We'll Walk In Line, We'll Walk In Line, We'll.....

[lI1|1!]

good thing my alert works

[archenemy]

Is the poverty measure the same for each country listed?

[archenemy]

This explaination:

 

The survey of 18 industrialized nations draws the poverty line at 50% of each country's median income after taxes and welfare benefits have been taken into account. In-kind benefits such as subsidized health care or preschools are not included.

 

Seems to leave a lot out.

[tvashtarkatena]

its a fact that truth is subjective, just like objectivity

 

panties are another story though

 

 

Not to change the subject, but it is true that you can objectify a pair of panties, but not without subjecting yourself to possible objection.

[archenemy]

And furthermore, the actual years that the data is taken varies among the countries.

 

I am not saying that povery isn't a huge problem. But this document doesn't seem to be the best evidence to back up that observation.

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't where panties.

 

 

You don't do what where panties what?

[archenemy]

OMG I am so stupid. I am going to go back and edit that.

 

 

 

Here is something a little more timely, and just as heartbreaking:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/28/homeless.report.reut/index.html

[Jim]

This explaination:

 

The survey of 18 industrialized nations draws the poverty line at 50% of each country's median income after taxes and welfare benefits have been taken into account. In-kind benefits such as subsidized health care or preschools are not included.

 

Seems to leave a lot out.

 

True if those items were included the US would come out even worse. Now stop the personal attacks, you're going to make me cry. Sniff.

[archenemy]

This explaination:

 

The survey of 18 industrialized nations draws the poverty line at 50% of each country's median income after taxes and welfare benefits have been taken into account. In-kind benefits such as subsidized health care or preschools are not included.

 

Seems to leave a lot out.

 

True if those items were included the US would come out even worse. Now stop the personal attacks, you're going to make me cry. Sniff.

What personal attack? I don't get it. Of course, I misspelled where/wear.

[tvashtarkatena]

OMG I am so stupid. I am going to go back and edit that.

 

 

 

Here is something a little more timely, and just as heartbreaking:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/28/homeless.report.reut/index.html

 

Don't edit it, just answer my questions.

 

We can argue this and that about poverty statistics, but frankly, it's pointless. It's pretty damn easy for anyone who's not in a coma to see for themselves that there are a shitload of homeless people everywhere, and that the numbers are growing. This is a huge problem, and anyone trying to deny it by arguing about the undotted i's in somebody's report might as well throw in some Global Warming, Moon Landing and Holocaust denials, too.

 

If you don't give a shit about the problem, at least have the balls to come right out and say so, rather than trying to deny that it exists.

[tvashtarkatena]

Of course, I misspelled where/wear.

 

Don't ever do that again, you idiot. And stop the personal attacks, will ya?

[olyclimber]

 

 

pardon, but i need one of these

[tvashtarkatena]

You'd better make sure it's modeled after a male before you buy.

[archenemy]

Of course, I misspelled where/wear.

 

Don't ever do that again, you idiot. And stop the personal attacks, will ya?

Um. No.

[StevenSeagal]

good thing my alert works

 

Typical.

 

 

[lI1|1!]

good thing my alert works

 

Typical.

 

 

9op8DBcXx7I

[Peter_Puget]

1) Ok, let’s see. I provided this quote from the article:

 

Comparative cross-national poverty rankings suggest that United States poverty rates are at or near the top of the range when compared with poverty rates in other countries. ----with the related data to back it up.

 

This quote in no way supports your contention that:

One of the more striking items in this article is that the U.S. is the 3rd worst, ahead of only Mexico and Russia, in poverty rates among developed countries.

 

2) http://www.unicef.org/pon96/indust4.htm a link to a source that summarizes the child poverty data and the US in last place.

 

While interesting this link in no way supports your contention that:

One of the more striking items in this article is that the U.S. is the 3rd worst, ahead of only Mexico and Russia, in poverty rates among developed countries.

I wonder why you even referecne this study since it is not mentioned in the article at all. I do not believe you even referenced this study in your intitial post.

 

 

3) the citation of the original data source: ……….according to the Luxembourg Income Study, a 23-year project that compares poverty and income data from 31 industrial nations.

 

While interesting this citation in no way supports your contention that:

One of the more striking items in this article is that the U.S. is the 3rd worst, ahead of only Mexico and Russia, in poverty rates among developed countries.

The citation itself is odd because you clearly wrote that the striking item was contained in the article itself not hidden in the backup documentation

 

Time to webcrawl the right-winged blogs for another important social commentary comparable to what started this thread. No more

 

Again with the insults.

 

[Jim]

You're cherry picking PP, just like your hero. Here, I'll help you out.

 

If you read the sources, which I doubt you did. The US comes in last among the 31 countries in the study – now, this may be the hard part for you – this includes Russia and Mexico.

 

Logically then, the US did worse than these counties.

 

Now stop :snugtop:ing

 

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

HUH? I respond to your points and yet I am accused of cherry picking?

 

What do you mean by sources? If you mean the article you referenced in error I did read it. If you mean the second Seattle Times article I read it. No where do either of these articles say anything to support your contention.

 

Now if you mean the Luxemborg study and the UN study I am confused. As mentioned before the UN study was not mentioned in the Seattle Times or in your first post, IIRC. The Lux study was mentioned by the Times article but you did not refer to the study only the article. No matter what these "sources" say they cannot logically support your claim that was not based on them.

 

What’s even crazier is you now say this:

 

If you read the sources, which I doubt you did. The US comes in last among the 31 countries in the study – now, this may be the hard part for you – this includes Russia and Mexico.

 

Logically then, the US did worse than these counties.

 

But you originally wrote this:

 

One of the more striking items in this article is that the U.S. is the 3rd worst, ahead of only Mexico and Russia, in poverty rates among developed countries.

 

Oh the glorious chaos that is Jim's mind!

 

[prole]

This is a huge problem, and anyone trying to deny it by arguing about the undotted i's in somebody's report might as well throw in some Global Warming, Moon Landing and Holocaust denials, too.

 

If you don't give a shit about the problem, at least have the balls to come right out and say so, rather than trying to deny that it exists.

 

Funny you mention global warming, the website cut and pasted by PeePee has an entire section devoted to global warming denial/obfuscation. Good Times! Is it just me or are cc.com conservatives disproportionately reliant on think tank press releases for their critical thinking and debate skills?

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm an excellent debatist.

[prole]

Yea! It's possible that the US is only 3rd worst!

[Jim]

 

One of the more striking items in this article is that the U.S. is the 3rd worst, ahead of only Mexico and Russia, in poverty rates among developed countries.

 

OK let's clear it up for you. The US came in worse than Russia and Mexico in poverty rates. They did better than only Russia and Mexico in the percent of resources they devote to federal poverty programs.

 

Time to troll the right wing blogs now for some obscure linky link.

[Peter_Puget]

 

One of the more striking items in this article is that the U.S. is the 3rd worst, ahead of only Mexico and Russia, in poverty rates among developed countries.

 

OK let's clear it up for you. The US came in worse than Russia and Mexico in poverty rates. They did better than only Russia and Mexico in the percent of resources they devote to federal poverty programs.

 

Time to troll the right wing blogs now for some obscure linky link.

 

Thanks to Bablefish I am able to translate this post from the bullshit:

 

I was wrong but have a very difficult, no impossible time admitting it.

 

 

 

[olyclimber]

 

One of the more striking items in this article is that the U.S. is the 3rd worst, ahead of only Mexico and Russia, in poverty rates among developed countries.

 

OK let's clear it up for you. The US came in worse than Russia and Mexico in poverty rates. They did better than only Russia and Mexico in the percent of resources they devote to federal poverty programs.

 

Time to troll the right wing blogs now for some obscure linky link.

 

Thanks to Bablefish I am able to translate this post from the bullshit:

 

I was wrong but have a very difficult, no impossible time admitting it.

 

 

 

bablefish is amazing isn't it?

 

the above = "I'm too smart for the room, and I'm the only one I know that looks good in spandex".