I must thank our retired military friend for this and some of my other articles on similar topics. While his agenda has been solely to oust Bush (as it was initially to keep him from getting reelected in the first place), he has provided some interesting questions. Those questions have led me to research, and that research has led me to conclude that the United States of America has come further than any nation in the history of the world in working to reduce/eliminate poverty. While we complain about "the poor", the poverty we decry within our own borders is virtually unknown amongst us.

I have alrerady detailed how 87 percent of our population live above the US poverty line, a statistic that is exponentially higher than the world bank standard of one US dollar per day, where 20 percent (1.1 BILLION) of the world's population resides at or below. I have already detailed how, adjusted for inflation we are making more and working less than our predecessors in 1900 (and with more leisure time thanks to modern appliances). In this article I intend to submit that our next step needs to be, not in increased subsidies, but in decreased dependence lest we continue on the path towards creating a permanent welfare class.

In the United States, 98 percent of American households have at least one TV. This means that the vast majority of individuals who live BELOW the poverty line have access to this leisure device. 84 percent have at least one VCR (source: Link ).

Eighty percent of Americans are graduating high school, compared with 75.2% in 1900. Of those high school graduates, 63% will go on to attend SOME college right after high school (Link ).If you have a bachelor's degree, you can expect to earn at least $1 million more than those who don't have a bachelor's ( Link ). Home ownership also reached a record high of 69% (Link ). It can be no coincidence that the number of people in poverty is substantially LESS than the number of individuals in the US who do not complete their high school education.\n

Too often we fall into the trap of believing that there should be NO poverty, despite the statistical impossibility of that happening (as demonstrated by US statistics vs. world statistics, if every US household earned a starting wage of $100,000 per year, we\'d classify those workers making that wage as being "poor" as they fell on the low end of the statistical mean). In other words, those who are trying easrnestly to eradicate poverty are trying to reach the impossible standard of bring everyone up to "average". We cannot possibly meet the needs of EVERY American citizen, but owe it to ourselves to meet the needs of the MAJORITY, while counting on the goodwill of our communities to fill in the gap.\n

I contend with such a low percentage of our population below the poverty line, our communities could privately reach those citizens at a much more efficient cost than our current publicly financed fiasco. Currently, social service programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) consume HALF our federal budget, which in 2005 equalled over $8500 for every man, woman and child in our country at the federal level(more, when you figure in state and local taxes). But it is completely and utterly ridiculous for us to continue on our current path of underwriting dependence.\n

I believe we should work with communities that have higher percentages of poverty to promote privately funded, privately run programs that encourage independence, and allow the programs to mandate involvement as a condition to receive aid. Some programs that might be beneficial to the community would be teaching urban agriculture (rooftop gardens, vacant lots, etc) and reinstituting the "victory gardens; home economics programs, organizations like Habitat for Humanity that help facilitate home ownership...the list of possibilities is endless. And yes, in times of crisis, the government should be able to HELP. But that help should ONLY be temporary, and it should ONLY be minimal. Anything more than that is a gross disservice to the citizens of this country.\n",1] ); //--> 07-18-degree-dollars.htm ">Link ). Home ownership also reached a record high of 69% (Link ). It can be no coincidence that the number of people in poverty is substantially LESS than the number of individuals in the US who do not complete their high school education.

Too often we fall into the trap of believing that there should be NO poverty, despite the statistical impossibility of that happening (as demonstrated by US statistics vs. world statistics, if every US household earned a starting wage of $100,000 per year, we'd classify those workers making that wage as being "poor" as they fell on the low end of the statistical mean). In other words, those who are trying easrnestly to eradicate poverty are trying to reach the impossible standard of bring everyone up to "average". We cannot possibly meet the needs of EVERY American citizen, but owe it to ourselves to meet the needs of the MAJORITY, while counting on the goodwill of our communities to fill in the gap.

I contend with such a low percentage of our population below the poverty line, our communities could privately reach those citizens at a much more efficient cost than our current publicly financed fiasco. Currently, social service programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) consume HALF our federal budget, which in 2005 equalled over $8500 for every man, woman and child in our country at the federal level(more, when you figure in state and local taxes). But it is completely and utterly ridiculous for us to continue on our current path of underwriting dependence.

I believe we should work with communities that have higher percentages of poverty to promote privately funded, privately run programs that encourage independence, and allow the programs to mandate involvement as a condition to receive aid. Some programs that might be beneficial to the community would be teaching urban agriculture (rooftop gardens, vacant lots, etc) and reinstituting the "victory gardens; home economics programs, organizations like Habitat for Humanity that help facilitate home ownership...the list of possibilities is endless. And yes, in times of crisis, the government should be able to HELP. But that help should ONLY be temporary, and it should ONLY be minimal. Anything more than that is a gross disservice to the citizens of this country.