[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Do you believe the world can sustain the current population of the earth at the minimum standard of living set in United States?
We have minumum standards set here in the Untited States. Should an Environmental Treaty set a minimum standard of living? Should living standards be set higher for the United States than China or India or Canada?

We have minimum standards for living in the U. S.? Somebody forgot to tell the 17 million children that live below the poverty level, and the 2 to three million who are homeless at any given time of the year. Of course, if one thinks about it, we do have standards, so you are technically correct; we just don't seem to care enough to make them mean anything.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Why don't you answer the questions I asked Shortcut?

....maybe you could clarify a few things first as it would help establish a base line to reduce emissions world wide. Do you believe the world can sustain the current population of the earth at the minimum standard of living set in United States?
We have minumum standards set here in the Untited States. Should an Environmental Treaty set a minimum standard of living? Should living standards be set higher for the United States than China or India or Canada?

I hadn't even read your questions.

1. I don't know if the world can sustain the current population of the earth at the minimum standard of living set in United States. I suspect not, but I think historically people have always greatly underestimated the sustainability limits, and I might be doing so, too.

2. No, of course not. Why should it? Is anybody advocating this?

Your first question is sort of like "peak oil" theories. Logically, there must be a limit somewhere, but every prediction so far has turned out to be too conservative and has missed developments in extraction technology. But there are so many more variables and so many more relevant technologies in sustaining the human population -- it's just a very complicated question.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

We have minimum standards for living in the U. S.? Somebody forgot to tell the 17 million children that live below the poverty level, and the 2 to three million who are homeless at any given time of the year. Of course, if one thinks about it, we do have standards, so you are technically correct; we just don't seem to care enough to make them mean anything.

You can answer the other questions KarlG. In a Kyoto type agreement, should we have a minimum poverty
level standard, as in the United States, for all countries?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

I hadn't even read your questions.

1. I don't know if the world can sustain the current population of the earth at the minimum standard of living set in United States. I suspect not, but I think historically people have always greatly underestimated the sustainability limits, and I might be doing so, too.

2. No, of course not. Why should it? Is anybody advocating this?

Your first question is sort of like "peak oil" theories. Logically, there must be a limit somewhere, but every prediction so far has turned out to be too conservative and has missed developments in extraction technology. But there are so many more variables and so many more relevant technologies in sustaining the human population -- it's just a very complicated question.

Are you saying the United States should not have higher standards or no there should be no minimum standards at all?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

We have minimum standards for living in the U. S.? Somebody forgot to tell the 17 million children that live below the poverty level, and the 2 to three million who are homeless at any given time of the year. Of course, if one thinks about it, we do have standards, so you are technically correct; we just don't seem to care enough to make them mean anything.

What about the 750,000,000 people in China alone who fall below our minimum standard? Do they have a right to work towards the Minimum US Standard?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Are you saying the United States should not have higher standards or no there should be no minimum standards at all?

Of course the US should have the highest standard of living! But there should be no minimum standards at all in any international treaty, let alone a treaty on global warming. (I don't really understand the connection you are trying to draw between global warming and global poverty.)

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

Of course the US should have the highest standard of living! But there should be no minimum standards at all in any international treaty, let alone a treaty on global warming. (I don't really understand the connection you are trying to draw between global warming and global poverty.)

Tie the point is, and Shortcut will not admit it and neither will KarlG, is the reason we did not sign the Kyoto agreement, which Gore supported, is China, for one, was not subject to the treaty while the US would have been significantly impacted threatening our economy and our national security. It would have reduced our standard of living and reduced our ability to compete. What this has to do with global warming is, in order to bring the rest of the world up to the poverty level here in the United Sates, it would require several biospheres, not just the one we have. I'm sure, being a good environmentalist, as are Shortcut and KarlG, you have no issues lowering our standard of living to the base poverty of the United Sates so others in the world can raise their's.
This in effect was the Kyoto Agreement. According to some, the outcome is inevitable anyway. So in effect, you better start buying Carbon Offsets, or Resource offsets, and invest in companies which offer them or your grandchildren will be composting their own waste like the rest of the third world.
Ockham's Razor - 10 December 2006  - Apocalypse now
Jennifer Marohasy: Population Archives

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I'm sure, being a good environmentalist, as are Shortcut and KarlG, you have no issues lowering our standard of living to the base poverty of the United Sates so others in the world can raise their's.

But the subject of this thread clearly shows that you can fulfill the environmentalist agenda without sacrificing the lavish, energy-rich lifestyle of Al Gore's Tennessee mansion(s).

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Tie the point is, and Shortcut will not admit it and neither will KarlG, is the reason we did not sign the Kyoto agreement, which Gore supported, is China, for one, was not subject to the treaty while the US would have been significantly impacted threatening our economy and our national security. It would have reduced our standard of living and reduced our ability to compete. What this has to do with global warming is, in order to bring the rest of the world up to the poverty level here in the United Sates, it would require several biospheres, not just the one we have. I'm sure, being a good environmentalist, as are Shortcut and KarlG, you have no issues lowering our standard of living to the base poverty of the United Sates so others in the world can raise their's.
This in effect was the Kyoto Agreement. According to some, the outcome is inevitable anyway. So in effect, you better start buying Carbon Offsets, or Resource offsets, and invest in companies which offer them or your grandchildren will be composting their own waste like the rest of the third world.
Ockham's Razor - 10�December�2006� - Apocalypse now
Jennifer Marohasy: Population Archives

We don't have to lower our standard of living in order to be ecologically prudent; that's a typical, and specious, straw-man argument. We could do things like drive at the speed limits, turn lights off, change bulbs to more energy and longer lasting types, and plenty more. I read a while back that if we got 8mpg more fuel economy on our vehicles, we could almost eliminate all ME oil imports! We can do that now!! We're not going to, because it's our so-called right to use the earth's resources as we please. The resulting consequence of that is that we're now paying for that "right" with our sons and daughters lives in Iraq!

While we're talking about the environment, take a look at this. How much is it going to take before the rest of you wake up, and smell the coffee? http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...e_repor_1.html

Exclusive: Report Charges Broad White House Efforts to Stifle Climate Research

Bush administration officials throughout the government have engaged in White House-directed efforts to stifle, delay or dampen the release of climate change research that casts the White House or its policies in a bad light, says a new report that purports to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the subject.

Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project reviewed thousands of e-mails, memos and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and from government whistle-blowers and conducted dozens of interviews with public affairs staff, scientists, reporters and others.

The group says it has identified hundreds of instances where White House-appointed officials interfered with government scientists' efforts to convey their research findings to the public, at the behest of top administration officials.

The report is slated to be released tomorrow at a hearing before the House Science Committee, which is investigating the issue.

"The evidence suggests that incidents of interference are often top-down reactions to science that has negative policy or public relations implications for the administration," the group says in its report.

Some of the alleged interference -- including restricting scientists' ability to talk with the press and Congress -- may have violated federal laws protecting their right to speak, the group concludes.

"Directives and signals" from White House offices, like the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget, are handed down to political appointees and politically-aligned civil servants through off-the-record conversations, the report says. Frequently, those giving the direction have little or no scientific background, according to the report.

The alleged interference took the form of "delaying, monitoring, screening, and denying interviews" between government scientists and media outlets, as well as delaying, denying or "inappropriate[ly] editing" press releases conveying scientific findings to the public.

Political appointees also suppressed, delayed and inappropriately edited reports produced by government scientists for Congress and the public, the Washington, D.C.-based group concluded.

In some cases, the policies and practices the group says were enacted to squelch damaging scientific information "constitute constitutional and statutory infringements of the federal climate science employees' free speech and whistle-blower rights," the report finds.

"Claims the administration interfered with science are false," Kristen Hellmer, spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told ABC News. "We spend nearly $2 billion a year on climate science, which leads the world and speaks for itself."

Tarek Maassarani, the report's author, cautioned that he did not see evidence of a single coordinated White House effort to block credible climate research. Instead, he believed officials acted only when a piece of research or particular issue showed up on their political radar. "They're reacting to situations most of the time," Maassarani told ABC News.

The investigation covered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and elsewhere.

Evidence and allegations of political interference in government climate change research have dogged the Bush administration, even from fellow Republicans. Last November, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., charged the administration had broken the law by failing to deliver news of climate change research to Congress by a legally-mandated deadline of November 2004.

"When you get to that degree of obfuscation, then you get a little depressed," McCain said then.

House Science and Technology Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Brad Miller, D-N.C., said the report's findings were "alarming" but "confirm what we knew all along" and looked forward to learning more at tomorrow's hearing.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

We don't have to lower our standard of living in order to be ecologically prudent; that's a typical, and specious, straw-man argument.

Well, it's unsubstantiated, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it false. I'd really like to see a detailed analysis instead of blind guessing on both sides.

We could do things like drive at the speed limits,

This seems like a perfect example. Slower driving speeds would indeed improve gas mileage, but if you're a trucking company and you try to save fuel costs in this way, you end up losing money (wages cost more than fuel). Scale it up to the national level, and American businesses in general lose out to Chinese and Indian ones.

But I think we can still "invent" our way out of this problem. If we can (finally) develop some of those technologies that we were "supposed" to have had entering the 21st century, like autonomous vehicles in this case, then we actually would save money by driving at fuel-optimum speeds. Of course, millions of truck drivers would be looking for new careers, but maybe they could work in the field of developing and maintaining the autonomous vehicles.

Anyway, call me an optimist, but it seems like climate change should have plenty of win/win solutions. So far everyone's been focusing on the win/lose ones (and the lose/lose ones), and it's really bumming me out. Please stop it.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

We don't have to lower our standard of living in order to be ecologically prudent; that's a typical, and specious, straw-man argument. We could do things like drive at the speed limits, turn lights off, change bulbs to more energy and longer lasting types, and plenty more. I read a while back that if we got 8mpg more fuel economy on our vehicles, we could almost eliminate all ME oil imports! We can do that now!! We're not going to, because it's our so-called right to use the earth's resources as we please. The resulting consequence of that is that we're now paying for that "right" with our sons and daughters lives in Iraq!

While we're talking about the environment, take a look at this. How much is it going to take before the rest of you wake up, and smell the coffee? http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...e_repor_1.html

Exclusive: Report Charges Broad White House Efforts to Stifle Climate Research

Bush administration officials throughout the government have engaged in White House-directed efforts to stifle, delay or dampen the release of climate change research that casts the White House or its policies in a bad light, says a new report that purports to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the subject.

Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project reviewed thousands of e-mails, memos and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and from government whistle-blowers and conducted dozens of interviews with public affairs staff, scientists, reporters and others.

The group says it has identified hundreds of instances where White House-appointed officials interfered with government scientists' efforts to convey their research findings to the public, at the behest of top administration officials.

The report is slated to be released tomorrow at a hearing before the House Science Committee, which is investigating the issue.

"The evidence suggests that incidents of interference are often top-down reactions to science that has negative policy or public relations implications for the administration," the group says in its report.

Some of the alleged interference -- including restricting scientists' ability to talk with the press and Congress -- may have violated federal laws protecting their right to speak, the group concludes.

"Directives and signals" from White House offices, like the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget, are handed down to political appointees and politically-aligned civil servants through off-the-record conversations, the report says. Frequently, those giving the direction have little or no scientific background, according to the report.

The alleged interference took the form of "delaying, monitoring, screening, and denying interviews" between government scientists and media outlets, as well as delaying, denying or "inappropriate[ly] editing" press releases conveying scientific findings to the public.

Political appointees also suppressed, delayed and inappropriately edited reports produced by government scientists for Congress and the public, the Washington, D.C.-based group concluded.

In some cases, the policies and practices the group says were enacted to squelch damaging scientific information "constitute constitutional and statutory infringements of the federal climate science employees' free speech and whistle-blower rights," the report finds.

"Claims the administration interfered with science are false," Kristen Hellmer, spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told ABC News. "We spend nearly $2 billion a year on climate science, which leads the world and speaks for itself."

Tarek Maassarani, the report's author, cautioned that he did not see evidence of a single coordinated White House effort to block credible climate research. Instead, he believed officials acted only when a piece of research or particular issue showed up on their political radar. "They're reacting to situations most of the time," Maassarani told ABC News.

The investigation covered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and elsewhere.

Evidence and allegations of political interference in government climate change research have dogged the Bush administration, even from fellow Republicans. Last November, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., charged the administration had broken the law by failing to deliver news of climate change research to Congress by a legally-mandated deadline of November 2004.

"When you get to that degree of obfuscation, then you get a little depressed," McCain said then.

House Science and Technology Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Brad Miller, D-N.C., said the report's findings were "alarming" but "confirm what we knew all along" and looked forward to learning more at tomorrow's hearing.

I drive a Volwagen TDI and use flourescent bulbs, I guess I'm good.
Now if we can just "make" China sign Kyoto.

[OldManMac]

The trucking example is actually a good one, as I drove over the road a couple of years ago. In many states, the speed limit for trucks is lower, and most large trucking companies encourage their drivers to drive at the speed limit, as it makes a huge difference in their fuel bills. If I got 6mpg, vs. 7mpg, that would represent over 10% increase to Schneider, who I drove for, based on 500 miles/day, with fuel running at $2.71/gallon, which is where it is now, and which it was when I drove. That doesn't sound like much, but when you multiply that by 12,000 drivers in just one company, the dollar amounts are enormous. There are approximately 300,000 trucking companies on the road, ranging from one man outfits, to Schneider, which is the largest full truckload company, although there are a couple of bigger companies that haul what's called less than truckload. Schneider calculates part of your quarterly bonus on how good your mpg rating is, and the trucks are monitored 24/7, with GPS systems, which also calculate your average mpg, average speed, miles driven, etc. When you do your trip plan for Schneider, they actually figure your trip at an average of 50mph, which includes breaks, lunch, and fueling. Fuel costs are paramount to most truckers, and there isn't a huge difference between wages and fuel costs, as most companies pay by the mile.

[Orion27]

Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project

Nice going Karl, you ignore the question and then quote from a rant in a liberal blog whose source is a wacko liberal accountabilty group which links to the ACLU and praises them as champions of liberty.
Did you get a NAMBLA card when you joined the ACLU Karl? All we have to do according to Karl is drive a Volkswagen. Mighty 60's of you
Karl.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I drive a Volwagen TDI and use flourescent bulbs, I guess I'm good.
Now if we can just "make" China sign Kyoto.

Fascinating, but it's nice of you to repost my post and conveniently gloss over article. Oh, that's right; it's about bad things that a Republican administration is doing.

I was thinking about a TDI as my next car, as I've owned 8 VWs in the past; now I'm going to have to change my thinking.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Nice going Karl, you ignore the question and then quote from a rant in a liberal blog whose source is a wacko liberal accountabilty group which links to the ACLU and praises them as champions of liberty.
Did you get a NAMBLA card when you joined the ACLU Karl? All we have to do according to Karl is drive a Volkswagen. Mighty 60's of you
Karl.

So, according to your logic, if a "liberal" group points out that the administration is deliberately obfuscating information, then the government gets a free pass! You really need to try harder; you're blindness is making you look like the fool that you are, especially with your neat little additional quip about the ACLU and NAMBLA. I'll bet that you even think George W. Bush is a conservative. You obviously have no idea of what the ACLU stands for; it's something called "Freedom," and, unfortunately for you, it includes freedom to have thoughts other than what you believe, and that is obviously quite threatening to you. IIRC, this isn't the first time you've mentioned NAMBLA either; is there something you want to tell us? Some times I think that it's hard to believe that someone your age could be so closed minded and so blatantly partisan, but then I realize that tunnel-vision and ignorance are not necessarily just the handicaps of young children.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

So, according to your logic, if a "liberal" group points out that the administration is deliberately obfuscating information, then the government gets a free pass! You really need to try harder; you're blindness is making you look like the fool that you are, especially with your neat little additional quip about the ACLU and NAMBLA. I'll bet that you even think George W. Bush is a conservative. You obviously have no idea of what the ACLU stands for; it's something called "Freedom," and, unfortunately for you, it includes freedom to have thoughts other than what you believe, and that is obviously quite threatening to you. IIRC, this isn't the first time you've mentioned NAMBLA either; is there something you want to tell us? Some times I think that it's hard to believe that someone your age could be so closed minded and so blatantly partisan, but then I realize that tunnel-vision and ignorance are not necessarily just the handicaps of young children.

I'm Partisan? I'm calling you out as being weak on global warming and you're calling me partisan? Let's talk about the issue which Shortcut denied as well as you. Al Gore is calling for a drastically lower standard of living in the United States. He asked us to sign Kyoto without Chinese participation.
He asked for drastic reductions, unilaterally, from the United States. Why would he give China a pass?
To raise their standard of living. Why the draconian cuts for the US? And then on top of that perhaps pile on a carbon tax? Maybe you have an explantion as to why the Senate voted 95-0 against the treaty?
So to answer the controversy: Yes Al Gore tried to lower our standard of living, and has actively preached it by supporting Kyoto. And now, when you see the handwriting on the wall, you think you can save yourself by driving a ...... well KarlG you're just going to have to walk.

[hyteckit]

Lower standard of living?

How does driving a hybrid car, use more efficient light bulbs, and turning off your AC when you are not home lowering your standard of living?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Lower standard of living?

How does driving a hybrid car, use more efficient light bulbs, and turning off your AC when you are not home lowering your standard of living?

It doesn't!

[tie]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I'm sure, being a good environmentalist, as are Shortcut and KarlG, you have no issues lowering our standard of living to the base poverty of the United Sates so others in the world can raise their's. This in effect was the Kyoto Agreement.

No, it wasn't. "In effect" or otherwise. I'll grant you that this was the hyperbolic description some people made of the Kyoto treaty, but it is extremely far from reality.

"In effect," Gore is trying to drive the US into poverty. "In effect," Gore is trying to commit global genocide. All these statements are manifestly false, and adding "in effect" doesn't salvage them.

[hyteckit]

"In effect", Pres. BUsh is trying to drive the US into poverty with the Iraq war.

[Macrobat]

Hyteckit, if that's so, where did the extra $25 billion Congress found for all that pork come from? Obviously, if the country can afford all that, we are not being driven into poverty.

And KarlG, of all those children "under the poverty level" in the U.S., how many have cable television, computers, family-owned cars, etc., etc., etc.

The "poverty level" was/is an arbitrary number for total familial income set by a bunch of pseudo-economists in order to seek funding for even more governmental programs and grants to "help those people" - that's all. Funny how very little of that money ever reaches those people, huh?

I am not saying that there aren't genuinely poor people, just that you need to seriously seek healing for that bleeding heart. Posting grossly (and deliberately) inflated numbers does not do your cause any good whatsoever.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Hyteckit, if that's so, where did the extra $25 billion Congress found for all that pork come from? Obviously, if the country can afford all that, we are not being driven into poverty.

And KarlG, of all those children "under the poverty level" in the U.S., how many have cable television, computers, family-owned cars, etc., etc., etc.

The "poverty level" was/is an arbitrary number for total familial income set by a bunch of pseudo-economists in order to seek funding for even more governmental programs and grants to "help those people" - that's all. Funny how very little of that money ever reaches those people, huh?

I am not saying that there aren't genuinely poor people, just that you need to seriously seek healing for that bleeding heart. Posting grossly (and deliberately) inflated numbers does not do your cause any good whatsoever.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but families living at the living at the poverty level don't generally have computers or cable and they usually drive old clunkers. They don't have cash to buy those things, and they can't get credit. As an example, 25% of Wal-Mart's customers don't even have checking accounts; they live from check to check. You think they're going to waltz into Best Buy, Circuit City, or CompUSA and pull out a credit card to buy a computer, on an annual income that barely gets them by? You probably know somebody who knows somebody who is a third cousin of somebody who's poor and has cable. Anecdotes, however, don't jive with real life. I realize that you need to believe as you do, but reality is different.

[Macrobat]

Hate to break it right back at ya

In the United States, How is the Poverty Line Determined?

People living "below the poverty line" in the United States have it better than people in most of the rest of world - bottom line.

As I stated before, there are those people who are actually poor and efforts SHOULD be extended in their direction, but the dishonest crap about the multi-millions is beneath you.

Indeed, reality is FAR different. Perhaps you should get out and see some of it.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Hate to break it right back at ya

In the United States, How is the Poverty Line Determined?

People living "below the poverty line" in the United States have it better than people in most of the rest of world - bottom line.

As I stated before, there are those people who are actually poor and efforts SHOULD be extended in their direction, but the dishonest crap about the multi-millions is beneath you.

Indeed, reality is FAR different. Perhaps you should get out and see some of it.

Did you even read what you linked to? I want to thank you very much for making my point! Too funny!

http://www.wisegeek.com/in-the-unite...determined.htm

Poverty line, or poverty threshold, is used to mark the minimum income needed to achieve a satisfactory standard of living. While this may mean different thing in different parts of the world, in the US being above the poverty line means having access to water, food, shelter, education, medical care, and adequate clothing. The poverty line varies widely depending on state, number of persons living in the household, number of children in the household, and factors like disability and access to medical care.

In the US, the poverty line rises or falls every year according to the Consumer Price Index and other factors. In 2006, a single person needed to earn a minimum of $9,800 ($12,250 if she lives in Alaska) a year to stay over the poverty line. A family of four needed a combined income of at least $20,000. According to these guidelines, more than 37 million people in the US are currently living below the poverty line.

Individuals who fall below the poverty line often lack basic things like microwaves, clothes dryers, and computers. However, 91 percent of the families under the poverty line own a color TV, and 52 percent own a stereo. When it comes to food security, close to 90 percent of Americans below the poverty line have regular access to it, either through food stamps or food assistance programs like soup kitchens. A much higher percentage of people under the poverty line lack access to medical care. While a few may be admitted into Medicaid or other government programs, most do not. This is especially true of adults, as children and the elder have an easier time obtaining free medical care.

On an interesting note, 46 percent of individuals who fall under the poverty line own their own homes. This is a percentage similar to the one obtained from people who own an acceptable income and do not receive government assistance. Of that 46 percent, some own a mobile home, and some own a three-bedroom home, although the general condition of the housing can vary widely. Many people who live under the poverty line are in urgent need for basic household repairs, such as a roof replacement or a pipeline fitting, and still do without them.

Critics of the current system used to determine the poverty line argue that the percentage of people living in poverty is much higher than what it seems. This is because the poverty line does not take into consideration certain factors such as rent or the median price of a home. The poverty line in the United States is the same, no matter what the cost of living in the area is. If it did, the percentage of Americans living under the poverty line would raise to 30 percent.

And KarlG, of all those children "under the poverty level" in the U.S., how many have cable television, computers, family-owned cars, etc., etc., etc.

The "poverty level" was/is an arbitrary number for total familial income set by a bunch of pseudo-economists in order to seek funding for even more governmental programs and grants to "help those people" - that's all. Funny how very little of that money ever reaches those people, huh?

I am not saying that there aren't genuinely poor people, just that you need to seriously seek healing for that bleeding heart. Posting grossly (and deliberately) inflated numbers does not do your cause any good whatsoever.

Thanks again.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Did you even read what you linked to? I want to thank you very much for making my point! Too funny!

http://www.wisegeek.com/in-the-unite...determined.htm

Poverty line, or poverty threshold, is used to mark the minimum income needed to achieve a satisfactory standard of living. While this may mean different thing in different parts of the world, in the US being above the poverty line means having access to water, food, shelter, education, medical care, and adequate clothing. The poverty line varies widely depending on state, number of persons living in the household, number of children in the household, and factors like disability and access to medical care.

In the US, the poverty line rises or falls every year according to the Consumer Price Index and other factors. In 2006, a single person needed to earn a minimum of $9,800 ($12,250 if she lives in Alaska) a year to stay over the poverty line. A family of four needed a combined income of at least $20,000. According to these guidelines, more than 37 million people in the US are currently living below the poverty line.

Individuals who fall below the poverty line often lack basic things like microwaves, clothes dryers, and computers. However, 91 percent of the families under the poverty line own a color TV, and 52 percent own a stereo. When it comes to food security, close to 90 percent of Americans below the poverty line have regular access to it, either through food stamps or food assistance programs like soup kitchens. A much higher percentage of people under the poverty line lack access to medical care. While a few may be admitted into Medicaid or other government programs, most do not. This is especially true of adults, as children and the elder have an easier time obtaining free medical care.

On an interesting note, 46 percent of individuals who fall under the poverty line own their own homes. This is a percentage similar to the one obtained from people who own an acceptable income and do not receive government assistance. Of that 46 percent, some own a mobile home, and some own a three-bedroom home, although the general condition of the housing can vary widely. Many people who live under the poverty line are in urgent need for basic household repairs, such as a roof replacement or a pipeline fitting, and still do without them.

Critics of the current system used to determine the poverty line argue that the percentage of people living in poverty is much higher than what it seems. This is because the poverty line does not take into consideration certain factors such as rent or the median price of a home. The poverty line in the United States is the same, no matter what the cost of living in the area is. If it did, the percentage of Americans living under the poverty line would raise to 30 percent.

Thanks again.

No KarlG you're too funny. Critics ( you ) complain the current poverty level is set too low. Even though our poverty standard is set way above what most people on this planet could hope to achieve, it's still not enough for the liberals. Just what do you consider poverty? You could raise income an addtional 50% and the 30% rate remains the same>
It just now includes families with higher incomes who would now be considered poor.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You're the one who brought up the poverty level. Remember how Al Gore was supposedly going to bring the whole country down to the poverty level? If it's such an arbitrary and meaningless distinction, why did you bring it up?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

No KarlG you're too funny. Critics ( you ) complain the current poverty level is set too low. Even though our poverty standard is set way above what most people on this planet could hope to achieve, it's still not enough for the liberals. Just what do you consider poverty? You could raise income an addtional 50% and the 30% rate remains the same>
It just now includes families with higher incomes who would now be considered poor.

I'd like you to show me where I complained the poverty level was too low. As a matter of fact, I challenge you to show me anyplace where I said the poverty level was too low. You can't, because I never said the poverty level was too low. I pointed out that 17 million children lived below the poverty level, and that 2 to three million are homeless at any given time of the year. I was challenged on that number, by a poster who, like many, came in with a quick jab, but without substantiation of his point. He then came back, and proved my point! Once again, you seem to have comprehension skills, and twist things around to tell me that I said the poverty level was too low, when I in fact did no such thing; I merely pointed that more people are in poverty than some want to believe, and what the number of those people was, and I made absolutely no comment about the number being to low, which would be an absurd statement to make. You bandy words like "liberals" around, when it's becoming clearer and clearer that you wouldn't know a liberal if he kicked you in the nuts; your Republican president is as close to a big goverment liberal as any who've been in the White House in quite some time, but I'm sure he gets a free pass from you because he's a Republican, so therefore he can't be a "liberal."

Once again I ask, are you naturally this obtuse, or do you have to work at it?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're the one who brought up the poverty level. Remember how Al Gore was supposedly going to bring the whole country down to the poverty level? If it's such an arbitrary and meaningless distinction, why did you bring it up?

It's arbitrary but not meaningless. It would take 3.6 biospheres if every person were to have the living standard enjoyed here in the United States. Why did Gore find Kyoto so compelling? Why were China, India, Mexico exempt from the treaty?
The Kyoto plan would have lowered our standard of living here in the states,
The Kyoto plan would have given China, India and Mexico a competitive advantage in the marketplace, raising their standard of living relative to the US.
It was defeated 95-0 in the Senate for good reasons.

KarlG chose to highlite these points in the article:
1. A family of four needed a combined income of at least $20,000. According to these guidelines, more than 37 million people in the US are currently living below the poverty line.

2. Individuals who fall below the poverty line often lack basic things like microwaves, clothes dryers, and computers. However, 91 percent of the families under the poverty line own a color TV, and 52 percent own a stereo. When it comes to food security, close to 90 percent of Americans below the poverty line have regular access to it, either through food stamps or food assistance programs like soup kitchens. A much higher percentage of people under the poverty line lack access to medical care. While a few may be admitted into Medicaid or other government programs, most do not. This is especially true of adults, as children and the elder have an easier time obtaining free medical care.
3.Many people who live under the poverty line are in urgent need for basic household repairs, such as a roof replacement or a pipeline fitting, and still do without them.
4. Critics of the current system used to determine the poverty line argue that the percentage of people living in poverty is much higher than what it seems. This is because the poverty line does not take into consideration certain factors such as rent or the median price of a home. The poverty line in the United States is the same, no matter what the cost of living in the area is. If it did, the percentage of Americans living under the poverty line would raise to 30 percent.

Now the point KarlG was gloating over was there are way more people living in poverty than reported.
Knowing KarlG, it's a damning statistic which supports his view of America, as being the least compassionate place on the face of the earth.

[OldManMac]

You're making this too easy! I did not gloat over anything! Those weren't my statements that you just highlighted, you hack. They were part of the article. I'm still waiting for you to prove that I complained that the poverty level was too low, and you won't, because you can't. Thankfully, you don't know me, and your statement that I think America is the least compassionate place on the face of the earth clearly shows that. You're projecting, and you sure can make a lot of wild claims that you can't back up, as you've proven over and over, in thread after thread. You might want to think about why someone else posted that you have all the annoyances of marden, with none of the substance, and others agreed. You're making yourself look like a fool, although I am surprised you haven't posted a thread about Obama, and his being black, in a few days. I don't know what you're so angry about, but at your age, it's not doing you any good. Get help.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

You're making this too easy! I did not gloat over anything! Those weren't my statements that you just highlighted, you hack. They were part of the article. I'm still waiting for you to prove that I complained that the poverty level was too low, and you won't, because you can't. Thankfully, you don't know me, and your statement that I think America is the least compassionate place on the face of the earth clearly shows that. You're projecting, and you sure can make a lot of wild claims that you can't back up, as you've proven over and over, in thread after thread. You might want to think about why someone else posted that you have all the annoyances of marden, with none of the substance, and others agreed. You're making yourself look like a fool, although I am surprised you haven't posted a thread about Obama, and his being black, in a few days. I don't know what you're so angry about, but at your age, it's not doing you any good. Get help.

Are you denying you did not highlight in bold portions of the article you quoted? Linking to the article I see no hightlights in bold, in the body of the reply you posted certain parts of the article are highlited in bold. Can you expalin this? Were the highlighted portions not your sentiments highlighted for emphasis?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Did you even read what you linked to? I want to thank you very much for making my point! Too funny!

http://www.wisegeek.com/in-the-unite...determined.htm

Poverty line, or poverty threshold, is used to mark the minimum income needed to achieve a satisfactory standard of living. While this may mean different thing in different parts of the world, in the US being above the poverty line means having access to water, food, shelter, education, medical care, and adequate clothing. The poverty line varies widely depending on state, number of persons living in the household, number of children in the household, and factors like disability and access to medical care.

In the US, the poverty line rises or falls every year according to the Consumer Price Index and other factors. In 2006, a single person needed to earn a minimum of $9,800 ($12,250 if she lives in Alaska) a year to stay over the poverty line. A family of four needed a combined income of at least $20,000. According to these guidelines, more than 37 million people in the US are currently living below the poverty line.

Individuals who fall below the poverty line often lack basic things like microwaves, clothes dryers, and computers. However, 91 percent of the families under the poverty line own a color TV, and 52 percent own a stereo. When it comes to food security, close to 90 percent of Americans below the poverty line have regular access to it, either through food stamps or food assistance programs like soup kitchens. A much higher percentage of people under the poverty line lack access to medical care. While a few may be admitted into Medicaid or other government programs, most do not. This is especially true of adults, as children and the elder have an easier time obtaining free medical care.

On an interesting note, 46 percent of individuals who fall under the poverty line own their own homes. This is a percentage similar to the one obtained from people who own an acceptable income and do not receive government assistance. Of that 46 percent, some own a mobile home, and some own a three-bedroom home, although the general condition of the housing can vary widely. Many people who live under the poverty line are in urgent need for basic household repairs, such as a roof replacement or a pipeline fitting, and still do without them.

Critics of the current system used to determine the poverty line argue that the percentage of people living in poverty is much higher than what it seems. This is because the poverty line does not take into consideration certain factors such as rent or the median price of a home. The poverty line in the United States is the same, no matter what the cost of living in the area is. If it did, the percentage of Americans living under the poverty line would raise to 30 percent.



Thanks again.

Oh, gee, nearly half of those "below the poverty line" own their own homes, drive cars, etc., etc.

And I made your point.

LMAO! Maybe in Lalaland.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're the one who brought up the poverty level. Remember how Al Gore was supposedly going to bring the whole country down to the poverty level? If it's such an arbitrary and meaningless distinction, why did you bring it up?

Actually, I brought it up - in the context (and an attempt to re-rail the thread) of his hypocrisy.

The Gore-On wants everyone to commit to a strategy that will force even more people to live at that level, so he can continue to live any damned way he pleases, the empiral evidence would seem to prove.

being a perfect example of "do as I say and not as I do," this is proof positive of Gore's absolute hypocrisy. Despite the fact that all you apologists have managed to obfuscate for 8 pages, so far.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The Gore-On wants everyone to commit to a strategy that will force even more people to live at that level,

That's completely false, AFAICT. He wants people to offset their carbon, which obviously doesn't force everyone to live at the poverty level. After all, he's doing it himself and he's not even close to the poverty level*. And that's exactly why this other statement of yours is wrong too:

being a perfect example of "do as I say and not as I do,"

He's doing exactly what he wants others to do, offset their carbon. Whether or not that's what you would like people to do, regardless of whether you care about global warming, it's what he is pushing people to do, and he's doing it to.




* So it Shortcut, apparently, and if he's at the poverty level it's not because paying carbon offsets put him there.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Are you denying you did not highlight in bold portions of the article you quoted? Linking to the article I see no hightlights in bold, in the body of the reply you posted certain parts of the article are highlited in bold. Can you expalin this? Were the highlighted portions not your sentiments highlighted for emphasis?

Thank you for showing exactly why you have comprehension problems. Yes, I highlighted those portions, to show what a problem it is, and you apparently took that to mean that I want those numbers to be higher! It's quite obvious you can't differentiate emphasis from desire! You are a trip!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Oh, gee, nearly half of those "below the poverty line" own their own homes, drive cars, etc., etc.

And I made your point.

LMAO! Maybe in Lalaland.

Another one who conveniently cherry picks the points he thinks support his views. You were the one who said the number wasn't in the millions, and I pointed out that, in the article you linked to, in order to defend your points, that you were wrong. You were the one who said they owned computers, had cable, etc., etc., and you were wrong. You are right in that 46 percent own homes, but you also conveniently chose to overlook the fact that their homes often need repair, and that they do without those repairs because they don't have the fricken' money! Just as the fact that their cars are much older and often also need repairs, and they scrape by, because they don't have the fricken' money! And of course, your best reply is "they own their own homes (which isn't true either, as they're often a paycheck away from the threat of losing them), drive cars, etc. etc." You might want to think about refraining from making quick jabs and generalized statements that you can't support.

I'm glad I could make you laugh; unfortunately you're laughing at yourself.

[Macrobat]

Laugh elsewhere - if you want to debate the poverty level, start a thread and stop attempting to derail this one.

How's that?

And no - I am, most decidedly, laughing my ass off at you.

Here's a clue, at least her, in the United States, they HAVE these things and the opportunities to rise above their situation. If they choose not to avail themselves of said opportunites and live on the public dole, it is THEIR problem, not mine.

Do NOT try and throw crap in my direction, because I GREW UP "below the poverty li(n)e" and have made something of myself - what's more, I know plenty of others who have, as well.

Spouting alarmist numbers manufactured in order to further political welfare agendas does you no good here.

I will let you in on a big clue: Those responsible for the "17 million children living below the poverty line" are their PARENTS (or should I say in most cases - PARENT) who keep squirting the kids out so they can continue to receive public "assistance."

Now - if you want further debate on this subject - start your own thread.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's completely false, AFAICT. He wants people to offset their carbon, which obviously doesn't force everyone to live at the poverty level. After all, he's doing it himself and he's not even close to the poverty level*. And that's exactly why this other statement of yours is wrong too:



He's doing exactly what he wants others to do, offset their carbon. Whether or not that's what you would like people to do, regardless of whether you care about global warming, it's what he is pushing people to do, and he's doing it to.




* So it Shortcut, apparently, and if he's at the poverty level it's not because paying carbon offsets put him there.

No, get a life. He would actually have to purchase real "carbon offsets" rather than stock options in companies to even begin to qualify, now wouldn't he?

And it would take a small country to offset the Gore-On's carbon footprint.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Laugh elsewhere - if you want to debate the poverty level, start a thread and stop attempting to derail this one.

How's that?

And no - I am, most decidedly, laughing my ass off at you.

Here's a clue, at least her, in the United States, they HAVE these things and the opportunities to rise above their situation. If they choose not to avail themselves of said opportunites and live on the public dole, it is THEIR problem, not mine.

Do NOT try and throw crap in my direction, because I GREW UP "below the poverty li(n)e" and have made something of myself - what's more, I know plenty of others who have, as well.

Spouting alarmist numbers manufactured in order to further political welfare agendas does you no good here.

I will let you in on a big clue: Those responsible for the "17 million children living below the poverty line" are their PARENTS (or should I say in most cases - PARENT) who keep squirting the kids out so they can continue to receive public "assistance."

Now - if you want further debate on this subject - start your own thread.

Good for you. It's great that you saw the opportunities; that doesn't mean, however, that everyone else who's poor sees them, and that's the problem. Something inside of you apparently realized that there was a way out, and that's great, but you can't extrapolate your personal situation onto an entire class of people, because others experience life differently. It's not that simple. That's all I'm saying on this, as you're right; this thread has been derailed.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, get a life. He would actually have to purchase real "carbon offsets" rather than stock options in companies to even begin to qualify, now wouldn't he?

First of all, Gore invented carbon offsets (right after inventing the internet), so I don't see why you're in any position to say what's a "real" carbon offset. Secondly, no matter what form the offsets are in, they all cost the same, so I don't see why it matters whether they're real or fake in your eyes, they're still affordable.

And it would take a small country to offset the Gore-On's carbon footprint.

No, that's not true. Did you just make that up? Do you have any frame of reference for how much they cost?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Spouting alarmist numbers manufactured in order to further political welfare agendas does you no good here.
...
And it would take a small country to offset the Gore-On's carbon footprint.

Good job, Macrobat. You managed to come up with a new nickname for Gore! Plus, you managed to come up with yet another argument based entirely on your imagination.

Me: The sky is blue.
Macrobat: You're a half-stuffed teddy bear. Fat mouth Gore-On wants to drive the entire world into poverty. It would take a small country to offset eGore's carbon footprint.
Me: ??!

Is there anything Gore has done that led to this irrational hatred? Did he kill your parents or something? Or do you feel the same need to call names and lie about every Democrat?

[Macrobat]

Not Gore, I would say that you - tie- need to seek a carnialanalectomy.

Too bad that Democrats keep proving unequivocally that no one needs to lie about them.

Let's see, we have:

Jefferson, Murtha, Pelosi's pork-filled cut-and-runner, numerous committee chairmanships that had to be juggled because of current and past foibles, and now we have Dianne Feinstein withdrawing herself from the very committee where she's been funnelling taxpayer money into her husband's checking account for years.

Nope - the Dems do plenty all by themselves, then act as if nothing ever occurred, while pointing their hypocritical fingers t any and everything any Republican or Independent is even accused of - Gore's just acting according to the Party line.

Hypocrisy is a legitimate tool of the Democrat Party, after all.




Sorry, Unc, but the cost of carbon offsets mean jack and shite. The fact that they're a complete and utter boondoggle is what's at issue.

Gore's electrical use aline confirms my "small country" claim - then we can add in all the jet commuting, his strip-mining of the Tennessee countryside, et al.

How about that two-block limo ride to receive the award at Cannes?

LMAO

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm afraid I can't accept that post without more name-calling. And what's an "aline?" Airline? I wish I had an electrical airline...

[tie]

I think he means alone.

Sorry, Unc, but the cost of carbon offsets mean jack and shite. The fact that they're a complete and utter boondoggle is what's at issue.

Evidence?

None, as usual.

[Buckaroo]

Best line ever:

LiveLeak.com - Best Movie Line EVER!!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Best line ever:

LiveLeak.com - Best Movie Line EVER!!

I lolled.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Not Gore, I would say that you - tie- need to seek a carnialanalectomy.

Optrectomy: "The purpose of this delicate operation is to sever the cord that connects your eyes to your rectum and hopefully rid you of your shitty outlook on life".



Just trying to help, ma'am.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Best line ever:

LiveLeak.com - Best Movie Line EVER!!

Classic!
Some things never change.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by tie 

I think he means alone.



Evidence?

None, as usual.

LMFAO! This entire thread is evidence, wiseass.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yes. MacNN threads are evidence now. That's how I proved to myself The Lies and Propaganda of FOX news, and The mechanism of science vs. how scientific meaning is assigned.

[Macrobat]

All the cites in the thread are evidence, brainiac.

At least AlGore can comfort himself with the knowledge that he's not the only rank hypocrite on his side of the GW argument:

With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming | Showbiz | This is London