| St. Croix in the Caribbean - Taken from www.delargy.com |
Let's imagine that you had to start life over again, and while you were destined to be poor, you could still chose your native country. With this stipulation, what place or nation would you then prefer to be in? Initially, when I pondered this subject, I declared that I would like to live somewhere sandy, beautiful, and warm like the Caribbean. I could almost picture kicking my feet up in a homespun hammock and watching the sun set over the gorgeous Caribbean waters ... as I nearly starve to death and then die of malaria and lack of medical treatment. Or not. Perhaps the Caribbean, tropical as it is, would not be a good choice; yet, which country would more fully take assist its financially-strained citizens? After some research, I've decided that it is my own country, the United States, that would be better. Thus, America is the prime place to be if one is poor as it provides governmental assistance, exceptional medical opportunities and care, and an overabundance of material goods and housing.
![]() |
| Our Government Aids the Poor - Taken from www.briansbits.com |
First, the government of the United States is much more giving than other places (excluding socialist and communists wealth-leveled areas). Governmental assistance, in form of food stamps, tax cuts and "free" education, parks and libraries, is overabundant to the America and especially geared to assist the poor [Hovde]. Also, according to Elizabeth Hovde, approximately half of America does not need to pay their income tax, which may be the only helpful thing that the government makes exceptions for, and the U.S. of A. provides many opportunities for anyone to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps.' Take the education sector, for example, and the large amount of federal help in paying for college tuition and buying books; many students I personally know at ICC have qualified for a great deal of federal aid due their financial status and/or family history. Then, I know other people who regularly receive food stamps (or WIC), so it seems apparent to me that the government can, and does, care for all.
![]() |
| The (Female) Poor and their Weight - Taken from www.heritage.com |
Then, the medical opportunities and overall health of Americans, even poor Americans, are much better than those in poverty overseas. Despite the current lack of nationalized healthcare, which may be for the better, the United States excels in good medical care as they admit and give care to the poor in hospitals and doctor clinics (unlike other countries) and because there are many programs, even within the hospitals themselves, to accommodate the needy [Hovde]. Additionally, as researched by Robert Rector, under-income families eat well; they "actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels ... [and, they] grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II." Health appears to be much better, therefore, in America where anyone can go to a hospital and even the poor eat right.
![]() |
| A Typical (Huge) Lower-Income House - Taken from www.affordablehousinginstitute.org |
The last and least point, the average amount of material possessions in America's poor seems outrageous; nevertheless it shows that even in America, we are better off than most people [Hovde]. For example, in 2007, the poor in America owned a great deal of material goods with over two-thirds of them owning a vehicle, various electronics, some sort of entertainment system, and home appliances like a microwave and a dishwasher [Rector]. Then, the houses of the poor (which are owned by 43% of them) typically have three bedrooms, a garage, one-and-a-half baths, and a porch or patio, and they contain a large living space that is bigger, on average, than the homes of the well-to-do Europeans [Williams]. I could easily find a good housing space, or board in one of the many woman's shelters until I become more self-sufficient, if I was poor in the United States. It would be distressing to live elsewhere, I believe, as housing and material possessions are so scarce and of low-quality for under-income families.
![]() |
| My Dream (Even If I'm Poor) - Taken from www.www.aikenpodiatrists.com |
In conclusion, America, the land I call home, is the best place for anyone, but particularly if they are poor and need help. Through its many governmental programs (just think—even receiving mail is free here!), medical help and nutrition, and amount of wealth in material possessions, the United States' poor actually live very well. While this fact may be due to the way one defines "poor," argues Robert Rector, I tend to think that America is very friendly to those down in luck and it enables dreams by its motto of liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, if I had to be poor, I would choose to live in America as it offers the best living experience to all its citizens. Even the great outdoors, on second thought, isn't that bad, and anyone can relax at the beach, climb picturesque mountains or plant a flourishing garden here in the US. And who knows; even if I was impoverished, I could work through my poverty, become more independent (as the government encourages me to), and finally go and relax on some Caribbean beach.
Works Cited
Hovde, Elizabeth. "Income in Perspective: America's Poor Are among the World's Wealthy." Oregon Live. The Oregonian, 4 Aug. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.
Rector, Robert. "How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America." The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 27 Aug. 2007. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.
Walters, Walter E. "Where [It Is] Best To Be Poor." Creators.com: A Syndicate of Talent. Creators Syndicate, 2010. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.












