British Columbians should be embarassed over the results of child poverty. I believe this comic is in bad taste. We need to wake up and put pride back into government. I can not believe that Campbell is not concerned about how this makes him and his government look. So sad!

The comic is supposed to be in bad taste. It doesnt reflect any reality in BC, it just takes a poke at the government. If it were put out by a government, it would be called propaganda.....no wait, thats what it is regardless.
I am not embarrassed about the results of child poverty, partly because that doesnt make a lot of sense, english wise. Mostly though, I dont put much faith in studies based on arbitrary definitions of poverty. Of course people who are in the advocacy business or who are activists dont generally let little details like logic get in the way.
I am embarrassed about child neglect and poor parentng though, as everyone should be. Maybe thats what the cartoon is about. The baby in question is poor, i take it because he has a patched diaper (maybe his mom is an environmentalist) but i think it is the band aid on his head that i find troubling. Did he get a booboo because he is poor? Do poor people get more boo boos? Why did the artist portray a poor kid as being injured? Why did I, like most people initially take that in stride? DO folks actually associate injuries to children with poverty?Would giving moms more money make them more protective? Are all our preconceived notions of poverty, class and well being as totally screwed up as they seem in this instance? Are we THAT dumb?
See? the cartoon IS funny after all, in a 'what the hell is wrong with us' kind of way.

Soory, patched shirt, not diaper. My bad

Child poverty should be a non-political issue, i.e. it should not be politized and trivialized, not even in the manner of the above cartoon which is based purely on cynical political sarcasm.

Child poverty has always existed in Canada and in B.C. In the past it was not eliminated by any party, not even by the NDP which had a full decade to banish it forever.

The two parties spend their time screaming at each other in Victoria, hurling insults and ridicule across the aisle when both of them have less than a sterling record and not much to be proud of!

This cartoon is in bad taste and then some.

I wouldn't want to be a cartoonist if my livelihood depended on making cartoons of this nature.

What a way to make a living!

What is the real problem? Parents not spending money on their children. The child tax credits are there, monthly child allowance from the federal government is there, so what is the problem? Parents miss-spending their childrens food, clothing, shelter money at the casino or other selfish needs. So how much money is needed to keep parents greed list and enough money to sustain a household? I think there are not enough taxpayers to sustain this wish list. These parents are abusing their children, not the government handing out enough money.

OMG! I resent almost everything that MoneKate has posted. As a single mother of two for 11 years I for one can say that the choices were not "do I have enough money to go the casino"! That is the most rediculous thing to say about child poverty. I worked hard for my 8 dollars an hour and in the end I had serious choices to make. None of which had anything to do with this persons statements. I had to put FOOD on the table. I had to pay the RENT. I had to pay the HYDRO, TELEPHONE & HEAT. Oh and btw I could not afford cable tv so that was not a choice! I had to stress about CLOTHING,FOOTWARE & SCHOOL supplies. I had to beg doctors to prescribe low cost medicines or give me samples. Then there were the decisions on extras like class outings that required some contribution from me. LOL and your statement about the child tax credit and monthly child allowance is a joke. Yes they help some but they are far from enough! I did without so that my children could have extra and I am sure that most people who love their children do. Selfish, greed and abuse is not part of being a single mother, unemployed or sick. Those words are better description words for those who turn their heads from a hungry child.

Shellshadow, I read Moneykate's post and it looks as if she is referring to parents (plural) - not a single mother or single parent!

Ideally the other parent (if divorced or separated) must pay child support and the government should use every legal means to make sure that financial obligations are kept up.

In the case of a widow (or widower) of course things are way more difficult.

I don't think Moneykate's remarks apply to you and were not meant to disrespect you and your children.

Mothers and fathers made/make sacrifices everywhere and all the time. Life can be very tough. Your reward is the love of your children for you.

The cartoon is a political charade, in bad taste, deplorable and a sad reflection of how political hay making has no respect for anything.

I have friends who are single mothers and do not receive child support ( or regular payments) because of neglectful ex husbands who find loopholes in the system. Granted I do acknowledge fathers who are responsible and dutifully pay their child support. I know folks like this too.
Shellshadow I applaud you as a single mom. I grew up with a single mom who had a minimum wage job and supported two small children after the death of my dad. She would break down and cry because of all the stress associated with living in poverty and raising kids on her own. My brother and I were lucky that we were not abused. Stats indicate the elevation of child abuse, neglect, domestic violence and substance misuse with low incomes. Some of these dynamics however could have been long-standing issues within the family. Due to lack of resources, this can affect physical and mental health, self esteem, academic achievement and rate of success in adulthood. Respectfully these consequences do not affect all low income households. I'm sure we all have examples of families who have persevered with love
Child poverty is a political issue. Because all levels of government can have an impact on reducing child poverty through increasing the mininum wage, extending unemployment benefits, providing low-cost recreational activities for children, hot lunch program at schools etc. These prevention strategies could save tax payers millions, even billions.

Ugh! Poverty as a cause of abuse! Now THATS disgusting. Good thing thats BS otherwise pretty much everyone who grew up when i did would have been in trouble. The stats indicate a correlation between poverty and levels of abuse, not a causal relationship. People misuse human statistical studies in the most scandalous ways. Or maybe they dont dare suggest the alternative hypothesis....
No family where i was raised spent much less than 54 percent of their income on the necessities of life. Thus we were all poor, they just called it middle class back then. Other parts of the world called it prosperous. Besides, we had NOTHING compared to kids today, poor or otherwise. Low cost recreation? try playing ball in a field or playing hockey on the street. It worked for us. Why didnt we think we were poor? Oh yeah, because we had everything we NEEDED. We were fed and clothed, sheltered and educated. That was our parents job, not the state. they rightfully took pride in it, and understood that to do less was to invite the state to step in, to no ones benefit. Funny how these days we seem to expect the state to do everything for us, yet dont want to pay higher taxes. We want to blame the government for everything because no one wants to put the blame on individuals.
I too know a lot of poor people (that is to say, they make little money). Their kids are fed and clothed, a lot of them have Ipods somehow....anyway, the point is, these families do have to make do and yes, sacrifice and do without. I still dont think the government needs to support them to the extent that they have all the things in life that everyone else has. It is a rewards based society, folks. One of the eaqsiest in the world to make it in too, by the way.
While i do agree with raising the minimum wage, it would have to be a BIG raise to ensure kids got fed and clothed. Bigger still is the recipients wereto break out of poverty as defined in the rediculous "study" that started all this hullabalou.

Caranmacil, I think you and I grew up in the same generation. I do not expect government to look after EVERTHING but they do have a mandate to fund social programs. And they did back in the day when you and I were kids too. And why not use these funds in a way that will benefit families in the big picture and long-term...not short-term band aid approaches. Our world has changed a lot since the 60s and 70s so it's useless to compare now to back then. I would roll my eyes when my parents would tell me "during the war..." (WWII). Times had definitely changed by the time I was born. I wasn't thankful as a kid that I didn't ever go hungry and a bomb didn't blow up the city I lived in. I am grateful as an adult to know the meaning of sacrifice. Research is partially what I do for a living so the reports I refer to when making statements about poverty is not BS. BTW I have not conducted research specifically on poverty. It's not beneficial to generalize and assume. Unless you're nosy and dig around, you never know what goes on behind closed doors.

I think that a lot of you need to go back a day or so and read the original news story about this cartoon.

The First Call B.C. Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition issued a Child Poverty Report Card that says in 2007, there were 156 thousand children in B.C. living in poverty. How they came up with this number is that if more than 54% of your household income is being used for shelter, food, and clothes, that your children are living in poverty.

This number is ridiculous.

As a mill worker I make a good living with a good wage. I garantee you that my children want for nothing, yet, I know for a fact that more than 54% percent of my household income is being used for these neccesities. My children do not live in poverty.

Someone needs to look at how this study was done, and change a few things.