Issue for Dems? US Children: 18% below poverty, 29% w/o health insurance.

[Karmadillo]

And we rank 40th in infant mortality. Seems like a good issue for the Democrats to push on a daily basis. While the Republicans like to pretend the poor are responsible for their own situation, it's a lot harder to make the case when one is talking kids.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/opinion/01kristof.html?hp

<edit>

But that same year, Medicare took effect to provide medical care for the elderly, and Social Security adjustments steadily reduced poverty among them. We were suitably embarrassed that old people were eating cat food or scavenging garbage cans for food, so we reallocated resources to the elderly.

As of 2003, the share of elderly below the poverty line had fallen by two-thirds to 10 percent - representing a huge national success. Retirement in America is no longer feared as a time of destitution, but anticipated as a time of comfort and leisure.

On the other hand, the proportion of children below the poverty line is still 18 percent, the same as it was in 1966. And while almost all the elderly now have health insurance under Medicare, about 29 percent of children had no health insurance at all at some point in the last 12 months.

One measure of how children have tumbled as a priority in America is that in 1960 we ranked 12th in infant mortality among nations in the world, while now 40 nations have infant mortality rates better than ours or equal to it. We've also lost ground in child vaccinations: the United States now ranks 84th in the world for measles immunizations and 89th for polio.

more...

[MountainLaurel]

1. Children can't vote

So it's a nonissue to politicians.

Besides, why do you hate America by pointing out these things to the sheeple?

:sarcasm:

[Toucano]

2. .

[Karmadillo]

3. Kick

n/t

[Telly Savalas]

4. Well those children could have health insurance if they GOT A JOB!

</Hannity>

[JanMichael]

5. It should be but, but, but, but...I can't think of any moral defense.

The fact is that our gods at the top of the political food chain do'nt give a fuck so far as policy and and publicity are concerned.

It's a crime in my humble opinion, but I doubt most here would agree....

[ultraist]

6. It IS criminal

The author is correct, we are "The Greediest Generation."

John Edwards talked a lot about poverty during the campaign. He is now heading up a Poverty Center at UNC-CH Law school.

http://www.law.unc.edu/Centers/details.aspx?ID=425&Q=3

This Center was established because, like you, we believe it's wrong that millions of hard-working Americans still find themselves living in poverty. Poverty is one of the great moral issues of our time. It cuts to the heart of America's great promise: that anyone who works hard and plays by the rules will have the opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their family. And I can't think of a better group of people to work on solving this problem than the remarkable students and faculty here at UNC-Chapel Hill.

[Karmadillo]

7. It kinda does raise the issue of what exactly is it that the Democrats

stand for. Kids who are hungry and/or who lack adequate health care would seem to be pretty good material for a political party genuinely concerned about combatting the Republican/corporate assault on the nation.

[maxrandb]

8. Sadly, in today's world

unless those kids can raise millions to give to a politician, or ("God forbid"), get pregnant and try to get an abortion, they are invisible.

We have become the "ME FIRST" Society. It's the Republican's wet-dream.

What's in it for "ME"?
How much tax-cut do "I" get?
How big is "MY" car?
What's this going to cost "ME"?

It's going to take a lot of work for someone to put "us, we, and them" back into our discord.