[Tulsa Ramjet]

Tell the UNICEF to go raise their kids in the Congo, or Iran, and see how well their children turn out. Especially the females. What a crock. I guess genital mutilation, child soldiers, and rapes of honor don't count for much anymore.

[JOHANNES801]

When do we see some rock star begging for money for poor kids in Alabama.What a bunch of commie bs.

[crghill]

So, this reporter and the UNICEF folks have never been to a third world country other than for a vacation. Thinks that make you say hmmmmm!

[marktwain]

"The study said that child poverty - defined as the percentage of children living in homes with incomes below 50 per cent of the national median - remains above the 15 per cent mark in Britain, the US and Ireland, as well as Spain, Portugal and Italy."

This is such a stupid use of numbers. How about absolute material welfare? According to this measure, if the whole country is just above the subsistence level, with 30% of the people starving, they could still be "better off" than the U.S. if the percentage of children living in homes with incomes less than 50% of the national median was less than 15% (maybe because those children had all died of starvation.

The whole thing looks to be constructed to make more capitalistic societies look bad. The whole idea that a wide spectrum of wealth in a society is bad is idiotic, a stupid idea dreamed up by failing socialists.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Mexico had better immediately take steps to seal its borders.

[Alouette]

US, UK are worse than Sudan?

Oh. Oh, it's Al Jizm. "To be a slave in Islam is noble."

[tcostell]

The study said that child poverty - defined as the percentage of children living in homes with incomes below 50 per cent of the national median - remains above the 15 per cent mark in Britain, the US and Ireland, as well as Spain, Portugal and Italy.

The bottom 2% in the US still live better than 90% of the global population.

This study is just a waste.

[Recon Dad]

The study said that child poverty - defined as the percentage of children living in homes with incomes below 50 per cent of the national median


That is about the dumbest measure of poverty I have ever encountered. On this basis the kids in Mexico and any poor country are much better off than the kids in the US.

[Steel Wolf]

The study said that child poverty - defined as the percentage of children living in homes with incomes below 50 per cent of the national median - remains above the 15 per cent mark in Britain, the US and Ireland, as well as Spain, Portugal and Italy.

Poor people in the United States have cars, cable TV, cell phones, iPods, and are often fat. Show me another country where they have fat poor people with new iPods. (Hint: Ryhmes with "the UK")

I've been all over the world. Most Americans can't grasp what real poverty is. Many happy, middle class people in other countries live with less material comfort than our own poor. UNICEF should be embarassed to release such a crock. Who gives a rat's ass what the 'median' is? By definition, half of the people will be living under the fifty percent mark, anyway. If America was half billionaires and half millionaires, then by this idiotic study, millioniaires would be living below the poverty line. That doesn't take into account what you can buy with that million dollars.

[Chi-townChief]

Remember those long-ago Halloweens collecting UNICEF money for the poor kids of the world? It turns out that those little bastards should have been collecting money for us instead!!

[mylife]

Uh huh.....

Best to be raised in a loving place like Palastine where Mom kisses your illiterate noggen while buttoning up your adolescent bomb vest /sarc

[American in Singapore]

That damned Scrappleface is at it again :-)

[NonValueAdded]

Absurd on its face.

US out of the UN
UN out of the US

[Tulsa Ramjet]

They still haven't carried the Anna Nicole story. They got nothing on Greta.

the world will not end with a bang, or whimper, or cleavage, but a JDAM focused on a group sharing a hooka pipe.

[Right Wing Assault]

That's pretty funny! Many of those "poor" kids have cell phones, TVs, ipods, computers, toilets in the house, houses, schools, LeBron James shoes, etc. Poor people in other parts of the world have a piece of cloth. The better off ones might have a drinking cup.

As far as binge drinking goes, it's much harder to do in Muzzle'em countries. Their solution to a lot of vices is death.

[Right Wing Assault]

Then their are the rapes by UN personnel.

[MadIvan]

One Liberal MP was on television this morning, saying that part of the measure was how much fresh air that kids got. They have plenty of fresh air in the Congo - that doesn't make it any less infected with malaria.

Regards, Ivan

[FostersExport]

Everyone…I agree this report is flawed, but dump the Iran, Congo, Mexico etc comparisons. The report only includes ‘industrialised’ actions.

Judging by the list here ‘industrialised’ apparently means Europe and the US:

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6359363.stm)

Don't ask me why they couldn't manage to get enough data from those economic backwaters (!) Japan and Australia.

[sergeantdave]

When the little kids come around and try to collect for UNICEF, I tell them the UN is filled with filled with communists and Nazis who barbecue small African children on spits. They looked shocked and don't know what to say.

The goofy lefty parents, however, go into cardiac arrest, throw little Johnny in the car and speed off at 60 MPH.

[nativist]

The study said that child poverty - defined as the percentage of children living in homes with incomes below 50 per cent of the national median - remains above the 15 per cent mark in Britain, the US and Ireland, as well as Spain, Portugal and Italy.

50% of 0 is 0.

[metmom]

The study said that child poverty - defined as the percentage of children living in homes with incomes below 50 per cent of the national median - remains above the 15 per cent mark in Britain, the US and Ireland, as well as Spain, Portugal and Italy.

Bangs head on desk.

What do they want? That everyone lives in a home with income above the national average?

If only 15% of the children live in homes that are below the national average, I'd say that's pretty good.

Let's reword it: 85% of the children live in homes with incomes above 50% of the national median. Harder to criticise, isn't it?