Poverty In The United States Essay Example for Free

Poverty In The United States Essay Abstract This paper discusses the articles, percentages and researches conducted on online (internet) about the United States (U.S) and the issues with poverty in America. The typical ‘poor American lives in an air conditioning home with cable, televisions, and computers and among other luxurious purchases. While some of the poor face severe hardship, like finding nutriment and housing. This paper also explores the history, healthcare, and low income of the U.S., and allowing the opportunity for discussing how and who could make a change in the future of American’s. Poverty in the United States and the Research of Where We Are Today A record number of Americans are living in poverty, about 46 million. That’s more than at any time since the Census Bureau begun tracking poverty data Marisol, Bello (2011).Why is this such a problem? Would you say it’s because of political factors and history, or lack of healthcare, low incomes, and better yet the choices we make and what we spend as Americans? The â€Å"official poverty level† first seeped into government parlance in 1961 when the Social Security Administration needed an objective measure of poverty for statistical purposes David, Hilfiker (2010) writes in his article. Cuts in Federal assistance for housing programs and social services have corresponded, with the rise in homelessness in the U.S. , during the 1950’s and 1960’s. Federal housing programs and services nearly eliminated homelessness: however, during the 1980’s till now housing   programs were slashed by half and the homelessness population in the U.S. began to grow and is still growing. In 2013 fifteen percent of our population lives in poverty Marisol, Bello (2011). They say that the share of children living in high poverty neighborhoods and those with poverty rates of thirty percent or more has increased by one in ten, putting children at a higher risk than teen pregnancy or dropping out of school. (Associated Press 2013), also exclaims by 2030 based on the current trend of loss of income close to eight five percent of all working age adults in the U.S. will experience attacks of financial anxiety. The (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2013) says research is clear that poverty is the single greatest threat to children’s well-being. Is this what are young inspires have to look forward to? A life that is set up to fail before our children has a chance to succeed. We need to act fast and change these numbers, before it’s too late! The combination of the low jobs, extraordinary cost of living and outrageous unemployment rates only intensify these problems and force numerous Americans to choose between food, housing, and other expenses. Studies show that money devoted to food is typically the first to be sacrificed, and families will often pay their fixed payments first, such as rent, utilities, and a car payment, rather than pay for food(Associated Press 2013). Even lack of reasonable medical care is a far reach for the poverty. The cost of health care and insurance has escalated dramatically over the past years and can cost families up to eight thousand dollars a year for families or individuals that lack health insurance. If an accident, rapid illness, or chronic disease arise this can be financially overwhelming. Welfare procedure needs to address the root of poverty not simply the system (Robert Rector, Rachel Sheffield 2011). Between families with kids the failure of marriages and loss of the work ethic are the primary long term reasons of poverty. Maybe if we could get some durable well established programs to instill are community on how not to plummet into poverty or get out, we could dramatically alter are future as Americans. For most the term â€Å"poverty† suggest near deprivation, which means an inability to provide nutritious nourishment, clothing, and sensible housing for one’s household. So how are people managing in a world of increasing economical insecurity? How poor is poor? Did you know based on a survey done by the Census Bureau written by Rector et al.’s (2011) â€Å"Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning, in 1970’s only Thirty six percent of the entire U.S. population got to enjoy air conditioning. Ninety percent of the poor households have a microwave. Nearly three fourths have a car or truck and thirty one percent have two or vehicles. Two thirds have cable or satellite television. One halve of the poor population have a personal computer and one out of seven have two or more computers. More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, like the Xbox or PlayStation, and forty percent can afford internet access. One third has a widescreen plasma or LCD television†. It seems to me that the luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become a common place in poor households. With this said the letter by Dr. Roger Starner Jones was recognized by his frustration, as a tax payer by the stereo typical sentences he wrote. However; this Doctor as frustrated as he seemed, had little to know knowledge of the patients background or struggle of being unable to shake a life of poverty and help from the government. Nearly by the belongings she has. Why does the Doctor judge the Patient? Did he give her the medical attention that an American Citizen should receive? Or did he get so angry about the material things, she could of received as gifts or before her hard times, I believe he forgot the reason he became a Doctor. With one impossible choice after another between food, medicine, getting to work, and paying the heating bill. â€Å"Poverty is no longer an issue of ‘them’, but an issue of ‘us’,† says Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis Hi et al. (2010). We need to come together and discovery better resources to help our American people survive in hard times, and overcome our needs. We could possibly lower poverty by tackling its root causes, like low incomes and lack of reasonable housing, and by refining support services, like improving paying jobs, healthcare and housing. You never can predict the future, but you could be the next individual or family in crisis needing a helping hand. References Hilfiker, D., Tippett, K. (2010). A history of poverty in America. Onbeing.Org Bello, M. (2011). The poverty affects 46 million Americans. USA today 30.com Weekley,C., Associated Press.(2013). Four in five in the United States face near poverty, no work. Fox news.com/poverty Lawrence, S., National Center for Children in Poverty. (2013). Policies on welfare, marriage, and child well-being research. www nccp org. Rank, M The Associated Press. (2013). Poverty in America. www wjla com. Rector, R., Sheffield, R. (2011). Understanding poverty in the United States: surprising facts about America’s poor.

The Awakening :: essays research papers fc

Every writer has an influence. Some are influenced by the ideas that the author has; some are influenced by the style, which the author writes with. Still others are so intrigued by a writer that they are not only influenced by their way of thinking and their writing, but they actually begin to mimic the author in many ways. This is the case with Guy de Maupassant’s influence on Kate Chopin, who is undoubtedly the greatest influence on Chopin’s writing. "Maupassant was born in Châteaude de Miromesnil, Normandy" (Encarta). He received his education at Yvetot and Rauen and there joined a literary team where he was trained as a writer of fiction by Flaubert, another well know French author (Encarta). He, like Chopin, wrote many short stories, for which he is remembered the most (Encarta). Like Chopin, Maupassant’s ideas were looked at as "immoral" and "mature," dealing with ideas such as "sex," loneliness, and "depression" (Jones 385). He questioned the standards of the day, and was therefore rejected by many people as an immoral person (Jones 385). Kate Chopin’s interest in Maupassant began after her mother died (Toth 181). At that time she had moved to a new location in the city where she lived and began to make new friends who were interested in the writings of Maupassant (Toth181). She described vividly how she felt upon reading Guy de Maupassant for the first time: His writing undoubtedly moved her. Chopin claims to have felt that he spoke to her "directly" and "intimately" (Toth 181). She admired him most for the things that made him the writer that he was. She was intrigued by his escape from "’tradition and authority’ and for having ‘entered into himself and looked out upon life through his own being and with his own eyes’"(Skaggs 205). Eventually Maupassant replaced other writers as her primary influence and "literary model" (Toth 205). Chopin had such and interest in Maupassant that she translated many of his stories from French to English (Toth 273). Due to there content, however, several were never published (Toth 273). Chopin had been taught French by her grandmother, who wanted her to know "how to speak and write French well" (Toth 35). Through this Chopin was able to take the stories of Maupassant and easily translate them. The more Chopin translated Maupassant the more she was influenced by his thinking and writing (Tonth 274). Even in reading Maupassant’s stories, while they are translated, you can still tell that there is a remarkable similarity to Chopin’s writing and his.

Drug Testing Welfare Recipients Essay

According to a study on the government of Canada’s website, in 2003, 1.7 million people were on government assistance and that number has continued to grow. The current unemployment rate in Canada is 7.2% and many of those families rely on the government to put food on the table, a roof over their heads and clothes on their bodies, meaning that money is absolutely necessary. However, working citizens are often resentful of the citizens taking the money that they earned and some are demanding that welfare recipients be drug tested in order to be eligible. Although nowhere in Canada requires drug testing to receive welfare, several states in the United States do. However, this idea fails to consider that drug testing recipients punishes children, ignores that drug addiction is a disease that needs treatment, and that it has proven to not save money. Therefore, drug testing in order to be eligible for welfare is callous and nothing but a symptom of discrimination and selfishness in society. Taking away money from a citizen that tested positive for drugs would unfairly punish their children, who are innocent and didn’t choose to have the parents they were born to. 81.5% of assistance recipients in Oklahoma are children (Richey), which means that many children could suffer immensely because of their parent’s actions. If a person on welfare were to test positive for drugs and their funds were to be taken away, their children would lose their entire source of income, which would mean they would suffer infinitely more than they already did. The kids born to drug addicts would have no lunch money or clothes for school while alcoholics’ children still received funds. This would be extremely hypocritical and it is cruel to disadvantage children that already have the odds stacked against them. Living in poverty could  cause them to do poorly in school and possibly turn to drugs themselves, completely obliterating any chance they had for a better future. It is possible to argue that if parents are using drugs, they are already wasting the money that could go towards their children. Although this argument is true, completely taking away all of the money is not going to solve the problem. More over, sending more children into the already crowded foster care system would also only cause more problems, a fact that American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselor all agree with as they oppose all laws mandating drug testing in order to receive government funding (Richey). Finally, the money that families receive could help struggling parents get into rehab and back on their feet, allowing the children to overcome poverty and live a better life. The blatant disregard for how drug testing those on welfare would ruin children’s lives proves that the policy is callous and selfish. In society it is common for citizens to discriminate and stigmatize drug addicts. They are stereotyped as lazy but in reality, drug addiction is a disease that needs treatment. A person addicted to drugs cannot simply quit when they want to. Continued drug use changes the chemistry of the brain, alters its structure and its ability to function normally. Moreover, images taken of drug addicts’ brains show that the areas that are necessary for proper judgment, and behaviour control are greatly damaged. Once someone is addicted to drugs it is no longer a conscious choice to use, but something their body needs to function. It is wrong to discriminate against addicts because it is first and foremost, a disease, just like any other mental illness and there should not be any stigma attached to it. Therefore, entry into a medically supervised treatment centre is necessary so taking away that addict’s only source of income will not help them in any way and will only result in an increase in the homeless population. It is possible that some people on welfare may be waiting to get into a treatment program and need the money to support themselves while they do so. The blatant disregard that the policy of drug testing welfare recipients has for the physical and neurological effects that drug addiction has on a person clearly indicates the callousness and discrimination that the policy demonstrates. The final and most important argument is that drug testing does not save any money. In  fact it wastes it. The entire idea for drug testing is that drug user’s assistance could be terminated, and therefore save taxpayers from wasting their money however, this is not the case. The costs of producing and administering the tests have proven to cost more money than the governments saved from terminating those found to have been using drugs. Utah spent $30 000 drug testing people on welfare and only 12 people tested positive. Similarly, only 2% of people receiving government assistance in Florida failed the test, compared to national drug usage rate of 8% (Covert). This suggests that the majority of drug users are not those living in poverty, and hints at the unjust discrimination they face. Additionally, a recent New York Times article stated that testing in Florida cost the government an additional $45 780, which is grossly wasteful. Comparably, out of the 8 states that are enforcing legislation, none of them are saving money. In Arizona, only 1 person in 3 years tested positive (Kelly). Every single study done has shown that the state governments are losing money but more and more states are proposing it and citizens of Canada are pushing for it as well. As of 2013, 29 states have proposed the legislation, which is completely nonsensical. If no money is being saved, why are so many people behind the policy? The only possible reason has to be selfishness and the reluctance of citizens for their taxes to be going toward fellow citizens less fortunate than themselves. This exemplifies how drug testing the poor is simply a symptom of discrimination in society and not a means to save money. With all of the evidence considered, there is no rebutting the fact that drug testing in order to be eligible for welfare is callous and nothing but a symptom of discrimination and selfishness in society. The testing punishes children, which is unfair, ignores the fact that drug addiction is a disease and most significantly, doesn’t save any money. So many people are supporting this legislation but being poor should not result in someone being labeled as less than and a delinquent. It is unfair that the only standing reason for implementing or sustaining laws requiring drug testing is that people don’t want their money going to the less fortunate that ultimately, need it for survival. For any person that supports these legislations the main question that should be pondered is why? Why should the poor be drug tested when everyone receives government funds in one way or another? The fact is, they should not. Bibliography Covert, Bryce.†Utah Spent More Than $30,000 To Catch 12 Drug Users On Welfare.† ThinkProgress RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. Kelly, Brian P. â€Å"An Inane, Money-eating Sham: Drug Tests for Welfare a Huge Failure.† Saloncom RSS. N.p., 29 Aug. 2013. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. Richey, Kate. â€Å"Five Reasons Not to Drug-test.† Oklahoma Policy Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014

Indentation Of Childhood In Richard Rodriguezs Hunger Of...

Richard Rodriguez writer of â€Å"Hunger of Memory†, had given an imagery of his childhood in Chapter four: â€Å"Complexion†. Where Rodriguez use of figurative speech throughout the chapter, gives an indentation of his questioning as a child. Questioning his identity, skin complexion, and race growing up as a child and asking â€Å"what if’s† if he had experienced things as his father had. Also understanding why his mother had always sheltered him from the outside. Not allowing him to be outside for to long. Throughout pg 133 Rodriguez shows a very distraughted mind where he stares into the mirror, remembering the things his aunt had commented on dark complexion boys in the family. Rodriguez said: â€Å"I heard the swirling voices of aunts, and even my†¦show more content†¦I knew.† Rodriguez shows of his mother not wanting him to step out the sun, of getting darker than what his complexion already is. This causes Rodriguez to be shameful of his complexion as a child, due to what his mother was thinking she was sheltering him from. Making him to believe he will grow up as an ugly child. In the end of pg 127 Rodriguez said: â€Å"Dark skin was for my mother the most important symbol of a life of oppressive labor and poverty.† This memory had made Rodriguez understand to why his mother would always tell him to not stay in the sun for to long. As well as being proud of her children receiving their education because she did not want her children especially Rodriguez, to be perceived as the â€Å"los pobres† â€Å"los braceros†. â€Å"Los braceros† were the ones who have done labor work and would have their skin exposes to the heat of the sun. Yet Rodriguez had said in pg 137 â€Å" I would notice the shirtless construction workers, the roofers, and the mexican gardeners. I envied them their physical lives, their freedom to violate the taboo of the sun.† The sight of these workers had made Rodriguez envy them but he also wanted to denied what he had say from them, but the stronger he becomes to deny the idea, he becomes to desire it . In the final pages of the chapters, pg 148 149 Rodriguez becomes to accept his skin complexion from working in the summer with â€Å"los braceros†, by saying: â€Å"My