Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The way to find your way out of poverty is work your way out of poverty. This is not an easy thing to do. If you come from poverty, it is likely that you have nobody to show you how to do this. Outside of mastering a skill or developing a steady, consistant work ethic, you must also understand that the Boss is not automatically your enemy.
A kid who understands team work in a sports sense may not understand that it applies in a workplace, also. If he can be taught to see and communicate with the boss as he would with a coach, he will find greater success than he will if he sees the boss as a cop and communicates with him as he would if he was a criminal.
I've had the same conversation with a pretty good number of kids who are in the "first real job" trying to bring them to an understanding of how to speak with the supervisor and how to offer themselves to the team in order that they advance in the company.
The problem is not that they are stupid or that they are incapable. The problem is that they have been beat by circmstance so often that they have become afraid to hope. The slightest obstacle fulfils their own prophecy that the game is rigged. My life has taught me that there is always another way if this one doesn't work.
Their lives' experiences have often demonstrated that every way leads to the same dead end.
If you add to that sum of experience limited literacy or a criminal record, you start to understand the "cycle of poverty".
If you have nothing, it takes very little to lose it all. Every problem could spell the end and every conflict could change your life.
The way to find your way out of poverty is work your way out of poverty. This is not an easy thing to do. If you come from poverty, it is likely that you have nobody to show you how to do this. Outside of mastering a skill or developing a steady, consistant work ethic, you must also understand that the Boss is not automatically your enemy.
A kid who understands team work in a sports sense may not understand that it applies in a workplace, also. If he can be taught to see and communicate with the boss as he would with a coach, he will find greater success than he will if he sees the boss as a cop and communicates with him as he would if he was a criminal.
I've had the same conversation with a pretty good number of kids who are in the "first real job" trying to bring them to an understanding of how to speak with the supervisor and how to offer themselves to the team in order that they advance in the company.
The problem is not that they are stupid or that they are incapable. The problem is that they have been beat by circmstance so often that they have become afraid to hope. The slightest obstacle fulfils their own prophecy that the game is rigged. My life has taught me that there is always another way if this one doesn't work.
Their lives' experiences have often demonstrated that every way leads to the same dead end.
If you add to that sum of experience limited literacy or a criminal record, you start to understand the "cycle of poverty".
If you have nothing, it takes very little to lose it all. Every problem could spell the end and every conflict could change your life.
Good points. Experiences to affect the development of a child into a responsible adult.
The experiences fostered by the Great Society Programs have been ones of abdication of responsibility, aggrieved victimhood, and dependence upon the government. Given the generations produced, the Great Society has been an EPIC FAIL.
OK...
Let's end Medicaid, food stamps, public assistance, subsidized housing, earned income credit, progressive income taxation, heat/energy assistance programs, public school, the minimum wage, every needs based program funded by government, and whatever else I'm leaving out.
There, now they're all gone.
Tell us, how long before we then see a substantial reduction in the amount of poverty in this country?
Don't laugh, this is what conservatives are claiming.
The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program goals were 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, so they had a say in what were the priorities in their community. 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.
With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart:
President Johnson announced his landmark "War on Poverty" at the State of the Union Address in January, 1964.
President Obama will probably mention something akin to poverty at his State of the Union Address 47 years later in January, 2011.
So what do the numbers tell you?
Government is necessary to deal with poverty?
Government does a good job in addressing poverty?
Government makes little or no difference in reducing poverty and could have saved a shipload of the people's money--make that mega trillions--if it had not initiated a 'war on poverty'?
Government actually contributes to poverty?
Or something in between?
Or none of the above?
In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.
The pregnancy rate among students at a Memphis high school has reached alarming proportions, as more than 90 girls at Frayser High School in predominantly Black Shelby County, Tenn. have already given birth this year or are pregnant, according to reports.
How do you account for the fact that the numbers were falling prior to 1965?With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart:
President Johnson announced his landmark "War on Poverty" at the State of the Union Address in January, 1964.
President Obama will probably mention something akin to poverty at his State of the Union Address 47 years later in January, 2011.
So what do the numbers tell you?
Government is necessary to deal with poverty?
Government does a good job in addressing poverty?
Government makes little or no difference in reducing poverty and could have saved a shipload of the people's money--make that mega trillions--if it had not initiated a 'war on poverty'?
Government actually contributes to poverty?
Or something in between?
Or none of the above?
In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.
That chart, if it proves anything at all, proves that Johnson's War on poverty might have been working until Reagan came into office and started his assault on the working class.
Bear in mind that is not what I say it proves, but it could be interpreted that way if one were foolish enough to try to make such an argument based on only one metric.
Yet, after 50 years and trillions upon trillions of dollars of expropriation and redistribution, you schmucks still mewl that poverty, hunger, homelessness and "income equity" are worse than ever.The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program goals were 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, so they had a say in what were the priorities in their community. 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.
This is a key point that isn't broadly understood. There are many out there who believe the War on Poverty refers to some kind of cash assistance program, which they envision to be some kind of souped-up version of AFDC.
The reality is that it refers to a series of programs aimed at providing or achieving education, job training, and individual empowerment. I suppose it would help if every time one is tempted to use the phrase "War on Poverty" he instead substitutes in some of the actual programs ("Job Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Work-Study Program, Adult Basic Education, Rural Loan Program, Employment and Investment Incentives, Work Experience Program, VISTA, the Community Action Program etc").
And you're right to point out the max feas provision of the Community Action Program. The interpretation of that phrase during the implementation of the War on Poverty is a long and complicated story but it does underscore the point that the importance of individual empowerment (not cash transfers), along with skills acquisition (via educational opportunities and job training/experience ventures) was the bedrock philosophical principle underlying the "war." Exactly the sort of attitude many have taken already in this thread.
We spend nearly four times per pupil in inflation adjusted dollars on education than we did 50 years ago.
Throwing more money at the education system is not the answer. The problem is one of values.
Fifty years and $8-$10 trillion and all we get are the same tired and empty platitudes.Poverty breeds poverty. It takes money to make money. Lack of opportunity which results from poverty, leads to a lack of opportunity, like education, which leads to low-paying jobs, which again leads to lack of opportunity, perpetuating the cycle.
Education is the answer. Making sure that even students in crumbling schools with inadequate teachers have the opportunity to learn the same things that more affluent students are afforded. We can't continue to keep passing along failing students just because it's convenient or because quotas need to be met. Only then will the cycle begin to end. It's going to take a serious effort by both the government and local communities comprised of private enterprises stepping up to the plate.
Talk about your perpetuating cycle of failure.
Yet, after 50 years and trillions upon trillions of dollars of expropriation and redistribution, you schmucks still mewl that poverty, hunger, homelessness and "income equity" are worse than ever.The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program goals were 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, so they had a say in what were the priorities in their community. 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.
This is a key point that isn't broadly understood. There are many out there who believe the War on Poverty refers to some kind of cash assistance program, which they envision to be some kind of souped-up version of AFDC.
The reality is that it refers to a series of programs aimed at providing or achieving education, job training, and individual empowerment. I suppose it would help if every time one is tempted to use the phrase "War on Poverty" he instead substitutes in some of the actual programs ("Job Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Work-Study Program, Adult Basic Education, Rural Loan Program, Employment and Investment Incentives, Work Experience Program, VISTA, the Community Action Program etc").
And you're right to point out the max feas provision of the Community Action Program. The interpretation of that phrase during the implementation of the War on Poverty is a long and complicated story but it does underscore the point that the importance of individual empowerment (not cash transfers), along with skills acquisition (via educational opportunities and job training/experience ventures) was the bedrock philosophical principle underlying the "war." Exactly the sort of attitude many have taken already in this thread.
Like that's supposed to be evidence of success?
The root cause is philosophical, not that I harbor any illusion that you can comprehend this.
So someone with no basic education, trying to raise 3 kids alone and working two jobs should give up her refrigerator and her mode of transportation to and from those jobs because she hasn't "earned" it? Gotcha. I'm sure such a mother sits around wringing her hands that she should take a more "philosophical" approach to life.
Tell me how it is responsible for somebody with no basic education and no spouse to have three kids to support?
How about we make that a socially unattractive situation rather than go out of our way to reward it so that more people will avoid being in that position?
Only took 13 posts for someone to cower behind the sainted chiiiillllldrrreeennnnnn!
Only took 13 posts for someone to cower behind the sainted chiiiillllldrrreeennnnnn!
Well I for one don't mind bringing the children into the mix.
What child benefits most?
The one who knows Mom didn't marry Dad and Dad never comes around but he still enjoys designer jeans, sneakers, and an Xbox?
The one who knows Mom didn't finish highschool and can't write a coherent sentence but they still have a car that runs, a good television set, and cell phones?
The one who sees Mom getting tats and smoking cigarettes and playing the lottery with full security that the government check will be there the first of each month?
or
The child who has a Mom and Dad at home and watches them budget their money to see what they can afford in the way of clothes, conveniences, luxuries?
The child who is encouraged to get a diploma like Mom and Dad and to get decent grades in school and learn responsibility through reasonable chores and maybe an afterschool job?
The child who sees Mom and Dad getting up every morning, getting cleaned up, getting appropriately dressed, and going to work to bring home a paycheck?
. . . . ..
Which of these children is less likely to wind up in poverty?
Which situation should we be promoting for children?
Those who can't answer those questions in a reasonable manner I think really don't belong in the debate.
So we have made little to no difference in poverty......
I wonder why?????
No matter what you truly believe to be true; here is a little fact and history lesson.
Roughly 2000 years ago some wrote down that a man said "the poor will always be with you." or words to that effect.
Who ever said it or wrote it seems to have been right. The poor are still here 2000 years later.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that rhetorical coward leftists like you can't make your point with reason, so y'all cower behind the elderly, infirm, the pooooor and the chiiilllldrreeennnnn.Only took 13 posts for someone to cower behind the sainted chiiiillllldrrreeennnnnn!
Of course YOU were never one yourself. Actually, most of the time you don't act like a well-rounded adult either, so you float somewhere in between.
Right....It's all Reagan's fault.Yet, after 50 years and trillions upon trillions of dollars of expropriation and redistribution, you schmucks still mewl that poverty, hunger, homelessness and "income equity" are worse than ever.This is a key point that isn't broadly understood. There are many out there who believe the War on Poverty refers to some kind of cash assistance program, which they envision to be some kind of souped-up version of AFDC.
The reality is that it refers to a series of programs aimed at providing or achieving education, job training, and individual empowerment. I suppose it would help if every time one is tempted to use the phrase "War on Poverty" he instead substitutes in some of the actual programs ("Job Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Work-Study Program, Adult Basic Education, Rural Loan Program, Employment and Investment Incentives, Work Experience Program, VISTA, the Community Action Program etc").
And you're right to point out the max feas provision of the Community Action Program. The interpretation of that phrase during the implementation of the War on Poverty is a long and complicated story but it does underscore the point that the importance of individual empowerment (not cash transfers), along with skills acquisition (via educational opportunities and job training/experience ventures) was the bedrock philosophical principle underlying the "war." Exactly the sort of attitude many have taken already in this thread.
Like that's supposed to be evidence of success?
Because the failed Reagan revolution and the 30+ years of conservative policies and governance dismantled much of the New Deal and Great Society. It eviscerated not only gains by the poor, it has destroyed the middle class.
Only took 13 posts for someone to cower behind the sainted chiiiillllldrrreeennnnnn!
Of course YOU were never one yourself. Actually, most of the time you don't act like a well-rounded adult either, so you float somewhere in between.
So we have made little to no difference in poverty......
I wonder why?????
No matter what you truly believe to be true; here is a little fact and history lesson.
Roughly 2000 years ago some wrote down that a man said "the poor will always be with you." or words to that effect.
Who ever said it or wrote it seems to have been right. The poor are still here 2000 years later.
