Nearly 1 in 6 Americans in poverty

Poverty is a complex issue that requires more than just knee jerk solutions and tossing money at it. I don't know the answer, and I'm not positive that there is an "answer". But I <i>can</i> tell you that people like me have a tendency to tune out when we read things like:<p><i>The poor include Nekisha Brooks, 28, of Fort Washington, Md., who lost her job as a customer service representative for AT&#38;T several months ago in a round of layoffs. Raising five young children, she is now on food stamps and partly leaning on friends and family for help.</i><p>I know this is just one anecdote, and it is unfortunate that she clearly wants to work and is having trouble finding even semi-skilled labor... but _five_ kids? Seriously?

There are some straightforward solutions to many of these problems that have been made more complex (unnecessarily) because they cross precious lines of ideology and religion, among other things.<p>For example, there are homosexual couples in the world who want children. Many are wealthy enough to adopt more than one child. In any sane debate it should be unquestionable that a child is better off being child #1 in a middle-class family, with better opportunities for economic and social stability than they would have as child #5 in a poor household. But there are people who would shout until they're blue in the face to prevent this from happening, simply because the parents are gay.<p>Another extremely unpopular but practical solution is contraceptives and even abortion. Why are parents shamed into birthing a child that they cannot afford to raise, in a world whose population is greater than at any point in history? Unquestionably if the average size of families decreased, incomes would be less strained and poverty levels would have a fighting chance to go down as well.<p>A third unpopular solution is grouped housing. For some reason it's been hammered into everyone's heads that they should have a house and a yard and a dog, and that a single family should live in it. But the reality is that a large structure could hold 2 families or more, if people were willing to live like that. It would not only decrease costs, but it would improve nutrition: it's much more practical to cook a decent meal for many people than for a few people (it's easier to acquire good food in quantities that won't go to waste, etc.).

The "poverty line" is arbitrarily set to get the proper number of people into various government programs. It has no objective meaning. This news just means that the poverty level has been chosen badly.<p>Edit: source <a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Poverty_in_th...</a>

While "1 in 6" appeals as a lot, the actual statistic of 15.1% poor people seems significantly less harmful -- as, ipso facto, the vast majortity of all American people (84.9%) are not poor.<p>Isn't this the way the model essentially works out in our system? There is a small "working class" at the bottom, then a giant bump in the middle for the middle class, and a tiny spot at the top for the 1% of wealthy -- wealthy, not merely rich -- individuals.<p>I wouldn't simply try to brush off poverty, as surely every effort must be made to ensure social mobility among the classes (both up and down), but in a country as large as America having 45 or so million poor people isn't only to be expected, but actually relatively necessary for our economic model -- which, on the whole, works quite well for most people.