That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and again, you've failed to illustrate how your comparisons address the problems of poverty in AMERICA.
Rubbish. It shows that "poor" is defined by the area that people live in, and that "poor" here is quite different than the abject poverty found among the "poor" elsewhere. When discussing "poor" it is necessary to define what "poor" is, using examples is the best way to show what people think "poor" is. I posted a link to an article that helped define that by giving the information on what most Americans think poor is as found by the results of polling. But since you refuse to read the information you tend to make silly arguments like this one that point again to the fact that you are deliberately keeping yourself in ignorance of what I am speaking of, so much for an open mind.
That American "poor" do not live in the abject poverty found elsewhere suggests that Americans consistently give to the point were even the "poor" among us can afford luxuries that no poor afford elsewhere including larger living space than even those who are not poor (on average) in Europe. Yet we are consistently told we are "uncompassionate" and other inanities.
While there are people here in the US that are in poverty, even poverty to the level of hunger, it is rare and among a tiny percentage of what is defined as "poor" by the reporting agency. By all means let's get these people food, and quickly. Nobody should go hungry in the US. We need to find a better way to get those particular people help quickly.
1. People in the US think people who need food are poor. (According to the story and the stats that you admit to refusing to read, open minds tend to have a bit more information than those that are deliberately closed).
2. Comparing what the government reports as "poor" in the US with people who are known to actually need food is relevant to the discussion. That we have to go outside the US to find large numbers of "poor" doesn't change that finding such groups is relevant to the discussion of poor people.
Deliberately ignoring the relevance doesn't make you "smart" or even make other people confused it just makes you look obtuse. And ignoring human nature and ability to dismiss a problem that they believe to be exaggerated doesn't change that Americans do just that and exaggerating the "poverty" of Americans will get a large group of them to do just that. It is likely that they won't even vote because they are sick of one of the parties exaggerating "problems" for them.
Suggesting that because they aren't Americans they can't be relevant to the discussion of how we define poor people is simply an attempt to make a universal argument more Amerocentric and suggest that we should redefine poor to go outside what Americans tend to think poor is to fit what you want it to be rather than what Americans themselves define it as. I simply drag the conversation back to what Americans define poor as.
And yes, people are less poor if they have stuff, it is how poor is measured.
Your form of "argument" in this thread is:
"I refuse to read the article we are talking about, but I intend to talk about it nonetheless!"
If you refuse to read the article, don't try to participate.
