rob

So anyway, what's the solution to this problem? It's a fair criticism that we need a better way to measure the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of assistance programs. I mean, assume we have a perfect safety net, but someone's income is still zero (but they're taken care of). Is that still poverty? Assuming a blank check, how do you fix this? Education? Renewed U.S. industry?

"He'll also be sure to claim his targets lack humor when asked to keep it clean." But sometimes it's true.

And also sometimes just to make fun of people who act uptight, even if you agree with them.

I used to get a tremendous amount of Ron Paul ads.

Steal your face right off your head [video:youtube]

You mean, just like that other overhyped fad "television?"?

the IRS sure knows me

In 3,000 years those bolts will be artifacts. Then it will be OK.

Wrong. Raindawg's getting grief for being Raindawg. His profession seems to just be something he's sensitive about, so people just push that button. I don't know the guy, personally, but he sure seems uptight. Archaeology is cool, though, I'm pretty sure nobody is actually giving him grief just because of that.

I wouldn't take it all so seriously, Raindawg. Diggin' up mummies and shit, that's pretty cool. I'm sure everyone thinks so. It's worth noting that it was the original poster who first lamented the fact that all the spray had been removed from his own thread. There was some funny stuff there. Apparently less funny from your perspective though.

If you really felt guilty, you'd kill yourself

My kids and I went down to the shelter and ate cheeseburgers in front of all the poor children. it was awesome.

can somebody please lock this thread?

I don't remember anybody saying any of those things. Are you having an imaginary conversation?

we should spend more $$ on education. It's not surprising that the most impoverished tend to be poorly educated.

I think the argument was that they aren't *as* poor, but you know, whatever

Oh, are we talking about homeless highway panhandlers? I thought we were talking about families with children surviving below the poverty line. You must be losing the argument. Unless you're saying that most impoverished children belong to the urban homeless (not true, btw, most impoverished children live in rural areas)

You know, I was impoverished with children, once. I had a wife and two kids and we lived on about 15-20k a year for about 3 years.

Who's making the strawmen now?

too many children, if you ask me. I saw some women with like 9 kids the other day. WTF? Are the orphanages empty already or something? She was really fat and ugly, too -- I can't believe she got laid at least 9 times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/sep/6/20060906-100020-4785r/ Most of these numbers come from the Heritage Foundation, so they're questionable, but still interesting

According to your graphic, "poverty" was defined as being more than 50% below national median income. They claim the median has been "equalized" but I'm not sure how they did that. It's true -- America has lots of problems. It's still awesome, though, and I like living here.

Hey, America probably has one of the greatest wealth & income disparities in the world. We also have more incarcerated criminals than most of the rest of the world. And probably poorer education. I bet you can't bring yourself to say anything good, though, right?

what are the other country's median household incomes? Without that data, the graph is kind of meaningless. I'd rather be living at 50% below 45k than 100% of 12k, for example. I mean, if I start a nation that has a median income of $5 and everybody manages to make $5 a year, does that mean I have no poverty? I give about 4% of my income every year to children's charities. How much do you give? I mean, besides all of the world-changing you're doing here on CC.com.

"It's not robbing if the egyptian is dead" or something -- that was my favorite line from the sanitized thread. I wonder what we need to say/do to get this thread locked?