The War On Poverty: Lost

[Bfgrn]

The soft bigotry of reduced expectations applies to more than skin color.

Your usual vacuous bluster...

Your usual shallow, simplistic, closed-minded partisan ideology.

.

THAT is a laugh...talk about 'partisan ideology'....you use of the term "reduced expectations"...

What do you know about the War on Poverty that actually was a initiative of JFK's New Frontier?

What were the 'core principles' of the War on Poverty? What was the agency that was created??

If you have a point to make, make it.

I made mine, and without games.

It ain't that tough, I swear.

.

So what IS your point exactly Mac?...you always veil your point in word games and bluster...

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....how come you can't dispute any of the facts?

You must be a government school grad, huh?

In general YOUR facts are twisted in order to PROVE something that you, yourself believe to be fact.

Do insults count as facts??? If so, you're the foremost authority on everything under the sun.

You won't even try to deal with my facts.

Insults?????

Me???

Winning hearts and minds. That's what I'm all about!

Whining is what you are about PC. This isn't the first time you have tried to misrepresent the War on Poverty. And this is not the first time (or the last time, knowing your authoritarian upbringing) that I will correct you...


You are a wealth of right wing parrot squawk...

Good example...the War on Poverty...

Ironically, the War on Poverty SHOULD have been strongly supported by conservatives. But they only offer empty rhetoric, while trying to tear down the working men and women of our nation and always trying to create an aristocracy by propping up and worshiping the opulent.

Here are some FACTS for you on what the War on Poverty was and wasn't.

When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted President Johnson's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action, opportunity, responsibility, and empowerment.

The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's goal was maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.) Ref

Here is one of the agencies created by the WOP...

Job Corps is a program administered by the United States Department of Labor that offers free-of-charge education and vocational training to youth ages 16 to 24.

Job Corps offers career planning, on-the-job training, job placement, residential housing, food service, driver's education, basic health and dental care, a bi-weekly basic living allowance and clothing allowance. Some centers offer childcare programs for single parents as well.

Besides vocational training, the Job Corps program also offers academic training, including basic reading and math, GED attainment, college preparatory, and Limited English Proficiency courses. Some centers also offer programs that allow students to remain in residence at their center while attending college.[citation needed] Job Corps provides career counseling and transition support to its students for up to one year after they graduate from the program.

Career paths

Career paths offered by Job Corps include:

Advanced manufacturing

Communication design
Drafting
Electronic assembly
Machine appliance repair
Machining
Welding
Manufacturing technology
Sign, billboard, and display

Automotive and machine repair

Automobile technician
General services technician
Collision repair and refinish
Heavy construction equipment mechanic
Diesel mechanic
Medium/heavy truck repair
Electronics tech
Stationary engineering

Construction

Bricklaying
Carpentry
Cement masonry
Concrete and terrazzo
Construction craft laborer
Electrical
Electrical overhead line
Facilities maintenance
Floor covering
Glazing
HVAC
Industrial engineering technician
Licensed electrician (bilingual)
Mechanical engineering technician
Painting
Plastering
Plumbing
Roto-Rooter plumbing
Tile setting

Extension programs

Advanced Career Training (ACT)
General Educational Development (GED)
Commercial driver's license (CDL)
Off-Center Training (OCT Program)
High school diploma (HSD Program)

Finance and Business

Accounting services
Business management
Clerical occupations
Legal secretary
Insurance and financial services
Marketing
Medical insurance specialist
Office administration
Paralegal
Purchasing

Health care/allied health professions

Clinical medical assistant
Dental assistant
EKG technician
Emergency medical technician
Exercise/massage therapy
Hemodialysis technician
Licensed practical/vocational nurse
Medical office support
Nurse assistant/home health aide
Opticianry
Pharmacy technician
Phlebotomy
Physical therapy assistant
Rehabilitation therapy
Rehabilitation technician
Registered nurse
Respiratory therapy
Sterile processing
Surgical technician

Homeland security

Corrections officer
Seamanship
Security and protective services

Hospitality

Culinary arts
Hotel and lodging

Information technology

A+ Microsoft MSCE
Computer Networking/Cisco
Computer systems administrator
Computer support specialist
Computer technician
Integrated system tech
Network cable installation
Visual communications

Renewable resources and energy

Forest conservation and urban forestry
Firefighting
Wastewater
Landscaping

Retail sales and services

Behavioral health aide
Criminal justice
Child development
Residential advisor
Cosmetology
Retail sales

Transportation

Asphalt paving
Material and distribution operations
Clerical occupations
Heavy equipment operations
Roustabout operator
Heavy truck driving
TCU administrative clerk

From the OP:

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....

 

[Bfgrn]

January 22, 1973: Triumph and Tragedy

At the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, a young man from Texas won a gold medal in heavyweight boxing while an old man from Texas proudly watched from the White House in Washington, D.C.

As a teenager growing up in Houston’s rough Fifth Ward, George Foreman was spending his days and nights fighting in the streets and committing petty crimes. Foreman had little education, few role models, no direction and found the crippling poverty that he lived in to be unbearable. Then, in 1965, he heard of the Job Corps.

One of the foundations of Lyndon B. Johnson’s War On Poverty, the Job Corps was created in 1964 to provide vocational training and technical education, free of charge, to students aged 16 through 24. For many young Americans, the Job Corps as an opportunity. For George Foreman, it was a path to superstardom and success.

After beginning his Job Corps training in Oregon, Foreman was stationed at a center in California where a Job Corps supervisor named Doc Broadus encouraged the 6’4” Texan to consider boxing. Just three years after he signed up for the centerpiece program of LBJ’s Great Society, George Foreman was representing his country in the Olympics.

To this day, Foreman credits the Job Corps for saving his life. Later, he would proudly declare that “Job Corps took me from the mean streets and out of a nightmare lifestyle into a mode where the most incredible dreams came true.”

Following Foreman’s gold medal victory at the 1968 Olympics, he was invited to the White House by President Johnson and became a proud symbol of a Great Society success story. At the White House, President Johnson asked Foreman when he thought he’d win the world championship and Foreman recalled that “I told him I hoped it would be quick, as I needed the money. He laughed about that.”

As LBJ headed into retirement in Texas, George Foreman embarked on a successful professional boxing career and with a 37-0 record, he prepared to fight for the undisputed heavyweight championship against the undefeated champion — Joe Frazier. Foreman started going by the nickname “The Fighting Corpsman”, paying tribute to his Job Corps roots because “it had been President Johnson’s Job Corps which changed my direction in life. I thought all those Job Corps men out there would see that one among them was making it, and maybe it would help them believe they could as well.”

The Fighting Corpsman was a heavy underdog on January 22, 1973 as he challenged Joe Frazier for the world heavyweight championship in Kingston, Jamaica. Most boxing reporters and students of the game thought that the match wouldn’t last very long and they were correct. Foreman dominated Frazier, knocking him down six times in two rounds before the referee finally stepped in and stopped the beating. As millions watched the fight on television, sportscaster Howard Cosell made one of the most famous calls in history, “Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!”. At just 24 years old, George Foreman — the Fighting Corpsman — was the heavyweight champion of the world.

The victory was George Foreman’s, but no one would have taken more pride in the results of that fight than the architect of the program that turned Foreman’s life around, Lyndon B. Johnson. Sadly, Johnson never saw the fight. Just hours earlier on the very day that Foreman won the title in Jamaica, Lyndon Johnson suffered a fatal heart attack at the LBJ Ranch near Johnson City, Texas. As fans were filing into the arena in Jamaica, Lyndon Johnson died en route to a hospital in Texas.

For the new champion, the victory was bittersweet. “I felt robbed that night while winning it as I had hoped he would be able to read what happened in Jamaica which could never have been possible had he not had that Job Corps idea and that it would include me.” In 1983, George Foreman donated the championship belt that he won on the day of LBJ’s death to the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas where it is on display today — a memento from a coincidental day 38 years ago when two Texans were united by accomplishment and cemented in history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

January 22, 1973: Triumph and Tragedy

At the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, a young man from Texas won a gold medal in heavyweight boxing while an old man from Texas proudly watched from the White House in Washington, D.C.

As a teenager growing up in Houston’s rough Fifth Ward, George Foreman was spending his days and nights fighting in the streets and committing petty crimes. Foreman had little education, few role models, no direction and found the crippling poverty that he lived in to be unbearable. Then, in 1965, he heard of the Job Corps.

One of the foundations of Lyndon B. Johnson’s War On Poverty, the Job Corps was created in 1964 to provide vocational training and technical education, free of charge, to students aged 16 through 24. For many young Americans, the Job Corps as an opportunity. For George Foreman, it was a path to superstardom and success.

After beginning his Job Corps training in Oregon, Foreman was stationed at a center in California where a Job Corps supervisor named Doc Broadus encouraged the 6’4” Texan to consider boxing. Just three years after he signed up for the centerpiece program of LBJ’s Great Society, George Foreman was representing his country in the Olympics.

To this day, Foreman credits the Job Corps for saving his life. Later, he would proudly declare that “Job Corps took me from the mean streets and out of a nightmare lifestyle into a mode where the most incredible dreams came true.”

Following Foreman’s gold medal victory at the 1968 Olympics, he was invited to the White House by President Johnson and became a proud symbol of a Great Society success story. At the White House, President Johnson asked Foreman when he thought he’d win the world championship and Foreman recalled that “I told him I hoped it would be quick, as I needed the money. He laughed about that.”

As LBJ headed into retirement in Texas, George Foreman embarked on a successful professional boxing career and with a 37-0 record, he prepared to fight for the undisputed heavyweight championship against the undefeated champion — Joe Frazier. Foreman started going by the nickname “The Fighting Corpsman”, paying tribute to his Job Corps roots because “it had been President Johnson’s Job Corps which changed my direction in life. I thought all those Job Corps men out there would see that one among them was making it, and maybe it would help them believe they could as well.”

The Fighting Corpsman was a heavy underdog on January 22, 1973 as he challenged Joe Frazier for the world heavyweight championship in Kingston, Jamaica. Most boxing reporters and students of the game thought that the match wouldn’t last very long and they were correct. Foreman dominated Frazier, knocking him down six times in two rounds before the referee finally stepped in and stopped the beating. As millions watched the fight on television, sportscaster Howard Cosell made one of the most famous calls in history, “Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!”. At just 24 years old, George Foreman — the Fighting Corpsman — was the heavyweight champion of the world.

The victory was George Foreman’s, but no one would have taken more pride in the results of that fight than the architect of the program that turned Foreman’s life around, Lyndon B. Johnson. Sadly, Johnson never saw the fight. Just hours earlier on the very day that Foreman won the title in Jamaica, Lyndon Johnson suffered a fatal heart attack at the LBJ Ranch near Johnson City, Texas. As fans were filing into the arena in Jamaica, Lyndon Johnson died en route to a hospital in Texas.

For the new champion, the victory was bittersweet. “I felt robbed that night while winning it as I had hoped he would be able to read what happened in Jamaica which could never have been possible had he not had that Job Corps idea and that it would include me.” In 1983, George Foreman donated the championship belt that he won on the day of LBJ’s death to the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas where it is on display today — a memento from a coincidental day 38 years ago when two Texans were united by accomplishment and cemented in history.

Your version of a white flag?

Great.

 

[Bfgrn]

January 22, 1973: Triumph and Tragedy

At the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, a young man from Texas won a gold medal in heavyweight boxing while an old man from Texas proudly watched from the White House in Washington, D.C.

As a teenager growing up in Houston’s rough Fifth Ward, George Foreman was spending his days and nights fighting in the streets and committing petty crimes. Foreman had little education, few role models, no direction and found the crippling poverty that he lived in to be unbearable. Then, in 1965, he heard of the Job Corps.

One of the foundations of Lyndon B. Johnson’s War On Poverty, the Job Corps was created in 1964 to provide vocational training and technical education, free of charge, to students aged 16 through 24. For many young Americans, the Job Corps as an opportunity. For George Foreman, it was a path to superstardom and success.

After beginning his Job Corps training in Oregon, Foreman was stationed at a center in California where a Job Corps supervisor named Doc Broadus encouraged the 6’4” Texan to consider boxing. Just three years after he signed up for the centerpiece program of LBJ’s Great Society, George Foreman was representing his country in the Olympics.

To this day, Foreman credits the Job Corps for saving his life. Later, he would proudly declare that “Job Corps took me from the mean streets and out of a nightmare lifestyle into a mode where the most incredible dreams came true.”

Following Foreman’s gold medal victory at the 1968 Olympics, he was invited to the White House by President Johnson and became a proud symbol of a Great Society success story. At the White House, President Johnson asked Foreman when he thought he’d win the world championship and Foreman recalled that “I told him I hoped it would be quick, as I needed the money. He laughed about that.”

As LBJ headed into retirement in Texas, George Foreman embarked on a successful professional boxing career and with a 37-0 record, he prepared to fight for the undisputed heavyweight championship against the undefeated champion — Joe Frazier. Foreman started going by the nickname “The Fighting Corpsman”, paying tribute to his Job Corps roots because “it had been President Johnson’s Job Corps which changed my direction in life. I thought all those Job Corps men out there would see that one among them was making it, and maybe it would help them believe they could as well.”

The Fighting Corpsman was a heavy underdog on January 22, 1973 as he challenged Joe Frazier for the world heavyweight championship in Kingston, Jamaica. Most boxing reporters and students of the game thought that the match wouldn’t last very long and they were correct. Foreman dominated Frazier, knocking him down six times in two rounds before the referee finally stepped in and stopped the beating. As millions watched the fight on television, sportscaster Howard Cosell made one of the most famous calls in history, “Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!”. At just 24 years old, George Foreman — the Fighting Corpsman — was the heavyweight champion of the world.

The victory was George Foreman’s, but no one would have taken more pride in the results of that fight than the architect of the program that turned Foreman’s life around, Lyndon B. Johnson. Sadly, Johnson never saw the fight. Just hours earlier on the very day that Foreman won the title in Jamaica, Lyndon Johnson suffered a fatal heart attack at the LBJ Ranch near Johnson City, Texas. As fans were filing into the arena in Jamaica, Lyndon Johnson died en route to a hospital in Texas.

For the new champion, the victory was bittersweet. “I felt robbed that night while winning it as I had hoped he would be able to read what happened in Jamaica which could never have been possible had he not had that Job Corps idea and that it would include me.” In 1983, George Foreman donated the championship belt that he won on the day of LBJ’s death to the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas where it is on display today — a memento from a coincidental day 38 years ago when two Texans were united by accomplishment and cemented in history.

Your version of a white flag?

Great.

SO, you didn't read it...

 

[Jroc]

So long as the global economy is based on capitalism, you're always going to have poverty. It's the inevitible result of capitalist greed.

 

[Bfgrn]

So....how come you can't dispute any of the facts?

You must be a government school grad, huh?

In general YOUR facts are twisted in order to PROVE something that you, yourself believe to be fact.

Do insults count as facts??? If so, you're the foremost authority on everything under the sun.

You won't even try to deal with my facts.

Insults?????

Me???

Winning hearts and minds. That's what I'm all about!

Whining is what you are about PC. This isn't the first time you have tried to misrepresent the War on Poverty. And this is not the first time (or the last time, knowing your authoritarian upbringing) that I will correct you...


You are a wealth of right wing parrot squawk...

Good example...the War on Poverty...

Ironically, the War on Poverty SHOULD have been strongly supported by conservatives. But they only offer empty rhetoric, while trying to tear down the working men and women of our nation and always trying to create an aristocracy by propping up and worshiping the opulent.

Here are some FACTS for you on what the War on Poverty was and wasn't.

When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted President Johnson's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action, opportunity, responsibility, and empowerment.

The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's goal was maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.) Ref

Here is one of the agencies created by the WOP...

Job Corps is a program administered by the United States Department of Labor that offers free-of-charge education and vocational training to youth ages 16 to 24.

Job Corps offers career planning, on-the-job training, job placement, residential housing, food service, driver's education, basic health and dental care, a bi-weekly basic living allowance and clothing allowance. Some centers offer childcare programs for single parents as well.

Besides vocational training, the Job Corps program also offers academic training, including basic reading and math, GED attainment, college preparatory, and Limited English Proficiency courses. Some centers also offer programs that allow students to remain in residence at their center while attending college.[citation needed] Job Corps provides career counseling and transition support to its students for up to one year after they graduate from the program.

Career paths

Career paths offered by Job Corps include:

Advanced manufacturing

Communication design
Drafting
Electronic assembly
Machine appliance repair
Machining
Welding
Manufacturing technology
Sign, billboard, and display

Automotive and machine repair

Automobile technician
General services technician
Collision repair and refinish
Heavy construction equipment mechanic
Diesel mechanic
Medium/heavy truck repair
Electronics tech
Stationary engineering

Construction

Bricklaying
Carpentry
Cement masonry
Concrete and terrazzo
Construction craft laborer
Electrical
Electrical overhead line
Facilities maintenance
Floor covering
Glazing
HVAC
Industrial engineering technician
Licensed electrician (bilingual)
Mechanical engineering technician
Painting
Plastering
Plumbing
Roto-Rooter plumbing
Tile setting

Extension programs

Advanced Career Training (ACT)
General Educational Development (GED)
Commercial driver's license (CDL)
Off-Center Training (OCT Program)
High school diploma (HSD Program)

Finance and Business

Accounting services
Business management
Clerical occupations
Legal secretary
Insurance and financial services
Marketing
Medical insurance specialist
Office administration
Paralegal
Purchasing

Health care/allied health professions

Clinical medical assistant
Dental assistant
EKG technician
Emergency medical technician
Exercise/massage therapy
Hemodialysis technician
Licensed practical/vocational nurse
Medical office support
Nurse assistant/home health aide
Opticianry
Pharmacy technician
Phlebotomy
Physical therapy assistant
Rehabilitation therapy
Rehabilitation technician
Registered nurse
Respiratory therapy
Sterile processing
Surgical technician

Homeland security

Corrections officer
Seamanship
Security and protective services

Hospitality

Culinary arts
Hotel and lodging

Information technology

A+ Microsoft MSCE
Computer Networking/Cisco
Computer systems administrator
Computer support specialist
Computer technician
Integrated system tech
Network cable installation
Visual communications

Renewable resources and energy

Forest conservation and urban forestry
Firefighting
Wastewater
Landscaping

Retail sales and services

Behavioral health aide
Criminal justice
Child development
Residential advisor
Cosmetology
Retail sales

Transportation

Asphalt paving
Material and distribution operations
Clerical occupations
Heavy equipment operations
Roustabout operator
Heavy truck driving
TCU administrative clerk

From the OP:

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....

What would the poverty rate be if the War on Poverty had never existed? Your data is empty rhetoric. Are the economic opportunities greater or lesser than in 1967? The world went on after 1967 and Reagan ended the War on Poverty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....how come you can't dispute any of the facts?

You must be a government school grad, huh?

In general YOUR facts are twisted in order to PROVE something that you, yourself believe to be fact.

Do insults count as facts??? If so, you're the foremost authority on everything under the sun.

You won't even try to deal with my facts.

Insults?????

Me???

Winning hearts and minds. That's what I'm all about!

Whining is what you are about PC. This isn't the first time you have tried to misrepresent the War on Poverty. And this is not the first time (or the last time, knowing your authoritarian upbringing) that I will correct you...


You are a wealth of right wing parrot squawk...

Good example...the War on Poverty...

Ironically, the War on Poverty SHOULD have been strongly supported by conservatives. But they only offer empty rhetoric, while trying to tear down the working men and women of our nation and always trying to create an aristocracy by propping up and worshiping the opulent.

Here are some FACTS for you on what the War on Poverty was and wasn't.

When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted President Johnson's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action, opportunity, responsibility, and empowerment.

The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's goal was maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.) Ref

Here is one of the agencies created by the WOP...

Job Corps is a program administered by the United States Department of Labor that offers free-of-charge education and vocational training to youth ages 16 to 24.

Job Corps offers career planning, on-the-job training, job placement, residential housing, food service, driver's education, basic health and dental care, a bi-weekly basic living allowance and clothing allowance. Some centers offer childcare programs for single parents as well.

Besides vocational training, the Job Corps program also offers academic training, including basic reading and math, GED attainment, college preparatory, and Limited English Proficiency courses. Some centers also offer programs that allow students to remain in residence at their center while attending college.[citation needed] Job Corps provides career counseling and transition support to its students for up to one year after they graduate from the program.

Career paths

Career paths offered by Job Corps include:

Advanced manufacturing

Communication design
Drafting
Electronic assembly
Machine appliance repair
Machining
Welding
Manufacturing technology
Sign, billboard, and display

Automotive and machine repair

Automobile technician
General services technician
Collision repair and refinish
Heavy construction equipment mechanic
Diesel mechanic
Medium/heavy truck repair
Electronics tech
Stationary engineering

Construction

Bricklaying
Carpentry
Cement masonry
Concrete and terrazzo
Construction craft laborer
Electrical
Electrical overhead line
Facilities maintenance
Floor covering
Glazing
HVAC
Industrial engineering technician
Licensed electrician (bilingual)
Mechanical engineering technician
Painting
Plastering
Plumbing
Roto-Rooter plumbing
Tile setting

Extension programs

Advanced Career Training (ACT)
General Educational Development (GED)
Commercial driver's license (CDL)
Off-Center Training (OCT Program)
High school diploma (HSD Program)

Finance and Business

Accounting services
Business management
Clerical occupations
Legal secretary
Insurance and financial services
Marketing
Medical insurance specialist
Office administration
Paralegal
Purchasing

Health care/allied health professions

Clinical medical assistant
Dental assistant
EKG technician
Emergency medical technician
Exercise/massage therapy
Hemodialysis technician
Licensed practical/vocational nurse
Medical office support
Nurse assistant/home health aide
Opticianry
Pharmacy technician
Phlebotomy
Physical therapy assistant
Rehabilitation therapy
Rehabilitation technician
Registered nurse
Respiratory therapy
Sterile processing
Surgical technician

Homeland security

Corrections officer
Seamanship
Security and protective services

Hospitality

Culinary arts
Hotel and lodging

Information technology

A+ Microsoft MSCE
Computer Networking/Cisco
Computer systems administrator
Computer support specialist
Computer technician
Integrated system tech
Network cable installation
Visual communications

Renewable resources and energy

Forest conservation and urban forestry
Firefighting
Wastewater
Landscaping

Retail sales and services

Behavioral health aide
Criminal justice
Child development
Residential advisor
Cosmetology
Retail sales

Transportation

Asphalt paving
Material and distribution operations
Clerical occupations
Heavy equipment operations
Roustabout operator
Heavy truck driving
TCU administrative clerk

From the OP:

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....

What would the poverty rate be if the War on Poverty had never existed? Your data is empty rhetoric. Are the economic opportunities greater or lesser than in 1967? The world went on after 1967 and Reagan ended the War on Poverty.

$22 Trillion, you dope........ Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....

 

[Camp]

From the OP:

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....




[/QUOTE]

There is no comparison between what was regarded as poverty in 1967 and what is regarded as poverty today. In the 60's the USSR used photo's and films of barefoot, dirty kids dressed in rags standing in front of shacks that lacked running water and similar photo's and films from inner city ghetto's. Little malnourished Americans for all the world to see and be used by the communist as propaganda. Americans were shamed and and embarrassed because they knew the photo's and films were accurate depictions of how many Americans lived. Poverty when the War on Poverty was started was about preventing great suffering and squalor. Today poverty means something entirely different. Our poor kids live in apartments or homes with running water and can go to school with shoes and clean cloths where they get fed enough to prevent them from constantly being malnourished and sickly. If they do get sick they can receive medical attention. Those things were denied to them before the War on Poverty.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gee, I think it's best to let the narcissist wait.

 

[Conservative65]

Funny how so called Christians always like to fight anti-poverty and never, ever use Jesus Christ as an example of bad when it comes to charity...equality and knowing that accumulating vast amounts of wealth is wicked and a sin...
Yet these people are the first to fly the banner of being christian when it suits them....

Funny how you equate something that is mandated by the government with something that involves a VOLUNTARY action. If you think that your support of goverment mandated programs means you're charitable, please read the following definitions:

Mandate - to require as by law. In other words, something taken.
Charity - an act of giving or sharing. In other word, a voluntary act by the giver.

Compassion doesn't involve adhering to a mandate.

Since you seem to misuse the words of Jesus, perhaps you can show me in the Bible where Jesus ever used the government to following his teachings on CHARITY.

 

[Conservative65]

From the OP:

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....

There is no comparison between what was regarded as poverty in 1967 and what is regarded as poverty today. In the 60's the USSR used photo's and films of barefoot, dirty kids dressed in rags standing in front of shacks that lacked running water and similar photo's and films from inner city ghetto's. Little malnourished Americans for all the world to see and be used by the communist as propaganda. Americans were shamed and and embarrassed because they knew the photo's and films were accurate depictions of how many Americans lived. Poverty when the War on Poverty was started was about preventing great suffering and squalor. Today poverty means something entirely different. Our poor kids live in apartments or homes with running water and can go to school with shoes and clean cloths where they get fed enough to prevent them from constantly being malnourished and sickly. If they do get sick they can receive medical attention. Those things were denied to them before the War on Poverty.[/QUOTE]

When the determination of whether someone was in poverty in 1967 involved the same type of OBJECTIVE standard as it does today, that’s a direct comparison. What determines poverty today is the same as what determined it in 1967.
Since you say the purpose of the “war” in 1967 was to prevent suffering and squalor, are you also saying that the expanded number of redundant programs today are in place to prevent suffering and squalor? I guess you believe that someone unable to buy their own food, pay for a place to live, and clothe themselves aren’t suffering. That’s the only way to you make the claim you did.

 

[Conservative65]

The entire war on poverty is a failure yet you retard Liberals want to keep doing what hasn't work for the past 50 years. Explain that.

Didn't I ask you? How will the poor be better off if we end Medicaid? How will the elderly be better off if we end the portion of Medicare that is not paid for by the payroll tax?

How will the poor be better off if we end public school education's availability regardless of one's ability to pay?

How will low income Americans be better off if we end energy assistance for such things as home heating?

Convince all of those people will be better off without that help.

It will allow those of you that claim you are compassionate the opportunity to prove it. Without taxpayer funded programs, it will provie you the chance to back of your claims that you believe someone should have what they don't pay for and didn't earn. The ONLY way that will happen is if you fund it yourself. That will match your words with your actions. As a Conservative, I know you won't but you will continue to blame someone else for not wanting to fund what you will prove you only provide lip service to doing.

If you know of someone that needs something you can fulfill that need without involving me, the government , or any other taxpayer. WRITE A CHECK TO THEM. Failure to do so only prove your are nothing more than a good intentioned, do nothing, Liberal blowhard.

Hey I can match you ridiculous idea for ridiculous idea.

How about this. You make it so that my tax dollars are not being spent on subsidies for corporations and un necessary war and I'll have it so that my tax dollars help out the neediest people we have. Deal?

As for corporations, I agree. As for war, when you can have that word and those involving raising a military taken out of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, go for it. As for necessary or unnecessary, not your place to decide.

When you can show me the word food stamps, healthcare, etc. in the Constitution, you can run your mouth about things that already are. You're the typical retard Liberal that thinks things not in the Constitution should happen but things that are shouldn't.

You mean like it is not your place to decide if a person should have the benefit of receiving welfare. Got it.

Hey and show me where in the COTUS where invasion of another country with out cause is authorized.

Seems to me that COTUS addresses DEFENSE of the nation.

Invading a country that didn't attack us is not in the DEFENSE of this country as defined in the COTUS.

Or do you have another version that only right wing idiots know about?

You seem to think it's your place to determine whether or not someone else has to fund those programs.

In case you were unaware, the same people who now claim an invasion without cause voted for it, some twice. In fact, many of them made the same claims that Bush made before Bush was President. I can show the quotes. You won't acknowledge them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In general YOUR facts are twisted in order to PROVE something that you, yourself believe to be fact.

Do insults count as facts??? If so, you're the foremost authority on everything under the sun.

You won't even try to deal with my facts.

Insults?????

Me???

Winning hearts and minds. That's what I'm all about!

Whining is what you are about PC. This isn't the first time you have tried to misrepresent the War on Poverty. And this is not the first time (or the last time, knowing your authoritarian upbringing) that I will correct you...


You are a wealth of right wing parrot squawk...

Good example...the War on Poverty...

Ironically, the War on Poverty SHOULD have been strongly supported by conservatives. But they only offer empty rhetoric, while trying to tear down the working men and women of our nation and always trying to create an aristocracy by propping up and worshiping the opulent.

Here are some FACTS for you on what the War on Poverty was and wasn't.

When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted President Johnson's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action, opportunity, responsibility, and empowerment.

The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's goal was maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.) Ref

Here is one of the agencies created by the WOP...

Job Corps is a program administered by the United States Department of Labor that offers free-of-charge education and vocational training to youth ages 16 to 24.

Job Corps offers career planning, on-the-job training, job placement, residential housing, food service, driver's education, basic health and dental care, a bi-weekly basic living allowance and clothing allowance. Some centers offer childcare programs for single parents as well.

Besides vocational training, the Job Corps program also offers academic training, including basic reading and math, GED attainment, college preparatory, and Limited English Proficiency courses. Some centers also offer programs that allow students to remain in residence at their center while attending college.[citation needed] Job Corps provides career counseling and transition support to its students for up to one year after they graduate from the program.

Career paths

Career paths offered by Job Corps include:

Advanced manufacturing

Communication design
Drafting
Electronic assembly
Machine appliance repair
Machining
Welding
Manufacturing technology
Sign, billboard, and display

Automotive and machine repair

Automobile technician
General services technician
Collision repair and refinish
Heavy construction equipment mechanic
Diesel mechanic
Medium/heavy truck repair
Electronics tech
Stationary engineering

Construction

Bricklaying
Carpentry
Cement masonry
Concrete and terrazzo
Construction craft laborer
Electrical
Electrical overhead line
Facilities maintenance
Floor covering
Glazing
HVAC
Industrial engineering technician
Licensed electrician (bilingual)
Mechanical engineering technician
Painting
Plastering
Plumbing
Roto-Rooter plumbing
Tile setting

Extension programs

Advanced Career Training (ACT)
General Educational Development (GED)
Commercial driver's license (CDL)
Off-Center Training (OCT Program)
High school diploma (HSD Program)

Finance and Business

Accounting services
Business management
Clerical occupations
Legal secretary
Insurance and financial services
Marketing
Medical insurance specialist
Office administration
Paralegal
Purchasing

Health care/allied health professions

Clinical medical assistant
Dental assistant
EKG technician
Emergency medical technician
Exercise/massage therapy
Hemodialysis technician
Licensed practical/vocational nurse
Medical office support
Nurse assistant/home health aide
Opticianry
Pharmacy technician
Phlebotomy
Physical therapy assistant
Rehabilitation therapy
Rehabilitation technician
Registered nurse
Respiratory therapy
Sterile processing
Surgical technician

Homeland security

Corrections officer
Seamanship
Security and protective services

Hospitality

Culinary arts
Hotel and lodging

Information technology

A+ Microsoft MSCE
Computer Networking/Cisco
Computer systems administrator
Computer support specialist
Computer technician
Integrated system tech
Network cable installation
Visual communications

Renewable resources and energy

Forest conservation and urban forestry
Firefighting
Wastewater
Landscaping

Retail sales and services

Behavioral health aide
Criminal justice
Child development
Residential advisor
Cosmetology
Retail sales

Transportation

Asphalt paving
Material and distribution operations
Clerical occupations
Heavy equipment operations
Roustabout operator
Heavy truck driving
TCU administrative clerk

From the OP:

... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....

What would the poverty rate be if the War on Poverty had never existed? Your data is empty rhetoric. Are the economic opportunities greater or lesser than in 1967? The world went on after 1967 and Reagan ended the War on Poverty.

$22 Trillion, you dope........ Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....

The war on poverty provides assistance to the poor to make them less poor. It has nothing to do with how many poor the economy is creating.

 

[zeke]

Didn't I ask you? How will the poor be better off if we end Medicaid? How will the elderly be better off if we end the portion of Medicare that is not paid for by the payroll tax?

How will the poor be better off if we end public school education's availability regardless of one's ability to pay?

How will low income Americans be better off if we end energy assistance for such things as home heating?

Convince all of those people will be better off without that help.

It will allow those of you that claim you are compassionate the opportunity to prove it. Without taxpayer funded programs, it will provie you the chance to back of your claims that you believe someone should have what they don't pay for and didn't earn. The ONLY way that will happen is if you fund it yourself. That will match your words with your actions. As a Conservative, I know you won't but you will continue to blame someone else for not wanting to fund what you will prove you only provide lip service to doing.

If you know of someone that needs something you can fulfill that need without involving me, the government , or any other taxpayer. WRITE A CHECK TO THEM. Failure to do so only prove your are nothing more than a good intentioned, do nothing, Liberal blowhard.

Hey I can match you ridiculous idea for ridiculous idea.

How about this. You make it so that my tax dollars are not being spent on subsidies for corporations and un necessary war and I'll have it so that my tax dollars help out the neediest people we have. Deal?

As for corporations, I agree. As for war, when you can have that word and those involving raising a military taken out of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, go for it. As for necessary or unnecessary, not your place to decide.

When you can show me the word food stamps, healthcare, etc. in the Constitution, you can run your mouth about things that already are. You're the typical retard Liberal that thinks things not in the Constitution should happen but things that are shouldn't.

You mean like it is not your place to decide if a person should have the benefit of receiving welfare. Got it.

Hey and show me where in the COTUS where invasion of another country with out cause is authorized.

Seems to me that COTUS addresses DEFENSE of the nation.

Invading a country that didn't attack us is not in the DEFENSE of this country as defined in the COTUS.

Or do you have another version that only right wing idiots know about?

You seem to think it's your place to determine whether or not someone else has to fund those programs.

In case you were unaware, the same people who now claim an invasion without cause voted for it, some twice. In fact, many of them made the same claims that Bush made before Bush was President. I can show the quotes. You won't acknowledge them.

That's all you got eh? That fact that hated Democrats made the mistake of believing what the President told them was the truth. Really that's the best defense you got for us invading Iraq. The Dems made us do it.

How old are you?

Either way, the subject was the COTUS and how is provides for the nations defense. Not invading other countries that didn't attack us. That would be offensive war. Where is that part talked about in the COTUS?

And you know what. I read your description of todays welfare recipients. How in the hell you think that the war on poverty was a disaster when people live like you described is a mystery.

But you seem to not be able to say how things for poor people will be much better when welfare is no more.
Or at least much less. How much do you want to spend on welfare? Any money at all? Or are you just gonna dig deep in your pocket and fund some poor people that you like when the welfare money ends?

 

[Daktoria]

What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?

It misdirects assets, takes what is earned and gives it away in exchange for votes, and has no interest in actually solving societal problems.

Are voters so stupid that they are willing to overlook the black hole of abysmal waste that the welfare state has become?






1. "Today, [September 16, 2014 ] the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50thanniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty.
Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.


2. ... taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.


3. ... government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)


4. .... about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

5. .... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


6. [The scam:] Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state."
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop


How much more clearly does the public need to be shown that Liberalism is a failure?

The War on Poverty isn't supposed to fix problems any differently than punishment in the justice system doesn't make the world a better place. It's about honor, dignity, and character. The point is many people in society have been wronged in the past, so they're compensated for how they're wronged.

Also, stats remaining the same doesn't really mean anything. For example, if the War on Poverty didn't happen, then those stats could be much worse. What you're saying is like saying we should stop spending on law enforcement because crime rates haven't gone down.

The problem is there are lots of jerks in society who fundamentally refuse to acknowledge the need to reform social values in order to prevent poverty from happening the first place. In turn, the War on Poverty is the only remaining option on how to treat the problem.

I can see you've gotten your education from bumper stickers and t-shirts.

Let me guess: 'a reliable Democrat voter.'

I got my education from seeing how the deconstruction of family values, religion, and tradition lead to a society where people couldn't become successful despite honestly applying themselves.

Instead, they were socially alienated into working for the man. If they expected to be treated with respect based on who they are as individuals on the inside that counts, then they got abused, neglected, blamed as the victim, and told to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Personal responsibility was thrown out the window.

 

[Clementine]

What will it take for folks to realize that, just like the title, big government is a loser?

It misdirects assets, takes what is earned and gives it away in exchange for votes, and has no interest in actually solving societal problems.

Are voters so stupid that they are willing to overlook the black hole of abysmal waste that the welfare state has become?






1. "Today, [September 16, 2014 ] the U.S. Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty. This report is noteworthy because this year marks the 50thanniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s launch of the War on Poverty.
Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.


2. ... taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.


3. ... government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)


4. .... about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.

5. .... Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 ....


6. [The scam:] Census counts a family as poor if its income falls below specified thresholds. But in counting family “income,” Census ignores nearly the entire $943 billion welfare state."
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop


How much more clearly does the public need to be shown that Liberalism is a failure?

But the war on working class tax payers is a raging success.

 

[Clementine]

Let me ask this, see if anyone knows...

...when they count the number of Americans below the poverty line, do they factor in the monetary value of the assistance they receive?

No.

The term 'poverty' is itself part of the scam that you support.



7. "For most Americans, the word “poverty” means significant material deprivation, an inability to provide a family with adequate nutritious food, reasonable shelter and clothing. But only a small portion of the more than 40 million people labelled as poor by Census fit that description.

a. The media frequently associate the idea of poverty with being homeless. But less than two percent of the poor are homeless. Only one in ten live in mobile homes. The typical house or apartment of the poor is in good repair and uncrowded; it is actually larger than the average dwelling of non-poor French, Germans or English.

b. The intake of protein, vitamins and minerals by poor children is virtually identical with upper middle class kids.... the overwhelming majority of poor people report they were not hungry even for a single day during the prior year."
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop

LOLOL, fuck me! You just refuted your own argument. If there are very very very few Americans who fit your definition of 'poor',

then the war on poverty has definitely been WON!

By your own measure.

good one....

If people can't survive without being propped up by tax payers, they are poor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me ask this, see if anyone knows...

...when they count the number of Americans below the poverty line, do they factor in the monetary value of the assistance they receive?

No.

The term 'poverty' is itself part of the scam that you support.



7. "For most Americans, the word “poverty” means significant material deprivation, an inability to provide a family with adequate nutritious food, reasonable shelter and clothing. But only a small portion of the more than 40 million people labelled as poor by Census fit that description.

a. The media frequently associate the idea of poverty with being homeless. But less than two percent of the poor are homeless. Only one in ten live in mobile homes. The typical house or apartment of the poor is in good repair and uncrowded; it is actually larger than the average dwelling of non-poor French, Germans or English.

b. The intake of protein, vitamins and minerals by poor children is virtually identical with upper middle class kids.... the overwhelming majority of poor people report they were not hungry even for a single day during the prior year."
The War on Poverty Has Been a Colossal Flop

LOLOL, fuck me! You just refuted your own argument. If there are very very very few Americans who fit your definition of 'poor',

then the war on poverty has definitely been WON!

By your own measure.

good one....

If people can't survive without being propped up by tax payers, they are poor.

Argue with PC then.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gee, I think it's best to let the narcissist wait.

Wait???

For you??

If I had a dollar for each time I thought about you....I'd start thinking about you.