(10-30-2015 04:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 03:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 03:43 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 03:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I originally made the claim that funds were diverted and then gave you two different sources that backed up that claim.

No, you just sourced two additional people with the same opinion.

It's not that complicated, fit. Focus.

Neither the act nor OEO ever had the profound impact on society envisioned by President Johnson and the proponents of the legislation—bringing about the elimination of poverty. Commentators have strongly debated the reasons for this result. According to Michael Harrington in The New American Poverty, the act failed to achieve its purpose "to eliminate the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty" because of the Vietnam War and the lack of funding. For the first five fiscal years (1965–69), Congress appropriated a total of $7.634 billion to fund all EOA programs. The Council of Economic Advisers, in its January 1964 report, had stated that "about $11 billion a year would bring all poor families up to the $3,000 income level we have taken to be the minimum for a decent life." Other commentators say the anti-poverty program was misdirected. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a member of the poverty task force (later Senator representing New York), has pointed to the lack of any provision for the employment of adult men as a crucial decision. Another critic, James L. Sundquist, also a task force member, says that Sargent Shriver mistakenly opted for OEO to be an operating agency, focusing on administering programs such as Job Corps and VISTA, rather than coordinating the many programs of the federal government impacting poverty.


http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Econom...y_Act.aspx

So, the left had a bright idea and then sucked at its "execution".

Based on the new standards. You are going to have to back that up with a link and then back that link up with two more links.

(10-30-2015 04:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 04:05 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 03:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 03:43 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 03:40 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I originally made the claim that funds were diverted and then gave you two different sources that backed up that claim.

No, you just sourced two additional people with the same opinion.

It's not that complicated, fit. Focus.

Neither the act nor OEO ever had the profound impact on society envisioned by President Johnson and the proponents of the legislation—bringing about the elimination of poverty. Commentators have strongly debated the reasons for this result. According to Michael Harrington in The New American Poverty, the act failed to achieve its purpose "to eliminate the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty" because of the Vietnam War and the lack of funding. For the first five fiscal years (1965–69), Congress appropriated a total of $7.634 billion to fund all EOA programs. The Council of Economic Advisers, in its January 1964 report, had stated that "about $11 billion a year would bring all poor families up to the $3,000 income level we have taken to be the minimum for a decent life." Other commentators say the anti-poverty program was misdirected. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a member of the poverty task force (later Senator representing New York), has pointed to the lack of any provision for the employment of adult men as a crucial decision. Another critic, James L. Sundquist, also a task force member, says that Sargent Shriver mistakenly opted for OEO to be an operating agency, focusing on administering programs such as Job Corps and VISTA, rather than coordinating the many programs of the federal government impacting poverty.


http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Econom...y_Act.aspx

So, the left had a bright idea and then sucked at its "execution".

Based on the new standards. You are going to have to back that up with a link and then back that link up with two more links.

No, I never claimed it was anything other than my own opinion.

I've thought about this issue for a long time. I've mulled it over and over in my head. I've had discussions with friends both black and white over the state of poverty in this country, as it pertains to the black race. Because let's face it we are not talking about white poverty...are we. What we are really talking about is a form of poverty much much worse than a lack of money. Jesus Christ said "the poor you will always have among you" We are talking about and witnessing, on a grand scale a poverty of the soul, of the spirit and of morality itself. I honestly do not think there is any way to fix that kind of poverty. And....if allowed to continue down this same path, we are going to lose this country. Honestly who among us that's been around for a little while would deny that this country has gone downhill, and I mean just in the last 20 years or so. So to me it becomes a matter of self preservation, nothing more, nothing less. So here is my idea for ending spiritual and moral poverty 1) I would build a series of camps (located in mostly rural areas of the country). These camps would be known as "work camps". 2) The "work camps" would be located along rail lines for the easy transportation of inhabitants 3) the young and healthy occupants of the "work camps" would be farmed out to local businesses as a way to boost the production of the local economies where the "work camps" are located. This may also teach the young a valuable trade. The old and infirm, I would just kill. I've even come up with a pretty snappy name for my solution...I call it the "Final Solution". This is a joke you know, I have a pretty sick sense of humor.

(10-30-2015 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here's what I think happened to the War on Poverty.

It started out with a bang and we had this big reduction in the numbers. Everybody celebrated. Then the March of Dimes effect kicked in. You remember the MOD, it raised money to fight polio, Salk invented his vaccine, everybody at MOD celebrated, then all of a sudden they said, "Oh crap, no more polio, we're going to be out of a job."

I think that's what happened at the War on Poverty bureaucracy. If we don't have any more poverty, then we don't need a War on Poverty. So they started redefining poverty to make sure we never run out of poor people. Today the average American in poverty lives in a larger dwelling than the average European--all Europeans. If we go back to focusing only on people that are actually poor, we could produce a much bigger impact for much less money.

As I said, this is my opinion, not offered as fact. You are free to have a different one.

now we're talkin'

my arse would be out of a job has been the mantra that has created this multilevel monster than cannot be slayed by today's measuring stick....

it always goes deeper into the whole of the hole......

I easily agree with your opinion en macro....

and I couldn't begin to offer a reasonable starting point other than eliminating the irs and a consumption tax to achieve equilibrium with spending and revenue.....and move forward from there....at some point our form of money is going to worth the same green I smoke or the cud o' the cows....we both love weeds

this shite we are living in now is economically incomprehensible....