Cynthia Libby- Blog 2

While reading the next assigned portion of this book, one section that stood out to me was titled, “Running Uphill.” In this section Abramsky discusses how nearly 3 million children live in households in which each person has less than $2.00 per day to spend. As if this statistic is not shocking enough, Abramsky continues on this topic stating that not only does this financial hardship cause temporary problems, but also permanent handicaps. Those who are living in extreme poverty may be faced with extremely poor living conditions that could result in health problems such as food-borne illnesses. For children, this often means they are likely to grow up with poorer health, a lower life expectancy, inadequate education from missing school, and possibly low self-esteem all because they were born into a situation in which they as children had no control. The schools available to those living in deep poverty lack funds and resources for extracurricular activities that would otherwise be available to children in more wealthy families. There is just an overall feeling of unsupportiveness in this kind of environment whether it is between teacher and child or parent and child. Many children who grow up in this environment drop out and according to Gloria Dickerson, they display “generational poverty; the attitudes have been handed down from generation to generation,” meaning they are hopeless and adopt the “I can’t” attitude. The question I thought of while reading this section was, how do we overcome this way of thinking and show people that things can be positive? Can you instill a sense of hope into someone who has lived their entire lives in deep poverty? Personally, I think that must be one challenging task. It is very upsetting to think about these children who do not receive the same opportunities as other children from wealthier families because I believe all kids should receive the best, especially when it comes to education, in order to give them a fair chance as succeeding in life and breaking that cycle of poverty.

The second topic I am choosing to discuss comes from Chapter 5, “Carrots, Sticks, and Piss Tests for the Poor.” Abramsky states that throughout history political figures have sought to distinguish between the deserving and the undeserving poor. This bothers me because yes, I understand that some people take advantage of the system and use welfare or government assistance programs even though they technically do not qualify for them, however, the alarmingly high rates of poverty should signify just how many people really do need assistance and who is to say that just because they don’t qualify based on the parameters set by the government that they don’t need help. The example given in the book is how California does not have the highest rate of poverty, however, the rates of food insecurity and hunger did not match up how they “should” have. 3.98 million residents were enrolled in their Cal-fresh program, with close to 1.5 million children. In my opinion and based off these statistics, anyone who is utilizing government assistance to reduce hunger, especially in children, is deserving of these programs. Who is to say that because a family makes over a certain dollar amount in salary a year that they do not need help feeding their children? There are many more factors that I believe need to be considered such as health. If there are health issues within the family causing them to spend more money on medications or doctors’ visits they may very well need help. I think overall, politicians should spend less time determining who is deserving and that can be monitored and more time targeting these programs to areas of extreme poverty to make sure those who could use the extra assistance are aware of the different programs available.

In the second part of the book, Abramsky aims “to provide a roadmap to change, a blueprint for a new War on Poverty.” This relates back to my previous post about who qualifies for programs and how these programs are marketed to their target population. I agree with Abramsky when he says his purpose is not to suggest that we as a country enforce absolute equality on a population of 300 million people. This is not only impossible, but also not desirable. I agree that we need to focus on fixing the extreme levels of inequality and develop quality uses for the tax dollars that working Americans give up. So often people complain about the government programs that rely on taxes, but if they were reformed and refined, maybe people would be willing to fund these types of programs.