No one ever said he was an Einstein.

There is no poverty in the US.  There is only poor.  I guess the PC thing is to call it poverty.  But that denigrates the true poverty in the world.

Good quote tho.

Poverty is the state of being poor.

Poverty is the state of being poor.

Poverty is the inablity to provide for self and family.  Poor is not being able to obtain the wants.  Sorry they are not the same.

Poverty is the inablity to provide for self and family. Poor is not being able to obtain the wants.

I agree with that. I think there is a distinction between the two terms.

And I further agree that poverty is rare, as it should be.

Poverty is the inablity to provide for self and family. Poor is not being able to obtain the wants. Sorry they are not the same.

Overly strained linguistics; still, poor is as you point out a question of degrees--even the cardboard box dweller is better off than globally impoverished. America, however, can and should do better.

pov·er·ty n.

1. The state of being poor; lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts.


Nice try though. It's a common technique used by neocons to rename things in order to promote their agenda.

Bush's "Clean Skies Act" was really an act to relax pollution restrictions.
Bush's move to "SAVE Social Security" was really an move to destroy Social Security.
Bush renamed the inheritance tax to "death" tax, so people would be against it.

Overly strained linguistics

I don't really think it is. And although BenUser was kind enough to supply a dictionary definition, what we're (meaning Dr.Guy and me, as I actually agree with him, haha, surprise!) talking about here is the real world meaning, not the academic meaning.

America, however, can and should do better.

I agree with this to an extent. Simply being better off than someone languishing in a third world country is not sufficient in America. We are a proud nation, a generous nation, and a wealthy nation.

But I think that we should understand the difference between true poverty...individuals who are unable to obtain the basics necessary for survival (food, water, weather-appropriate clothing, and adequate shelter) and a "poor" lifestyle.

I don't think it's necessary that we all attain the same standard of living, nor do I think it's fair for us to denigrate a low standard of living as if it is a disease. I think it's flat out wrong to tell families who have a low standard of living that their way of life isn't good enough. If they want more, there are many ways for them to increase their wealth and standard of living. If they are content, then why should we try to convince them that their way of life is wrong or shameful?

Our nation provides the tools one needs to improve one's lifestyle, through opportunity and freedom and through government programs (education assistance, rent assistance, food stamps, assistance with health care expenses, etc.) as well as private charity (a good example is the Dress for Success program).

Eradicate poverty, sure. Give everyone equal access to the tools they need to reach their goals, of course. But don't tell me that I'm living a less than worthy life or am in urgent need of intervention if I'm happy with an old car and Wal-Mart clothes.

Nice try though. It's a common technique used by neocons to rename things in order to promote their agenda.

Gee TW, I didn't know you converted to not just a conservative but a neocon BenUser, are you even awared you plant your foot firmly in your mouth every time you write something like that?

Bush renamed the inheritance tax to "death" tax, so people would be against it.

I am personally for the "death" tax but I am not one that libs like BenUser seem to have the need to champion. See I have the ability to read up on the meanings of things without relying on a kneejerk reaction to the name. If you are against something merely because it sounds bad to you, too bad for you. I don't believe in protecting people from themselves. We tamper with natural selection way too much these days.

'I don't really think it is. And although BenUser was kind enough to supply a dictionary definition, what we're (meaning Dr.Guy and me, as I actually agree with him, haha, surprise!) talking about here is the real world meaning, not the academic meaning.'

But that's exactly what dictionary definitions ARE. They don't get into the dictionary until and unless the particular usage in question reaches a certain critical mass in the 'real world'.

Overly strained linguistics; still, poor is as you point out a question of degrees--even the cardboard box dweller is better off than globally impoverished. America, however, can and should do better.

America cannot do better.  Poor is a definition of the bell curve.  The bell curve is a fact of nature.  Therefore, there will always be poor by definition.  It is called a bell curve for a reason.

Nice try though. It's a common technique used by neocons to rename things in order to promote their agenda.

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your ignorance.  Now go to sub sahara africa and preach your inanities.  Then come back and tell us all about it.

But that's exactly what dictionary definitions ARE. They don't get into the dictionary until and unless the particular usage in question reaches a certain critical mass in the 'real world'.

Dictionaries are not political.  And indeed, poverty is not as well.  Once you have 2 color TVs, a cell phone, a Car and a microwave, you may be poor.  But you are not poverty stricken. 

use the dictionary as you wish.  My money is not going to those people to drag them out of their state.  By that definintion. I am poor!  Sorry I dont give to myself.

This is simply ridiculous.  And stupid

'Dictionaries are not political.'
Dr. Guy, what do you know about dictionaries?

'Nice try though. It's a common technique used by neocons to rename things in order to promote their agenda.'
Interesting isn't it, that any adoption of language by the left produces a barrage of accusations of 'political correctness!' from the other side, while the right seem quite oblivious to the fact that they are just as prone to politicising the language, as in the example cited.

Dr. Guy, what do you know about dictionaries?

Ok, Rub it in!  You know my blogs have been spell inhibited since you no longer correct them!  I am going to have to get a word processor at this rate!

Eradicate poverty, sure. Give everyone equal access to the tools they need to reach their goals, of course. But don't tell me that I'm living a less than worthy life or am in urgent need of intervention if I'm happy with an old car and Wal-Mart clothes.

I would never tell you that. However, Guy's remark was strictly linguistics, which cannot rule out the reality of poverty in America, or if you will, an uncomfortable portion of poor people who are not content to lie under the cardboard box in--probably hand-me-downs--Walmart clothes, to pleasantly dream about harsher poverty in the world.