I visit the US on a regular basis (2-3 times a year over the last 15 years) and I do find it amazing how many poor and destitute people the US has, I would definitely say it is worse than any other western country I have visited and I have visited most. something is definitely not working right in the US.

HOWEVER, to some extent getting out of being poor really is a choice. I grew up in a poor family, my single mother used to work 2 jobs to keep us in food and clothes(all of which were bought from second hand shops). HECS in Australia and weekend and night jobs allowed me to struggle through University and ensuring I didn't have such luxury habits and drinking or smoking. I struggled for 4 years of uni when I could have been working and at least living a little better or living off government benefits. End result is I am now in the 1% bracket but I think I damn well earned my way there. My younger brother by comparison is now 38 and still lives off government benefits only working when he absolutely has too, he made a choice to live that way and he seems happy enough but he also b1tches about how unfair it is that people have more than him when I know damn well he could easily have also worked his way to the top.

Canada seems to be doing considerably better in this regard than the US.

There is definitely a gap in income but not nearly as extreme.

Actually, most of Europe has a poverty level comparable to the two poorest U.S states Misssippi/West Virginia. 

Situation is poor but generally this is what happens when you concentrate too much money and power in one small place, only time will tell what will happen.

I have been to most of the countries listed there and I would say that graph is a poor representation of the poor, it also isn't a poverty index, rather a quality of life index. This probably comes from many of the factors they put into that index such as environment, health, satisfaction etc.

Poverty is defined by scarcity rather than low-income/lesser accumulation of capital (only one facet of poverty.) That is why the "Better-life index" is MORE suited to defining poverty than otherwise. And yes, you might have been to those countries, and you might have been to the U.S, but you haven't been to every place in these respective countries, and hence your anecdotal experience is limited, especially when confronted with OECD data. 

What you have done is commendable no doubt but the vast majority are going to be stuck in whatever bracket their parents are in. Kids always consider their parents profession first before thinking outside the box. Hell I do the same thing my mother does. You're the exception not the norm.  Most people emulate their surroundings. If one's parents place no value on education and are not educated themselves, there is a very slim chance that one would value education. It nice that you knew what good choices to make but for many, the "good choice" is that the guy next door is selling drugs and is now driving a benz which means they can get a benz too if they sell some drugs.

For some other people, what they thought were "good choices" ended up backfiring e.g Madoff investors.

There are lots of ways to measure poverty, like this one, pretty much an upside down picture of that better life index
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/15/map-how-35-countries-compare-on-child-poverty-the-u-s-is-ranked-34th/

This is incorrect. 

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2013/march/us-economic-mobility-dream-data/

58% of households in the lowest quintile in 1996 were in a higher quintile in 2005. 

57% of households in the top 1% in 1996 were no longer in the top 1% in 2005. 

One problem with popular portrayals of the income gap is that they show income distribution at a single point in time. But for many households, income changes over time. The low-paying jobs from high school days usually give way to better-paying jobs later in life. Figure 1A shows the percentage of households that moved to a higher income quintile from 1996 to 2005. For example, nearly 58 percent of the households in the lowest income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher category by 2005. The reverse also happens, as shown in Figure 1B. Of those households that were in the top 1 percent in income in 1996, for example, more than 57 percent dropped to a lower income group by 2005.

Granted it was 1996 - 2005, but the "Great Recession" hasn't changed things much, based on recent studies (I chose this one, despite its age, because the source for the data is the U.S Treasury.) 

For other studies: 

http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-and-mobility-in-the-united-states-2013-7

Only 22%-25% stay in the same bracket as his father whether his father was in the top 10% or the bottom 10%. Oddly enough, around 7% go from the bottom to the top. So for every 100 men born in the bottom 10% of fathers, there are seven who went to the top, 2 who went to the 90 percentile, 5 who went to the 80 percentile and 5 who went to the 70th percentile, 11 who went to the 60th percentile and 11 who went to the 50th percentile, 10 who went to the 40th percentile and 10 who went to the 30th percentile, and 17 who went to the 20th percentile. About 51% of men who were born at the bottom moved to the upper 50% of the population. 

If anything, that shows income inequality, not destitute (poverty.) For the first graph they present, the national median (and ones distance from it) depends on the country's relative income brackets. This means that the median income in, say Estonia, could be well below the median incom of say the United Kingdom, and fewer individuals fall less than the median income in Estonia because it is more equal, yet more poor people could exist (as a proportion) in Estonia than the United Kingdom. 

As for the graph you posted, the same holds true. The relative poverty line in the U.S is much higher than many of those other countries, again a measurement of income inequality and not absolute poverty (destitute.) 

For example, from your article, the U.S' poverty line is the average disposable income of Italy, Poland, Hungary, Greece, and Czech Republic. Higher than Estonia, Portugal and Slovakia's average income. 

 Internally, the United States defines the poverty line as a family living on less than about $22,000 per year, which includes about 15 percent of Americans

From the article you linked,

The poor U.S. showing in this data may reflect growing income inequality. According to one metric of inequality, a statistical measurement called the gini coefficient, the U.S. economy is one of the most unequal in the developed world. This would explain why the United States, on child poverty, is ranked between Bulgaria and Romania, though Americans are on average six times richer than Bulgarians and Romanians.

Also note, that your article doesn't include welfare spending and benefits, which in the U.S while are less common in middle classe percentiles, can add up quite a lot to the bottom percentiles that get them.