McDermott was my congressman too, and I had a chance to briefly meet him during the primaries. I am not sure if there is a finer Congressman in all of the House. The guys is just amazing, in his unwavering commitment to justice, no matter how difficult the stance may be.

Once Obama's policies (Heathcare destruction, Cap and Trade, etc) go into effect, we will all be "the least of these". Once he's done "punishing the rich" I wonder who will be left to pay the bills. The capitalism that our nation was founded on has allowed us to feed more hungry, help more poor, and spread the gospel to more lands than any government could have ever done. The lie of socialism is that it will help the poor. It never does. It only gives increased power to those in government.

Well, you certainly cannot say it doesn't help any poor. That's simply untrue.

I am curious. How can christians get on board with the Government and its social policies without havng to take a shower every 5 minutes. There are no political solutions to poverty.

Why don't we just redefine povery so we all qualify. That way no one will be left out.

In the US the biggest health issue among the poor is obesity. I suggest we focus our attention on the truely poor in the developing world.

With all due respect, bhaack, it is clear that you know virtually nothing about US poverty. Count yourself fortunate. Think a minute: Why is obesity an issue among our poor? The ONLY way to stretch out a tiny food budget is to rely on food that is cheap and filling. In our food market, this means a diet almost exclusively consisting of carbohydrates and fats. How does one get through the days at the end of the month? By relying on cheap cornmeal, potatoes, etc., boiled for breakfast, fried in lard for lunch and supper (with a bit of onion and bacon, if possible). You get the idea. When there's enough money, you get a slab of bacon for flavoring, you rely on lard rather than vegetable oil, and so on. It's unhealthy, it is stored up as fat in the body, but it staves off hunger and gets you through another day. Check the price of lean meats, milk and cheese, and fresh fruit and vegetables, and you can understand these food choices.

The interesting story here isn't the prevalence of obesity among America's poor, but the unique situation of a segment of the population that is obese WHILE suffering malnutrition -- yes, malnutrition, because the only foods our poor can afford today have very limited nutritional value. The diet of our poor excludes most proteins and vitamins, ensuring poor health and premature death.

The reasons we need to focus on America's poor range from overall impact on jobs, health care, etc. to a usually ignored factor: Other nations with significant poverty receive aid from the international community. When foreign nations have tried to provide aid to America's poor, they were blocked by our own government. The reasons for this are complex and centered on the welfare "reform" policies that effectively turned America's poor into an involuntary Third World workforce in the US (Workfare labor has no workers' protections/can be paid a fraction of the minimum wage), sparing US corporations the cost of moving jobs to foreign countries, while serving to suppress wages and workers' rights in general.

This is a tremendously complex issue that can't be addressed with ignorant sound bites.

Meaningful programs to help the poor must focus on both providing for basic subsistence needs as well as educating people on nutritional needs. I grew up poor. We ate mainly beans and cornbread (no meat) but I was never fat. In fact, when I reached back to scratch my back, my backbones stuck out like chicken bones. But we were never hungry. In my opinion, poverty is never an excuse to be fat. But people need to be taught. If you give a kid a dollar, he is not likely to spend it for fruit, but probably a soda or candy bar

At Sojourners we often say that the moral measure of any society is how it treats those whom Jesus called “the least of these.” I would add that sometimes we need a good statistical measure to calculate the moral one.

This statement troubles me. Not because we cannot judge the moral character of a population, but because there is the implicit assumption that what the government does on behalf of the poor is what "society" does on behalf of the poor. If you ask me, the very fact that the government has to do it at all means the moral measure of our society is dramatically lacking, else the politicians wouldn't need to take our money to do what we should be doing all along.

Might I humbly suggest that we have a tendency to nibble at the edges of the problem, rather than seeking its root and eradicating it?

We need to restructure our system so that it is not a poverty-creating machine. Leaving the poverty-creating machine in place and then applying our best efforts to shift individual families or groups of people from "below the wedge" to "above the wedge" merely changes WHICH people are in poverty, without reducing it.

Charity is a fine thing. But justice is far better. To pick up on the words of a 19th century prophet,

" 'Thou shalt not steal.' That means, of course, that we ourselves must not steal. But does it not also mean that we must not suffer anybody else to steal if we can help it? 'Thou shalt not steal.' Does it not also mean, "Thou shalt not suffer thyself or anybody else to be stolen from?' "

The writer was Henry George, and the speech, with some timely comments, is excerpted at http://lvtfan.typepad.com/lvtfans_blog/2009/05/... (sorry for the long URL!).

He sought to create heaven on earth, to do on earth as is done in heaven. If you believe there is poverty in heaven, then maybe our current structure is satisfactory to you. But please don't give up on eradicating involuntary poverty without getting to know Henry George's heart and ideas.