3 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives live in poverty.
Women are nearly 40 percent more likely to live in poverty than men.
In 2004 women's wages declined in comparison to men's for the second straight year. Before 2003, women's wages had not seen an annual decline since 1995. Women make 77 cents for every dollar made by men.
There is much to consider here.
Announcement from Duke Memorial UMC
1 week ago
15 comments:
Yes...much to consider
1) Colectivisation models do not work for society...they make things worse.
2) Ownership-stewardship-responsibility models that Jesus talked about works best.
3) "the poor ye have with ye always" but in the land of opportunity the poor get richer.(Most have a color tv, large number have a car, enough food - a leading health problem is obesity.
4) We should assist without becoming an obstacle to people. When God gives opportunity, lets clear the path.
What is the definition of poverty in those statistics? Is it some percentage of the median wage? Mean wage?
For example, depending on how I define things, I could classify myself as "poor." I'm not saying I am, but as the saying goes, there are three types of lies: lies, d*mn lies, and statistics.
Same thing applies for health insurance. Are they counting someone as uninsured who was only uninsured for one weekend out of the year between jobs? For a majority of the time? All 12 months?
Larry, I'm not accusing you of manipulating the numbers yourself. Sometimes I wonder, though, that if poverty is defined as a percentage of the average wage, then by definition, we can never get rid of poverty. There will always be people on the lower end of the earning scale.
Larry, we are relatively new to your blog and ministry and are learning much.
I have questions to the two previous commenters, hopefully for constructive dialogue, not vitriol.
1. c hand: Please clarify and explain your suggestion that Jesus ever talked about an "ownership" model. Stewardship and responsibility certainly are godly attributes, but Jesus seems to teach about reliquishing ownership, if anything.
2. ibreakcellphone: I think you protest too much. Larry did not here extrapolate conclusions or policy intiatives from these statitistics, only provided them for consideration, yet you immediately jump on their veracity without a substantive alternative. Surely statistics can be manipulated, but are you suggesting that these numbers are not accurate? If they are not, do you have better numbers? If they are or may be correct, do they not demand a response from Christians?
In my attempt to add constructively then, let me observe that Christ did not set about to overcome poverty, but he certainly did command us to serve the poor, whom we still have with us, to be sure. The fact that humanity will always have "the poor" or societies with poverty does not relieve any of us of the duty and burden to serve and give.
2004 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Size of Family Unit
48 States Alaska Hawaii
1 $ 9,310 $11,630 $10,700
2 12,490 15,610 14,360
3 15,670 19,590 18,020
4 18,850 23,570 21,680
5 22,030 27,550 25,340
6 25,210 31,530 29,000
7 28,390 35,510 32,660
8 31,570 39,490 36,320
For each additional person, add 3,180 3,980 3,660
SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 30, February 13, 2004, pp. 7336-7338.
"How was the poverty line developed?
The poverty thresholds were originally developed in 1963-1964 by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration. Orshansky took the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's economy food plan for families of three or more persons and multiplied the costs by a factor of three. She followed somewhat different procedures to calculate thresholds for one- and two-person units in order to allow for the relatively larger fixed costs that small family units face. (The economy food plan used by Orshansky is included in a 1962 Agriculture Department report that is available on the Census Bureau's website.)
Orshansky used a factor of three because the Agriculture Department's 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey found that for families of three or more persons, the average dollar value of all food used during a week (both at home and away from home) accounted for about one third of their total money income after taxes.
In May 1965, the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity adopted Orshansky's poverty thresholds as a working or quasi-official definition of poverty. In August 1969, the U.S. Bureau of the Budget (predecessor of the Office of Management and Budget) designated the poverty thresholds with certain revisions as the federal government's official statistical definition of poverty.
More information is available on how Orshansky developed the thresholds and their subsequent history as the official U.S. poverty measure."
Here's the source for this information:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml#CPI
You can download the 58 page brochure that outlines Orshanky's Family Food Plans and Food Costs (Home Economic Research Report No. 20) here:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/familyfoodplan.pdf
The economy food plan that is the basis for calculating the federal poverty guidelines is on page 10 of the document.
As described by Molly Orshansky, "The plan relies heavily on the cereals, dry beans, peas, and nuts and potato groups, and on the selection of the less expensive items in each of the 11 food groups." (p. 8) It is a cheaper version of the low-cost food plan in which quantities of food already "are sufficient to allow for only a minimum of discard and plate waste . . . Menus based on the plans will not be elaborate. They will include foods that require a considerable amount of home preparation and call for skill in cooking to make varied and appetizing meals" (p. 8)
Social Security Bulletin, Volume 55, No. 4 has an article by Gordon M. Fisher entitled, "The Development and History of the Poverty Thresholds" that contains substantially more data. You can find it here:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/fisheronpoverty.html
Finally, a few notes about the calculation of the poverty levels from my own research. First, the poverty guidelines are set as pre-tax numbers, while the calculations of the income necessary to escape poverty are post-tax (this was the only data available to Orshansky at the time). This tends to encourage understatement of the numbers of people in poverty.
Second, the poverty guidelines don't include government aid as income. This tends to cause an overstatement of people in poverty.
Third, and most significantly, since the methodology to calculate the poverty levels was developed more than forty years ago, the cost of food has decreased from one third to one sixth of the average American budget. This factor causes a significant understatement in the number of people in poverty.
The concensus of expert opinion seems to be that if you revised the original methodology to reflect these methodological issues, the official poverty rate would increase by about 50%.
Somehow I feel that some question the statistics(some have legitimate questions) simply to have less guilt and less reason to help the poor. Lets not forget that there is more to poverty than just money.
c hand, Let me respond:
"1) Colectivisation models do not work for society...they make things worse."
REALLY? DO YOU HAVE PRIVATE INSURANCE FOR YOUR HEALTH? YOUR CAR? YOUR HOME? EACH IS A COLLECTIVE SOLUTION THAT YOU NEVER CONSIDER BECAUSE YOU CAN AFFORD THE PREMIUMS. WHAT YOU RESIST IS NOT "COLLECTIVISM" BUT BENEFIT FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT PAY AS MUCH AS YOU. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. BTW--SEE ACTS 2 AND 4 FOR THE EARLY CHURCH'S RADICAL COLLECTIVE RESPONSE TO POVERTY.
"2) Ownership-stewardship-responsibility models that Jesus talked about works best."
RESONSIBILITY NO ONE CAN ARGUE AGAINST. THE OWNERSHIP GIG IS SHAKY GROUND WITH JESUS AND THE BIBLE IN GENERAL.
3) "the poor ye have with ye always" but in the land of opportunity the poor get richer.(Most have a color tv, large number have a car, enough food - a leading health problem is obesity.
BAD THEOLOGY--READ, AS MR. JAMES HAS POINTED OUT OFTEN, DEUT. 15:1-11 ABOUT THE REAL INTENTION OF GOD. ADMITTEDLY, THE POOR BUY INTO THE CULTURE OF CONSUMMERISM. YOU SHOULD BE THANKFUL BECAUSE THEIR ABILITY TO HAVE A LITTLE OF THE "AMERICAN DREAM" KEEPS THE REVOLUTION AT BAY. OBESITY IS THE RESULT OF CHEAP FOOD--MOSTLY WHAT POOR PEOPLE CAN AFFORD. YOUR INSENSITIVITY IS OFFENSIVE HERE.
4) We should assist without becoming an obstacle to people. When God gives opportunity, lets clear the path.
THIS WOULD BE THE PHILOSOPHY OF MR. JAMES'S ORGANIZATION. IF IT WERE UP TO YOU, SO LITTLE WOULD BE DONE IN REALITY.
If folks aren't taking jabs at Larry's higher standards for fighting poverty, they are questioning a simple recitation of poverty statistics. Not to judge, but I agree to some extent with anonymous that many people seem to question the issue of poverty to death, making excuses for their inactivity in fighting it.
I appreciate JRB's comment about Jesus' real mission on earth. This is important -- the new kingdom Christ came to establish was intended to restore the Cosmos to their intended state. This means our call is to right injustices. It means we are to love carelessly. And it means that we are to walk alongside people and invite them into the new way of life that joins God in his mission of restoration.
I'd rather err on the side of careless love and justice than constantly question every effort and miss the coming of the kingdom of God.
jrb-
I think parables of the talents most specifically teaches wise ownership. If "stewardship and responsibility are godly attributes" I don't know how they could be exercised without some sense of ownership. Why does public housing deteriorate so quickly?
Jesus does whack on the rich more than a couple of times. But he also gets those on the other end.(see the parable of Mt 25:14-30)
I don't particularly like rich people, they can be prideful and elitist...particularly as they adopt leftist attitudes. And this brings me to ask about some of the weird cult like nature of some of the theology here. The high preist of all Larry wants to do politically is Ted Kennedy. The embodiment of fat arogant inhereted illgotten gain, never done anything but drunkenly say aye aye to every half-baked liberal idea long on promise short on results.
Wealth cannot save you so don't put your trust in it. This goes for everyone - the rich, the contented, and the wannabe rich. Has anyone seen the stories on Loto winners? Why do they crash and burn?
Dear Chand,
I have to admit that many of your posts have really frustrated me. However, now I am really starting to pity you and what must be a miserable existence.
I am a Christian. The God I know and serve calls me to be generous, loving, kind, forgiving, and welcoming. He leaves the judging up to Him. In fact, by my understanding, I am called to judge no other person.
Your posts all seem to be so angry and full of judgement which leads me to believe that your understanding of God is quiet different. I can't imagine carrying that weight around with me on a daily basis.
Sincerely,
your friend
Dear friend,
If you want help me, why do you offer pity. I can see how that might give you a sence of having done something but how does that help me. Why not show me a better way, do you have something better than pity.
Jesus healed the leapers, the blind, and the lame. That tells me that maintaining them in their present condition was not what they really needed. THEY needing changing, not just their bandages.
( I noticed that you were pretty judgemental of me after you scolded me for judging, but I don't really mind) I'm sure that I am largly to blame for your egregious misjudgements of me. I'll keep trying to improve my communication.
C Hand,
I'm definitely not judging you. I apologize if I came across that way. I'm trying to understand your perspective. Every comment you make seems so negative to me. I don't see that as a judgement, just an observation. You are free to believe anything you like and to express it. Quite honestly, I appreciate different perspectives that challenge me to think about what I believe. Aren't we all ever evolving?
As far as pity, I think Jesus did show pity on people. I pray he shows pity on me and my sinful nature. In doing so, he loved them and connected with them in a genuine and authentic way.
your friend
Ok fine-
But when the subject being discussed is c-r-a-p any honest evaluation is going to be negative(please don't transfer my discription of the dysfunction and sickness that infects many in poverty to the people themselves)
Every life experience I have had tells me that you are wrong in your assesments.
(here's one)I have 2 kids living with my family that no longer live with their srtipper/mom. She is not cappable of doing anything but harm to those around her and she came from a family with plenty of money. Money does not fix everything. Both kids were conceived during mindless sex with good time boys. I can love and value these two souls and still be angry at what was done to them. It's never a bastards fault that he was born as such, the term stands as a condemnation of his "parents". The boy is doing better in school, with people, and with himself everyday. But he is also growing up with a hole in him that only God can fill.
It sounds to me like everyone here has anger. It's just a question of where it is directed. If I'm off target, please help me see a little more clearly.
ps Most of my anger realy is outleted here.(no hitting, spitting, very little yelling at my house) I have been told to smile more however...I'll work on it.
c hand,
I have to respectfully disagree with you that this blog is "c-r-a-p."
You have taken two children into your home. That is very generous. I think Jesus would have definitely embraced the children you describe.
I do take issue with how you describe their mother. You see, it is someone like her that Jesus would have embraced as well. He didn't dismiss the most sinful and disgusting. He welcomed them. He befriended them. He didn't give up on them.
Another thought, yes there must be a hole in the hearts of those precious children, but I can't believe for one moment that giving up on their mother or shunning her is at all helpful to them. The best thing for them would be her rehabilitation so that they could be with her. I feel that this mother is the very person that Larry and CDM are looking out for.
People make big mistakes. They need mercy, forgivness and opportunity to get it right. Isn't that what Christ is about? CDM seems to be about all of these things.
No, blog not crap. Blog wrongheaded. The junk ruining lives is crap.
Yes I believe that is just what CDM is about...moral blindness. A little rehab, and we're ready to go? (rehabilitate to what?)
I don't know what "give up on" means. She is not in my hands. My resposibility is to never speak ill of her to "her" children, and use good manners(which are always impecible) if she makes contact after two years.
Well we do all make mistakes so maybe there is not much difference in any of us?
God help us all.
"CDM is about...moral blindness. A little rehab, and we're ready to go? (rehabilitate to what?)"
CHand, you have so little idea about what is going on. I suggest you go down to CDM and work with them. They will open your eyes to your IMmoral blindness; immoral, because it is self-selected.
Post a Comment