In the late 1990s, Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Labour Party government made a historic commitment: that they would undertake to cut child poverty in half by 2010, and to eradicate child poverty by 2020. The Conservative Party soon joined the commitment, and the
Since that commitment, there has been significant headway in reducing child poverty, but there is concern that the benchmarks for 2010 will not be met. Recent articles suggest that a lack of financial commitment and social support may threaten the movement to end child poverty. Advocacy groups in England and in Scotland have rallied support and resources for a recommitment to Blair's goal.
This degree of commitment to end child poverty has not emerged in many decades in the
51 comments:
The goal is to cut child poverty in half by 2010, and to eradicate child poverty by 2020. Looking at these dates, I don’t believe any effort that we could make as of now would make this a realistic goal. Child poverty is a huge problem because the children of today are the people we need to maintain our future. If they are not educated properly in all aspects of life our world will suffer along with them. I believe that it will be difficult to maintain this commitment for over 25 years because I feel as if other problems will arise and our budget will shift to some other detrimental cause. Child poverty has been an issue for a long time, I do not see why now, especially with the current state of the economy, does the US belief that we can eradicate it in 10 years.
Groups in UK are trying hard to help end the severity of the child poverty issue. CPAG in Scotland do various things to get the issue known, whether it be through campaigning, or media. They also offer courses so that those in need have the education they need in areas in which they are uninformed. CPAG is doing the most they can to try and help the goal of eradicating poverty become a reality by 2010. Everything they have set up and are actively doing are progressing toward better lives for our youth, I am just not convinced that this issue can be eradicating in only 10 years.
I agree with the statement above mine; it is impossible, in my opinion, to eradicate child poverty in 10 years. If it were, I believe we would have done so awhile ago. Child poverty is one of the hardest epidemics to get rid of because so many factors go into a child being in poverty. For instance, a child is poor because thier parents are poor, so you would then have to fix the poverty of the entire nation before just focusing on children. In order for these goals to be reached, things such as, the job market, the education system, the housing crises, and many other things have to be fixed. This isn't an easy crisis to solve because there are just so many factors involved in someone being in poverty, especially a child. I applaud the UK for making huge strides in it because I believe that it is possible to lower it by simply dedicating more time and resources on the issue. However, due to the current economic state of the US, they are simply unable to do anything about it right now. I wish child poverty could be eradicated in twenty years, however, I believe that it will take much longer than that.
Child poverty is a serious issue that could affect the lives of many people and not just the child's. As, blogger 381S10.303 mentioned the influence of child poverty will affect our society in the future both educationally an financially. In the article, the author focuses on the life of children in the UK and how children are struggling alongside their families to fulfill their basic needs. Poverty is a serious issue that is difficult to cope with and work with as a country. I give props to Prime Minister Tony Blair, who worked towards a goal to reduce child poverty and who gave himself a time frame to accomplish it. I applaud him for that but his timing was not realistic. Everyday a nation experiences so many drastic changes, now lets not imagine a whole ten years of change. The instability we have seen in our economy wont allows us to achieve these unrealistic goals, regardless if we have the public support or political will. We can do our best to take it day by day and help children in poverty like the groups that they have in England and Scotland. A perfect example of the lack of economy support and resources is England's program, where it says on their website “The End Child Poverty trustees have, in light of the current economic and fiscal challenges that the charity sector faces, taken the decision to close the formal legal structures of the End Child Poverty Campaign to minimize costs.” This is a perfect example of how they desired to help children in poverty through an organization but the impact of the economy is crucial. The group in Scotland uses a good technique to create awareness of the issue and it is a good way to begin something small, where you can take it one day at a time and work that way.
In regards to the United States I believe that such a commitment has not been made due to our individualistic views and ideals that we posses. Most Americans believe that if we lift ourselves from the bootstraps that we can succeed in life, this is not true for everyone. In addition, people have the mentality that if “I was able to succeed than you should be able to succeed too”. People in the United States care about poverty and childhood poverty, but I do not think this degree of commitment is going to occur in the United States for a long time. I believe that it is extremely difficult to maintain a commitment over 25 yrs. People lose interest, move on to different topics and sometimes economies get hit hard and therefore programs lose money. I believe that we can eliminate childhood poverty but we must handle this issue one day at a time.
I applaud the UK for trying to deal with the problem of childhood poverty. I found it shocking that in some regions of the UK childhood poverty is 54%. Children should not have to live in poverty, they should not have to worry about where they are going to sleep or eat. Although I applaud the UK for taking action against this problem I think it is unrealistic of them to try and end childhood poverty by 2020. It takes years and dedication to eliminate a huge problem like this one. I also believe and agree with .303 that people care about childhood poverty but overtime the focus will change from childhood poverty to another topic of concern. In the past, the United States focused on infectious diseases, now as time has gone by we have moved on to focus on non-infectious diseases. I think that with every time period there is going to be a shift to something of urgent concern or importance. Also, I believe that some politicians may not agree or want to continue with a plan that will take a long time to complete or cure. I just hope that ultimately the United States and the UK can reduce or eradicate childhood poverty.
Groups in the UK have created websites, campaigns, handbooks, and advertisements in order to make people aware of the issue. In addition, to creating awareness about the topic CPAG also states on their website that, “Despite Scotland’s undoubted wealth a staggering one in four of our children still live in poverty”. CPAG related the problem back to their citizens. By saying our children they make it noticeable that this is an important issue that their country should care about. Lastly, by mentioning their wealth, CPAG also emphasizes to the public that with all their wealth it is a shame or rather unfortunate that their children live in poverty. I believe that by appealing to people’s emotions and educating people the UK can potentially keep people interested in this topic and hopefully reduce or eradicate the current problem.
In my opinion, I believe to be impractical to wipe out child poverty over the pan of a ten year period. If this was at all possible then I believe that most nations would have implemented this plan years ago. Poverty in its own right is at epidemic portions so when just trying to wipe a small piece of that pie in child poverty I think was a very lofty goal. If one was to wipe out child poverty then they would have to look at eradicating poverty as a whole together, because if a child is in poverty most likely their family is also in poverty. The United Kingdom has taken major steps in trying to fix their problem of child poverty. But more needs to be done for poverty on the whole if they expect to fully get rid of child poverty. In order for these goals to be reached by any country and not just the United Kingdom, things such as, the job marketplace, a broken education system, housing crises, and many other things must be fixed. This isn't an easy crisis to solve because there are just so many factors involved with someone being in poverty, especially more so for a child.
The goal to cut child poverty in half and even eradicate child poverty later are big and great goals to consider. However, the dates for these goals are what stood out to me because child poverty is too big of a problem to try to cut it in half by this year. And it would be even more difficult to to eradicate it by 2020. The goal of cutting down child poverty in half by 2010 has brought us a lot closer to lowering it then just trying to cut it down without a date. However, if wanted to eradicate child poverty as fast as possible then our other issues will not be support and could cause other issues to increase. In addition, child poverty is caused by other factors. For instance, teen-pregnancy, incarcerated parents, or alcoholic parents are all reasons that lead to child poverty. With the investment of finances and social support from a lot of individuals, i believe it is realistic to eradicate child poverty. However, there are many other issues that need the same exact things to end those. Also, it would be very difficult because it is very hard to keep a commitment for 25 years going due to additional money and lost of hope for some individuals. And eventually more money is going to be needed in order to continue working towards this goal. And no one can provide an infinite amount of money to end child poverty. However, i believe there will always be a lot of social support from individuals because almost, if not everybody, wants to put an end to child poverty. And children are our future and if we do not have any children that can support themselves and there might not even be a future for them. And i agree with 341 that our economic state is not in the best condition and it will almost be impossible to do anything about child poverty as of right now. The groups in the UK have made individuals more aware of this issue. Now individuals know how serious child poverty and gotten and will be more willing to or consider supporting this issue. The UK has created websites to show what the conditions are for child poverty. And with a lot more individuals looking on the web and always on the internet, it has reach a lot more individuals.
I think it is nearly impossible to eradicate child poverty within the next 10 years. I believe so because this is a “hot button” issue and if it could have been taken care of by now then I believe it would have been. It is no easy solution to child poverty because children fall victim to their circumstance. For example if a child parents are poor then they are also poor, which means that to fix child poverty, we would have to fix the poverty of adults as well. In order to do this our economy would have to stabilize, and we would have to see many increases in education and the job market. The UK has realized the severity of the matter and has focused much attention on the issue, but the US cannot right now because of how the economy is. It is for these reasons that child poverty cannot be eradicated in the next 10 years.
I also believe that it is very hard to actually end child poverty by 2020. This goal is not realistic because the amount of time is not enough. It will be difficult to maintain this commitment for over 25 years because the economy will never be constantly the same, there a changes to the society that will that will affect the progress of this goal. If the society does not see any changes, they might not support it. Ending child poverty in 10 years is very difficult to accomplish expecially in the economy we are living in now. Groups in the UK have done a lot to try to end poverty. They have campaigns, that focus on making poverty history. There are also charity groups like Child Poverty Action Group. The CPAG is a charity that is campaigning for the abolition of child poverty in the UK. They raise awareness about low income families and the policies that affect them. They also conduct research to try to better the situation. The CPAG is a great charity. After reading the article and reading what people are trying to do to end poverty, I still do not believe that in 10 years child poverty will completely end.
This degree of commitment to end child poverty has not emerged in many decades in the United States. However, the experience in the UK suggests that such a commitment demands a sustained investment of finances and social support. Are such efforts realistic? I completely agree with the comments above. I will even take it a step further and say that it is impossible to eradicate child poverty as a whole. You have to consider that each country has their own way of defining poverty. As we have learned in class, most other countries do so through a relative scale while the United States do so through an absolute measure. Although statistically speaking, the UK and all other countries can claim to eliminate child poverty- the key question is what defines poverty? and how can you be certain that 100% of children have actually met the requisites? I will most definitely give Blair and the UK credit for actually stepping up and making a change for the better. In the United States, it is difficult for politics to step up to the plate and really expose the poverty rates and unrealistic measure that we have. The time and financial effort that the UK has put into making a dent in the child poverty rates shows initiative and is definitely a start. As far as maintaing a 25 year long commitment, I find that to be extremely difficult. Especially considering how unpredictable the economy is. A lot could happen within 25 years that could change the financial circumstances and abilities of a country. There does seem to be a lot campaigning, that is helping the cause. Awareness is significant when trying to eradicate something so widespread.
The issue of child poverty has been around for decades, both in the United States and in the UK. Country’s that make commitments to ending child poverty should be applauded for their efforts. However, like many programs designed to help the poor, the commitments made by these countries often fall short. The answers to end child poverty are not simple. They cannot be addressed without tremendous monetary commitments. This is where the success or realistic efforts to end child poverty can be judged. The bottom line is it takes money, a lot of money.
The other thing it takes is time and patients. I’m not sure it is wise for Tony Blair to announce they would cut child poverty in half by 2010 and eradicate child poverty by 2020. Child poverty is only one aspect of poverty. You cannot address one aspect of poverty; you need to address the entire problem. Jobs need to be available for the parents; childcare and educational opportunities need to be available for the children. Mind sets and traditional ways of life need to be changed. For a good majority of individuals living in poverty, it is all they know. They don’t have a clue how to get out.
To truly make a difference in child poverty, the commitment must be steadfast, the money must be endless and the public support must be unwavering. Unfortunately, the reality is that we all want to end child poverty, we just aren’t sure at what cost. The bottom line, talk is cheap. I agree with 381s10.303, the ten-year goal is unrealistic. It sounds great because it makes great headlines. If it where that easy, many other countries would have already done so.
The issue of child poverty has been around for decades, both in the United States and in the UK. Country’s that make commitments to ending child poverty should be applauded for their efforts. However, like many programs designed to help the poor, the commitments made by these countries often fall short. The answers to end child poverty are not simple. They cannot be addressed without tremendous monetary commitments. This is where the success or realistic efforts to end child poverty can be judged. The bottom line is it takes money, a lot of money.
The other thing it takes is time and patients. I’m not sure it is wise for Tony Blair to announce they would cut child poverty in half by 2010 and eradicate child poverty by 2020. Child poverty is only one aspect of poverty. You cannot address one aspect of poverty; you need to address the entire problem. Jobs need to be available for the parents; childcare and educational opportunities need to be available for the children. Mind sets and traditional ways of life need to be changed. For a good majority of individuals living in poverty, it is all they know. They don’t have a clue how to get out.
To truly make a difference in child poverty, the commitment must be steadfast, the money must be endless and the public support must be unwavering. Unfortunately, the reality is that we all want to end child poverty, we just aren’t sure at what cost. The bottom line, talk is cheap. I agree with 381s10.303, the ten-year goal is unrealistic. It sounds great because it makes great headlines. If it where that easy, many other countries would have already done so.
The rate of children in poverty is growing around the world. Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Labour Party government made a commitment to cut child poverty by 2010 and eradicate it by 2020. Though they had good intentions, they did not have realistic intentions. Child poverty has many layers of causation, and none of those causes are the fault of the child. Causation factors include family aspects, availability of resources, socioeconomic status of the parents, education, and the surrounding neighborhood. Though rising children out of poverty may seem like an easy task, it is not. Completely eliminating the rates of children poverty is unrealistic due to the vast amount of problems that would need to be addressed and solved.
To maintain a commitment to eliminating children poverty, the government would have to put all other problems on hold. It would be virtually impossible to put unexpected or unwanted events and crises on the backburner. For instance, economic depressions or recessions and wars cannot simply be dealt with when it is convenient for the government to address the problems. The unpredictable economic and global issues that may arise can make it impossible to focus strictly on solving child poverty for 25 years.
As student .303 mentioned, the U.K. has been trying to inform the public about child poverty through campaigning, media, and even educational courses. Though it takes much more than simply informing the public of the high rates of children in poverty, I think it is important to spread the word. If the United States were to spread knowledge of the prevalence of children in poverty, I feel more programs would be established in order to help relieve parents of financial stress and improve community environments and schools.
Blogger .248 made a good point about eradicating poverty as a whole in order to make the end to child poverty successful. While the intention of cutting poverty by half at the end of 2010 and completely eradicating poverty by 2020 is praiseworthy, it is not something that should be rushed into. I think maintaining this commitment over the next 25 years will be difficult to accomplish because removing poverty will be a huge expense every year. As the article mentioned, over 600,000 children live in poverty while there is less than 50,000 children that receive funding from the government for day care. Trying to eradicate poverty would demand the other 550,000 children receive the same day care coverage so parents and adults could find jobs in the work place to earn a family income without worrying about childcare. From the article, it seems the government is doing a lot on its part to ensure that child poverty is reduced but it would take a lot of social action from wealthier individuals in the UK to help make the change and eradicate poverty by 2020 which may be unlikely to expect people to be that generous because I do not think it would be a one-time donation. Groups in the UK that are working towards ending poverty are doing a good deal of promotion make people understand the nature of the current poverty situation in hopes of helping people understand that social support is a big factor in the success of Tony Blair’s plan. That said, I applaud what the UK is trying to do because if people can be initially lifted out of poverty, their will to stay out of poverty will be much stronger.
In responses to 321, I have to agree that the idea to end child poverty is important but accomplishing this goal is difficult since it requires a lot of commitment from politicians and society. Moreover, to have a timetable of 10 year to erase child poverty is unrealistic and ideal. Child poverty is problem that has been an existence for many years and will not be erased easily. However, this problem is not impossible to solve. If the UK and USA really want to erase child poverty, they have to put a 100% commitment to this goal. This goal requires a lot of work support such as child support and family allowance for low-income families. Moreover, tax credits should be introduced to support the low-income families. I’m not saying these are the only solutions to ending child poverty but these are some portions to the problem solution. Further, child poverty eradications cannot be addressed without tremendous monetary commitments. Therefore, this problem requires not only a lot of commitment from politicians and society, but also patient and monetary fund commitment.
Furthermore, since the UK has brought the subject to end child poverty, they are more likely than the USA to show a significant changes in their country rate of child poverty or level of poverty rate in general.
Although the concept of developing such an idea to completely end poverty in 2020 is fantastic, I believe that it is also extremely hard to accomplish and the expectations may be a little on the far fetched side. Our country is struggling to support ourselves and I don’t particularly see how we would be able to be able to pull another country out of poverty when we cant even pull ourselves out of our economic crisis. Even with additional budgetary dollars, public support, and political will it would still be borderline impossible to be able to pull the entire country out of poverty within the 20 year time limit they allowed themselves.
My views strongly compare to the views student .303 because we both agree that child poverty is a major issue, as well as poverty as a whole, and 20 years would not be enough time to pull us out of poverty especially under the circumstances of the plummeting economy.
The efforts to not have child poverty in 2020 seem like a far fetch. The article states that 600,000 children who are three years old and younger are living in poverty. I think the idea for the government to try to get the children out of poverty through employment is not very reliable. Even if these people can get employed, they may have low wages and still remain in poverty. According to the article it states that poverty moves from gerneration to generation. When children are rised in poverty there is a huge percentage that they will remain in poverty. This being said the aim to end child poverty in 2020 seems unrealistic. The groups in the UK is doing a good job at trying to reduce poverty by putting more time into the issue through the media and community. I feel there is social support from people when I comes to poverty, but ther is still many children in poverty. CPAG in the UK is doing what campaigns, and lost of awareness of the child poverty. The group in Scottland also uses great awareness of child poverty. Even with all this public awareness I agree with .261 as he/she mentioned that it takes much more than just public awareness to get rid of poverty. As for the US I hope that we can reduce the child poverty, but I dont think I have full confidence in child poverty being completely gone by 2020.
I agree that it is a very hard goal to end poverty in ten years. I also agree mostly all poverty would have to be done a way with before you could fully achieve the goal of ending child poverty. You make goals in order to try and achieve them. You do not make promises because no one knows what tomorrow will actually bring. No one can predict the future. I do not think it was to bold for Tony Blair to make the goal of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020. If he doesn’t meet that goal, then at least he tried and put effort into ending their poverty. At least they educated their people on the important topic instead of hiding it and pretending everything is OK. They are doing way better than the US right now. It is better to make a bold goal than to just sit around saying it will be to hard to do. It will be hard and I do not think child poverty can be ended in 10 years alone, but someone needs to make a bold move here in the US to get this ball moving. I feel we try to hide the poor in American so people won’t know how bad it really is, but it is time we make a move to end poverty, especially with children.
In 2008 we spent between 160-170 billion dollars on Iraq. We spend 1000 billion dollars on wall street that same year. Personally, I do not think America has their priorities straight. We have children starving everyday, and infant mortality rate is increasing because the poor are not being helped enough. A friend of mine has a parent that makes $65,000 a week and we have starving children? Does this make any sense?
Yes, eradicating child poverty will be extremely hard, especially within a ten year period, but it is not impossible. We would need to sustain investments of finances in poverty and get and keep social support, but I do not think this effort is unrealistic at all. If everyone was educated on the poverty that now exists in America and we had political parties that supported ending poverty I do not think it would be hard to maintain this commitment for 25 years. We can set high goals that are not always met, but at least we tried. If our goal isn’t met then we start a new one, and so on, until we achieve our mission to end all poverty.
I agree with .316. They mention how people lose interest when something takes to long to achieve and how most people think that if one person can do it then the next will be able to. I agree that they say that not everyone is like this. I say that because not everyone can get up, go do something, and succeed 100 percent of the time. I'm not saying they wouldn't like to, but its also not realistic. Same thing goes for people losing interest over anything that takes a while because it takes too long and people expect to see things happen in the blink of an eye. I also believe that within the article it stating that the US may not be able to reduce child poverty due to not having as much commitment and groups that support the cause as in other countries especially that of the UK. I kind of look at this like exercising, the reason people stop and give up after seeing immediate results is because there soon begins a plateau. Well I feel like that will happen with the US because their views aren't as realistic as they should be. So in order to have success within lowering child poverty I believe that more people and groups should be formed and informed of the difficulties and battles they may run into with making the matter a great success. Already the UK seemed to run into a little problem but they formed another group and are looking onto the right track to get to their goal in time.
In response to the comment posted by 347, i completely agree. I think that idea is unreliable because there it is not 100% sure that even with a job the pay will be enough to get out of poverty. Since an issue like this is said to be passed on through generations is would be extremely difficult to rise from it relying on employment. I agree that trying to solve such an issue by using the public eye and showing things to the community through the media will bring the issue to great awareness.
UK’s plan to end child poverty in the time span that is planned is unrealistic. If such a thing was possible, more nations would be working towards this goal as well or would have already accomplished such an objective. To end child poverty means to ultimately end poverty in society. With this commitment, children are not going to have to be the main focus, but the parents are. Majority of the children living in poverty is due to their parents living in poverty. Nations will be forced to address the overall poverty epidemic. Furthermore, with addressing this epidemic, nations will have to contribute great financial and social support. With such support needed, maintaining this commitment over 25 years will be beyond difficult especially due to the instability of the economy now and possibly in the future. When it comes to groups in the UK positioning the issue, they have done a great deal of encouraging and bringing awareness to society on the issue of poverty. In doing this, the UK hope to gain the social support needed in order to be successful. Even though much effort is being placed into this ultimate goal of ending child poverty, like many have stated already, I too believe that it will take much longer than planned.
The stats of children in poverty is too high in my opinion. This issue not only effects the children but families and the community as a whole. I do not think that the goal to cut the numbers of children in poverty by the year 2020 are really realistic. There are too many factors that come into play in these stats. No one can predict the future and there may be other unexpected events that may cause economic shifts. Therefore, in order to reach this goal in 10 years seems difficult in my opinion. As stated in the article, children in the UK are already struggling to receive basic needs. Although the government has been able to rise some children out of poverty, there are so many more who are still in poverty. In addition, this issue is transfered to generations of the future and therefore there will be more children that will be "born into" poverty. I think the UK has done a great job at taking steps into fixing this issue. However, i do not believe it will be enough to get every child out of poverty. To solve this problem as a whole, countries need to look at other factors such as education for the children, solving living problems and giving families support other than providing employment.
As we discussed in class social expenditures is the money that the country spends to make up for the percentage of people living in poverty. The money is specifically used for social policies and programs to alleviate poverty. Currently according to lecture in the U.S only about 3% is only spent on social expenditures, while in other countries the rate goes from 3 to up to 14%. This could explain why the degree of commitment to end poverty (specifically in child poverty) has not emerged in the U.S. I believe such efforts are realistic if and only if the social support and finances are provided. In the England and Scotland articles, the programs, CPAG and ECP are very connected to the overall goal of ending child poverty by campaigning and thus raising awareness to the problem. The major problem with a 25 year commitment is that new ideas must always be present and measuring poverty over again must be done at least twice over the 25 year mark to show progress. If this is not done then the program may be cut and lose funding. While I agree that the urgency of ending child poverty certainly is being promoted, and is well on the way to prevention, I still have major doubts that finances will be guaranteed for the whole 25 years, in order to reach the goal.
321: I totally agree with your viewpoint on addressing the entire aspect of poverty, although I feel as if the entire awareness of poverty in general is being raised through the child poverty campaigns by CPAG and ECP. Like I stated above I am highly doubtful as you are about the money being provided for the entire length of the program proposal, because as you say it would have already been done. I think perhaps a worldwide approach may be another strategy in tackling poverty since it is prevalent in mos countries, worldwide.
I agree with other comments that state that there is no way that this goal could be met by 2010. Child poverty is a worldwide issue. With the immigration rates that the United States has, there would be no real way to know whether we have met the goals set. There is no accurate way to measure the poverty levels.
With the current economic situation in our country, it is hard for smaller families that have two parents with minimum wage jobs to put food on their tables every night. Mid-class families are visiting food banks that have never dreamed they would have to do in their lifetime.
There are several factors that contribute to child poverty, and until are country can do their job to contribute to the cause, then these goals will never be achieved.
Like the others, I too agree that ending child poverty in a span of ten years is a bit far-fetched. Frankly, that just sounds crazy. There are so many layers to poverty; to end it each layer would have to be addressed independently of the others. Also, it cannot be ignored that children who are in poverty have parents who are in poverty also. So, to end child poverty would be to end poverty in general I feel.
I do feel however, that it is good that the UK has recognized a major problem and is attempting to do something about the issue.
If the goal is to cut child poverty in half by 2010 and completely eradicate it by 2020, I agree with blogger 341. Eliminating child poverty in ten years is a near impossible task. To eradicate child poverty one would also have to eliminate the vast majority of poverty in the United States because a child poverty is usually predetermined by the poverty of their parents. Therefore in order to pull the child out of poverty, you must also pull out the entire family. So many things must be fixed in order to accomplish this goal and as much as I would like to see it happen, I think with the current economic state it will take much longer to eradicate child poverty. Even England had to pull funding from ending child poverty to cut expenses.
In reply to zmedrano...
I like your passion about the topic. I also do believe that they ahve not advanced in their efforts to solve these issues. But for you to say that it will be impossible is a big step. U hit it on the nail to say that in orde for it to be successful the funds must be endless and the effort must be like never before.
Efforts relating to child poverty require substantial amounts of attention and money. For this to be done it would have to be viewed as a priority.With all of the issues already at hand in our country it would be unrealistic to believe that that the men who run our society would put child poverty over country wide unemployment, homelessness, and a depressing economy. Other countries that have more stable economies have more availability to focus on other issues like the one of child poverty. This problem requires a large amount of effort because this problem cannot be solely fixed by just handing money out. these child lack a huge part of their physiological and physical growth from their childhood that needs to be fixed in order to keep them from landing right back into poverty. It would be very difficult for this country to keep a program like this going for 25 years let alone agree on one and implement one that works. The uk has deemed it a very important criss and are handling it with great attention because it has reached almost 90% in some ares and an average of 56% in most.
I agree with 205 that we can work towards ending child poverty but we have to realize that setting a time frame is unrealistic. It is also unrealistic to believe that child poverty can be ended while there are other issues going on that are viewed as more important. this issue can only be fixed by small scales in each community to accomplish ending poverty. It needs to be a group effort put in by the communities rather then waiting for the government to fix it.
Child poverty is a trend that reflects the economic struggle of the family. The efforts to eradicate child poverty in that amount of time(25 years) are more idealistic than realistic. There are numerous steps in various areas that must be taken in order to succeed with this goal. At the grassroots level, family scientists and others can work in communities to encourage social programs that will uplift members. Politicians can do their part to lobby for those who do not have a voice. Tax credits and child care are provided for the underprivileged members of the society in the UK. As blogger 321 stated, mindsets and ways of life should be altered to reflect the goals of the community. If there is a gradual shift towards the eradication of child poverty, that is better than to set a time limit of 10 years. Steady involvement of dedicated people can and will turn this issue around.
I really cannot say whether or not the efforts of the United Kingdom are truly realistic. I think that cutting it down by half in 2010 is fairly realistic goal to set; however, eradicating it completely by 2020 seems a little far- fetched. I am not really sure you can make a social problem completely disappear even if you do provide lots of funding and social support towards the project. I definitely feel the United Kingdom could significantly reduce child poverty perhaps by cutting it down than more than half if they continually provide funding on a federal and local level as well as by instituting support systems in local communities that struggle with this issue.
Staying committed to one project over a long period of time is often difficult to do. To end child poverty in the UK they decided it would take about 25 years of social support, finances, as well as political support. One would hope that this goal does work because no one wants to see a child suffer; however, a lot of concerns are raised because of this long timeline. I think that in a 25 year span a lot can change especially politically. Something could come up during the 25 years that may become a more prominent threat than the issue of child poverty. There could be a natural disaster or possibly some sort of attack that requires the government's attention. They may still receive social support and funding because if the research shows that there is an improvement in the project this may provide an incentive to receive additional funding. If the research does not show that the program has been effective the funding might get cut or cut down significantly.
Groups in the UK have positioned the issue as a societal problem. They say that not only does poverty affect the child but the family and society as a whole. End Childhood Poverty goes on to say that child poverty can negatively affect employment, education, mental and physical health, and possibly cause social exclusion. They make an appeal about society to help a person realize that it is not just a personal issue, but one that affects their society as a whole.
I really feel that this sort of appeal would really help the cause because it is important for people to remember that this is something that affects the entire community not just a certain group of people.
I would have to agree with 303 because I also feel that some other detrimental cause might cause the government to shift their focus from child poverty. It is extremely difficult to keep a 25 year commitment to something that will require a lot of funding and political and social support.
I think it would be very difficult to see the type of movement taking place in the UK transferred into U.S. policy. Though it is something that I, as an individual, find to be extremely important, I think it is unrealistic to expect a change, as large as the one Tony Blair pushed for, take hold in the U.S. Although average citizens and politicians alike, claim to view children as a high priority, actions speak much louder than words; and when there is an opportunity or need to take action in support of our children, most often Congress and Washington ultimately find this issue less important than Wall Street bail outs and saving failing American car companies. For example, in preparation for the Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, many experts have pushed for changes—changes that would cost money, but that are very necessary to address both the obesity epidemic and the high rates of food insecurity that coexist in America. Experts suggested that the Federal government allocate $1 more per meal (for the school meal program), so that the meals served could be more nutritionally sound and balanced. However, in the Senate draft of the bill, only a 6-cent increase per meal was suggested. Likewise, President Obama has requested $10 billion ($1 billion over ten years) in his FY2011 budget to support child nutrition. Many people think Obama has shown a real commitment to child nutrition by requesting this large amount of funding. While I agree that it is more than many other presidents have done, if you compare this budget request to all the other things we have spent billions of dollars on, it still is quite low. Especially, if you consider the positive impacts this program could have on millions of poor children in our country—children who will one day grow up to be adults, and the leaders of our nation—this is a program that should be receiving more funding than most because it is a program that supports the future generation. However, it’s most upsetting that members of Congress, many of who claim to view this issue as one of utmost importance, are debating whether to even award the whole requested amount because of the recession and their desire to cut spending as much as possible. If the U.S. finds it difficult to fully support a program that not only aids poor children experiencing food insecurity, but addresses the issue of obesity (an epidemic that spans socioeconomic status in this country) as well, then it is unlikely an initiative like the UK’s would be proposed and supported in this country any time soon—even if it is a much needed and important one.
The goal to cut child poverty in half and even eradicate child poverty are big and great goals to fathom. By 2020, all child poverty should be diminished. Although the United States shows large amounts of effort dealing with poverty, this is quite a commitment to think about. There is always something new coming about everyday, and it seems a little shocking for child poverty to be eliminated in just that short amount of time. It takes years of dedication and hard work to eliminate something like this.
To help solve this problem, countries need to look at other factors such as more education for children, solving living problems and giving families support other than providing employment. I agree with .261 that if the United States were to spread knowledge of the prevalence of children in poverty, more programs would be established in order to help relieve parents of financial issues causing stress and improve community environments and schools making it a healthier place for children to be. In turn, this would be a much larger step in eliminating childhood poverty.
I think that it is highly unlikely that child poverty will be cut in half by 2010 and even more unlikely that it will be eradicated by 2020. Qualifications for jobs are becoming more and more extreme. Individuals in poverty now are not able to get jobs that will get them out of poverty mainly because they do not meet the qualifications. With jobs requiring more and more qualifications, individuals in poverty now are not even going to be able to get and maintain the jobs that they were once able to get. With this, children who are in poverty will remain in poverty. There is no way that child poverty will be cut in half within this time because of the amount of negative factors going against it. As children that are in poverty remain in poverty, child poverty rates will stay the same. As these children grow up in poverty, it is likely that they will remain in poverty. Children in poverty will probably not go to college because they cannot afford it. Without an education, these children will grow up and be in poverty themselves as adults. This chain will continue until there is something put in place to slow it down. With this, it is highly unlikely that child poverty will be eradicated by 2020.
I agree with .262 in that this task that our government is trying to take on is a big commitment. So many things come about everyday that cause individuals to fall below the poverty mark that it will be almost impossible to cut the poverty level in half much less eradicate it completely. I also agree with the fact that instead of trying to get the individuals who are in poverty out of poverty, the government should start working on the next generation getting them prepared to earn a good education to prevent them from continuing the poverty chain. I believe that the task of cutting child poverty in half is possible, but I do not believe that it will happen in the small amount of time being considered. Programs such as the Unemployment Insurance program are doing a decent job at relieving individuals in poverty of financial setbacks and even getting them into a steady job, this is a slow process and will take a lot more time and effort.
I agree with the comment above mine. I think it will be impossible to cut child poverty in half by 2010 and to eradicate child poverty by 2020. I don’t think such efforts are realistic because in order to cut child poverty in half, the government would first have to cut down all poverty in half. It would be very difficult to maintain a commitment over 25 years, with additional budgetary dollars, public support, and political support because it’s really expensive to get shelter and food for most children in poverty. A lot more homes would have to be made and possibly more people would have to adopt these children. To truly eradicate child poverty by 2020, many steps must be taken. This goal can maybe be achieved but probably not in 10 years. It will take some serious time to fix this issue. As student .303 mentioned, the U.K. has been trying to inform the public about child poverty through campaigning, media, and even educational courses. They have also created websites to show what the conditions are for child poverty. And with a lot more individuals looking on the web and always on the internet, it has reach a lot more individuals.
I believe the efforts to end child poverty how become realistic with many programs designed to assist families to exist poverty. Programs such as the TANF and SNAP are programs that have been modified in efforts to better assist unfortunate families. These programs, like WIC are dedicated to decrease the poverty rate among children. In efforts to end poverty it requires dedication and support from society in general. Politicians can argue different ways to end poverty but I believe that communities that are facing poverty need rally behind affective programs that will better situations for poor families. Financial assistance is greatly needed and in order to decrease poverty financial aid given to needy families must remain constant. The UK has discovered that early childhood education is essential in order to end poverty. Assisting parents with employment has not proven that affective. The efforts to end poverty, improve health and education among children is greatly needed and will succeed if dedication and support is give from government, communities, and families suffering from poverty.
I believe that it would be very hard to ever end child poverty in many nations of the world. Child poverty has long been a problem and very little has been done to improve the circumstances. One of the main reasons for this problem is that many nations tend to be very individualistic. People tend to care about their immediate families and those that they interact with on a day to day basis. For many this means that the people who truly are in poverty have nobody to turn to for aid. Their immediate family is in the same situation that they are. If as a nation we could agree to help those in desperate situations and gain more social support for goals such as ending child poverty the chances of achieving those goals would become more realistic. Until we can gain vast social support for such causes then government expenditures would be forced to devote more money in their budgets towards such programs. As of now politicians are to worried about getting elected to short term goals which can show progress and hence gain reelection votes. Long term goals that are the best for the nation such as a 25 year goal are unrealistic in democratic governments. Politicians and those that can truly work towards achieving such goals can not realistic devote their time to such goals. Also no one wants to be at fault for not being able to achieve such unrealistic goals.
This degree of commitment to end child poverty has not emerged in many decades in the United States. However, the experience in the UK suggests that such a commitment demands a sustained investment of finances and social support. Are such efforts realistic?
- I think that such commitment does require lots of financial investment and social support. UK was successful in reducing child poverty through taxation and carefully monitored and invested programs. However, I believe it is not realistic in America. Although America would like to aim towards such goals, Americans are also very individualistic and selfish in mind when it comes to taxes and paying extra. Americans, especially those not living nor have never lived in poverty, believe it is the individuals' responsibility to take care of oneself--meaning they take on the individual approach instead of structural approach to how poverty may arise.
In countries like the European Union, they are taxed very high because those resources are allocated, more efficiently than the American government. If you look at what UK pays for child care and health care and compare it to America, UK pays little or no money! I think if anything, America can learn from their taxation systems, social support, and learn that everyone can actually benefit far greater if taxes were higher.
How difficult would it be to maintain a commitment over 25 years, with additional budgetary dollars, public support, and political will?
- Maintaining a commitment over 25 years would be very difficult and would take lots of careful planning for the government to maintain and uphold. If there was such a program here in the U.S., the government may be tempted to even re-allocate resources to other pressuring resources such as military weapons and engineering.
How have groups in the UK positioned the issue (e.g., the urgency of ending child poverty for the future success of the UK in a new Europe)?
Groups in the UK have positioned the issue of ending child poverty through the use of education and appeal to emotions, and involving politicians who are passionate about this issue.
I believe that a commitment to end child poverty and poverty in general is a realistic goal to set over an extended period of time. I feel in this country although realistic it would be very difficult to achieve due to the differences in political views that this countries politicians hold and how different those views are. To maintain this goal over 25 years would be very difficult even with the additional support of government dollars and public support. I would agree with 303's post in that the problem of childhood poverty will be eradicated by 2020 or just ten years. I believe that 303 missed that this goal of eradicating childhood poverty by 2020 is not the goal of this country but that of the UK. If by some power the government was able to eradicate childhood poverty I think it would take longer than ten years. I also believe that within the commitment to eradicate childhood poverty their should also be a substantial commitment to eradicate childhood obesity which I believe is a much bigger danger to this countries children than just poverty alone.
The UK's goal is to cut child poverty in half by 2010 and erase child poverty by 2020.Seeing these goals that the UK have set, makes me think about how unrealistic this is. Poverty is something that is very hard to handle, now when it is child poverty it makes it even more difficult. Child poverty is a very big problem that should be at the top of the U.K's list to remove because it of the impact it will have in the future. Children are the future due to this the government should do anything they can to preserve children and help ensure that they progress in life for the country's sake.U.K's high child poverty statistics is frightening to the issues it can pose in the future.It is good to know that there are groups in the U.K that are devoted to eradicating child poverty. U.K is the right steps towards removing child poverty, but i do not think this is one problem that can be removed in 10 years
The aspect of completely eliminating poverty is a far stretch. It is impossible for the UK to think that they can completely get rid of poverty all together, and if they did it would be a miracle. A better idea for them can be to designate which places need the most help and then go down the list. I think the commitment over 25 years is possible as long as people are invested in it and there continues to be an improvement. If the public is donating their money and it isn’t going anymore, people are going to stop showing their support. I agree with Eve above me that stated that children are the future and it is important for the government to focus on their betterment individually and not the whole aspect of poverty. They need to set smaller goals because it is only setting them up for failure if they do not accomplish their goal. If they keep raising the tax credits of people and the do not reach their goal, it is going to harm them in the future. The UK is setting a great example for other countries by making this a main priority, if other countries see the success the UK begins to have the will start to follow their model and it can become a global effort.
The aspect of completely eliminating poverty is a far stretch. It is impossible for the UK to think that they can completely get rid of poverty all together, and if they did it would be a miracle. A better idea for them can be to designate which places need the most help and then go down the list. I think the commitment over 25 years is possible as long as people are invested in it and there continues to be an improvement. If the public is donating their money and it isn’t going anymore, people are going to stop showing their support. I agree with Eve above me that stated that children are the future and it is important for the government to focus on their betterment individually and not the whole aspect of poverty. They need to set smaller goals because it is only setting them up for failure if they do not accomplish their goal. If they keep raising the tax credits of people and the do not reach their goal, it is going to harm them in the future. The UK is setting a great example for other countries by making this a main priority, if other countries see the success the UK begins to have the will start to follow their model and it can become a global effort.
When Prime Minister Tony Blair had established to end child poverty by 2020, and at least cut it in half by 2010, he did have a realistic goal in mind. Considering the fact that in the 1990’s, the future seemed positive and much effort was put into ending child poverty, I do believe he along with the Labour Party government had a good plan that would follow through. However, based on the recent years of how the US have been and with the recession, I think that such efforts of a sustained investment of finances and social support is realistic. Especially now with everything going on in the US, it seems like child poverty is not on the top of the agenda. It will be very difficult to maintain a commitment for over the next 25 years with additional assistance. It seems like the top priorities now are to build a better America and make it stronger and come out of the recession. More Americans are focused on keeping their jobs, and bringing in income to survive. I think that some groups in the UK have done a good job of trying to promote the end of child poverty, and some have not. The word is out there, but it depends if people listen.
Trying to cut child poverty in half by 2010 and also completely eradicate child poverty by 2020 seems a bit unrealistic. I see Prime Minister Tony Blair’s point, however addressing child poverty and finding mechanisms to completely eliminate it takes time and a hefty budget. Child poverty in all aspects extends far beyond just children. In most cases children are poor because their parents are poor or because their grandparents are poor. So by eliminating poverty for children most merely means eliminating all of poverty. Moreover, to maintain such a commitment over a 25 year time period, can become very costly. This could mean raising taxes, creating new job positions, expand the education system, fixing the housing crisis and a plethora amount of other factors. As far as public support, some citizens and tax payers may not like the idea of raised taxes (the money has to come from somewhere). However, creating new job positions, expanding education, and addressing the housing crisis may win some if not most of the general public. In addition to that, the whole idea of ending child poverty can win the hearts of the public and political figures. All and all, I commend the countries who are putting forth effort to eliminate child poverty, but to completely eliminate child poverty also means to eliminate poverty as whole, and fix other programs such as education that’s linked to it. With combined efforts from political figures, the public and budget we can continue the plan for ending child poverty in a realistic time frame.
The current effort to end child poverty in the UK would seem to be unprecedented, both historically and internationally. So far, no other country has committed itself to a wholesale eradication of child poverty, especially not the United States. Surely, what the population of the UK seems to be asking itself at this point, despite visible and statistical improvement in the fight against child poverty is: "are our efforts worth it?" and "how much slack are we expected to pick up?"
Lectures in FMSC381 have informed us that currently, the safety net for children in poverty relies heavily on couples who lack children, redistributing revenue from income taxes on couples without children into households with children living in poverty. This exemplifies Britain's slide into what the BBC wonders could become a "welfare state," or a country where the population relies far too much on the government for social and financial support. Neera Sharma's article, written for BBC news, claims that by 2020, the British government hopes to eradicate all child poverty within the country. Clearly, the country's goal of ending child poverty has not been met in 2010 and has been extended into 2020; one would hope that once 2020 rolls around, 2030 will not be the new benchmark.
Personally, I believe these efforts to end child poverty are nowhere near realistic. Ordinarily, I would agree with the attempt to end the tribulations of these impoverished youths, but I believe that, categorically, most people are selfish and will eventually abandon their sense of tenacity. One of the main reasons why these efforts came to take shape in the first place could be the usually collective mindset of Britain's populace. As someone who studied in the country for a semester, I can personally attest to the fact that many Britons tend to hold a collective mindset, agreeing on many political issues that would usually polarize a country; unlike Americans, Britons tend not to squabble along party lines with the vitriol of their transatlantic counterparts. Usually, when an issue is seen as important enough, the whole country finds itself behind said issue. However, I conjecture that the beneficence of the British people can only be sustained for so long. Now that their original benchmark has not been met and the new goal has been placed ten long years ahead of them, childless couples, who are already suffering in the midst of a global recession, will invariably tire of giving portions of their incomes to impoverished breeders.
As soon as public opinion falters, so will the safety net for children in poverty. As it stands, Britain's financial woes are many, and during this recession, one of their biggest and most prevalent fears is of being dragged into the same socioeconomic quagmire as Greece; people want a stable and financially sound government and economy, and anything that threatens this sense of security will invariably be binned with yesterday's rubbish. Therefore, maintaining any modicum of public, political, and financial support for these measures will be extremely difficult.
Naturally, various advocacy groups have framed the issue of ending child poverty as one that is linked with the future success of the UK itself, but with waning public support and yet-unmet goals, any continued effort to completely eradicate child poverty will undoubtedly be difficult.
I also agree that this is not a realistic goal for either the UK or USA. It is 2010 now and there are concerns that UK will not meet it's goal. That must mean that they are not yet at half the child poverty rate from when they started. I do not see how they can meet their goal by the end of the year. This is a very difficult issue to address. Child poverty is dependent on whether or not the child's parents are in poverty. Yes, you can make certain programs that give aid specifically to children but you cannot give cash assistance to the children. So, essentially to end child poverty you must end poverty of all parents. Twenty years does not seem like a believable time frame to end poverty off all the parents in the US. Especially with such a long time frame like someone else mentioned, other problems arise. Even if somehow enough political support was behind the issue to get it the funding it needs, there is no guarantee that in ten years the interest will still exist.
The goals of Prime Minister Tony Blair and the UK government may seem unrealistic to the American audience. I think that the American government and citizens believe that eradicating child poverty by 2020 is drastic. This goal may seem drastic because it is hard to believe that something can totally be eradicated. I do not think the American government feels pressured to compete with the UK to end child poverty. It is unfortunate that money gets spent on other policies that may not seem as important. The children are the future and prevention is key. The American government should have at least made their own goals to end or drastically cut the rates of child poverty. The UK and America are not identical nations, therefore I think to have identical goals don’t make a lot of sense. The American government can set its own goals, possibly to cut child poverty by 75% by 2020. Money can change a lot but more than just money is going to be needed in order to reach any goal. The goal of eradication is a little extreme but I believe that America can get close to it. The efforts of America seem weak for such a striving and developed nation.
I want to try to comment and leave some form of media.
http://www.emusic.com/?fref=801660
Let's see how that works.
I want to try to comment and leave some form of media.
http://www.emusic.com/?fref=801660
Let's see how that works.
Post a Comment