PDA

View Full Version : Was the Great Society good in ideals?



CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-07-2011, 04:20 PM
I know right off the bat most if not all of you will disagree with the Great Society--in the way it was enacted, through the Federal Government--You'd most likely argue for the ideals of it being better served in a state, local or individual level.

Some simply boils down the Great Society to being "welfare queens, Medicare and Medicaid." But there was much more to it than that, for a little refresher (copied from Wikipedia, my apologies):

Civil rights
Historian Alan Brinkley has suggested that the most important domestic achievement of the Great Society may have been its success in translating some of the demands of the civil rights movement into law.[10] Four civil rights acts were passed, including three laws in the first two years of Johnson's presidency. The Civil Rights Act of 1964[8] forbade job discrimination and the segregation of public accommodations. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 assured minority registration and voting. It suspended use of literacy or other voter-qualification tests that had sometimes served to keep African-Americans off voting lists and provided for federal court lawsuits to stop discriminatory poll taxes. It also reinforced the Civil Rights Act of 1964[8] by authorizing the appointment of federal voting examiners in areas that did not meet voter-participation requirements. The Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 abolished the national-origin quotas in immigration law. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 banned housing discrimination and extended constitutional protections to Native Americans on reservations.

War on Poverty
The most ambitious and controversial part of the Great Society was its initiative to end poverty. The Kennedy Administration had been contemplating a federal effort against poverty. Johnson, who, as a teacher had observed extreme poverty in Texas among Mexican-Americans, launched an "unconditional war on poverty" in the first months of his presidency with the goal of eliminating hunger and deprivation from American life. The centerpiece of the War on Poverty was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which created an Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee a variety of community-based antipoverty programs. The OEO reflected a fragile consensus among policymakers that the best way to deal with poverty was not simply to raise the incomes of the poor but to help them better themselves through education, job training, and community development. Central to its mission was the idea of "community action", the participation of the poor in framing and administering the programs designed to help them.

The War on Poverty began with a $1 billion appropriation in 1964 and spent another $2 billion in the following two years. It spawned dozens of programs, among them the Job Corps, whose purpose was to help disadvantaged youth develop marketable skills; the Neighborhood Youth Corps, established to give poor urban youths work experience and to encourage them to stay in school; Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), a domestic version of the Peace Corps, which placed concerned citizens with community-based agencies to work towards empowerment of the poor; the Model Cities Program for urban redevelopment; Upward Bound, which assisted poor high school students entering college; legal services for the poor; the Food Stamps program; the Community Action Program, which initiated local Community Action Agencies charged with helping the poor become self-sufficient; and Project Head Start, which offered preschool education for poor children. Major amendments were also made to Social Security in 1965 and 1967 which significantly increased benefits, expanded coverage, and established new programs to combat poverty and raise living standards

Education
The most important educational component of the Great Society was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, designed by Commissioner of Education Francis Keppel. It was signed into law on April 11, 1965, less than three months after it was introduced. It ended a long-standing political taboo by providing significant federal aid to public education, initially allotting more than $1 billion to help schools purchase materials and start special education programs to schools with a high concentration of low-income children. The Act established Head Start, which had originally been started by the Office of Economic Opportunity as an eight-week summer program, as a permanent program.
The Higher Education Act of 1965 increased federal money given to universities, created scholarships and low-interest loans for students, and established a national Teacher Corps to provide teachers to poverty-stricken areas of the United States. The Act also began a transition from federally funded institutional assistance to individual student aid.
The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 offered federal aid to local school districts in assisting them to address the needs of children with limited English-speaking ability until it expired in 2002.[12]

Health

Medicare
The Social Security Act of 1965 authorized Medicare and provided federal funding for many of the medical costs of older Americans.[13] The legislation overcame the bitter resistance, particularly from the American Medical Association, to the idea of publicly funded health care or "socialized medicine" by making its benefits available to everyone over sixty-five, regardless of need, and by linking payments to the existing private insurance system.

Medicaid
In 1966 welfare recipients of all ages received medical care through the Medicaid program. Medicaid was created on July 30, 1965 under Title XIX of the Social Security Act of 1965. Each state administers its own Medicaid program while the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) monitors the state-run programs and establishes requirements for service delivery, quality, funding, and eligibility standards.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-07-2011, 04:20 PM
National endowments for arts and humanities
In September 1965, Johnson signed the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act into law, creating both the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities as separate, independent agencies. Lobbying for federally funded arts and humanities support began during the Kennedy Administration. In 1963 three scholarly and educational organizations—the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), the Council of Graduate Schools in America, and the United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa—joined together to establish the National Commission on the Humanities. In June 1964, the commission released a report that suggested that the emphasis placed on science endangered the study of the humanities from elementary schools through postgraduate programs. In order to correct the balance, it recommended "the establishment by the President and the Congress of the United States of a National Humanities Foundation." In August 1964, Congressman William Moorhead of Pennsylvania proposed legislation to implement the commission's recommendations. Support from the White House followed in September, when Johnson lent his endorsement during a speech at Brown University. In March 1965, the White House proposed the establishment of a National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities and requested $20 million in start-up funds. The commission's report had generated other proposals, but the White House's approach eclipsed them. The administration's plan, which called for the creation of two separate agencies each advised by a governing body, was the version approved by Congress. Richard Nixon dramatically expanded funding for NEH and NEA.[14]

Public broadcasting
After the First National Conference on Long-Range Financing of Educational Television Stations in December 1964 called for a study of the role of noncommercial education television in society, the Carnegie Corporation agreed to finance the work of a 15-member national commission. Its landmark report, Public Television: A Program for Action, published on January 26, 1967, popularized the phrase "public television" and assisted the legislative campaign for federal aid. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, enacted less than 10 months later, chartered the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as a private, non-profit corporation. The law initiated federal aid through the CPB for the operation, as opposed to the funding of capital facilities, of public broadcasting. The CPB initially collaborated with the pre-existing National Educational Television system, but in 1969 decided to start the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). A public radio study commissioned by the CPB and the Ford Foundation and conducted from 1968–1969 led to the establishment of National Public Radio, a public radio system under the terms of the amended Public Broadcasting Act.

Cultural centers
Two long-planned national cultural and arts facilities received federal funding that would allow for their completion through Great Society legislation. A National Cultural Center, suggested during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration and created by a bipartisan law signed by Dwight Eisenhower, was transformed into the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a living memorial to the assassinated president. Fundraising for the original cultural center had been poor prior to legislation creating the Kennedy Center, which passed two months after the president's death and provided $23 million for construction. The Kennedy Center opened in 1971.[15] In the late 1930s the United States Congress mandated a Smithsonian Institution art museum for the National Mall, and a design by Eliel Saarinen was unveiled in 1939, but plans were shelved during World War II. A 1966 act of Congress established the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden as part of the Smithsonian Institution with a focus on modern art, in contrast to the existing National Art Gallery. The museum was primarily federally funded, although New York financier Joseph Hirshhorn later contributed $1 million toward building construction, which began in 1969. The Hirshhorn opened in 1974.[16]


Transportation
The most sweeping reorganization of the federal government since the National Security Act of 1947 was the consolidation of transportation agencies into a cabinet-level Department of Transportation.[17] The department was authorized by Congress on October 15, 1966 and began operations on April 1, 1967. The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 provided $375 million for large-scale urban public or private rail projects in the form of matching funds to cities and states and created the Urban Mass Transit Administration (now the Federal Transit Administration). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the Highway Safety Act of 1966 were enacted, largely as a result of Ralph Nader's book Unsafe at Any Speed.

Consumer protection

In 1964, Johnson named Assistant Secretary of Labor Esther Peterson to be the first presidential assistant for consumer affairs.
The Cigarette Labeling Act of 1965 required packages to carry warning labels. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 set standards through creation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act requires products identify manufacturer, address, clearly mark quantity and servings. The statute also authorizes permits HEW and FTC to establish and define voluntary standard sizes. The original would have mandated uniform standards of size and weight for comparison shopping, but the final law only outlawed exaggerated size claims. Child Safety Act of 1966 prohibited any chemical so dangerous that no warning can make it safe. The Flammable Fabrics Act of 1967 set standards for children's sleepwear, but not baby blankets. The Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 required inspection of meat which must meet federal standards. The Truth-in-Lending Act of 1968 required lenders and credit providers to disclose the full cost of finance charges in both dollars and annual percentage rates, on installment loan and sales. The Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968 required inspection of poultry which must meet federal standards. The Land Sales Disclosure Act of 1968 provided safeguards against fraudulent practices in the sale of land. The Radiation Safety Act of 1968 provided standards and recalls for defective electronic products.


Environment
Joseph A. Califano, Jr. has suggested that Great Society's main contribution to the environment was an extension of protections beyond those aimed at the conservation of untouched resources.[18] Discussing his administration's environmental policies, Lyndon Johnson suggested that "[t]he air we breathe, our water, our soil and wildlife, are being blighted by poisons and chemicals which are the by-products of technology and industry. The society that receives the rewards of technology, must, as a cooperating whole, take responsibility for [their] control. To deal with these new problems will require a new conservation. We must not only protect the countryside and save it from destruction, we must restore what has been destroyed and salvage the beauty and charm of our cities. Our conservation must be not just the classic conservation of protection and development, but a creative conservation of restoration and innovation." At the behest of Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall, the Great Society included several new environmental laws to protect air and water. Environmental legislation enacted included:

Clear Air, Water Quality and Clean Water Restoration Acts and Amendments
Wilderness Act of 1964
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966
National Trails System Act of 1968
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968
Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965
Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Aircraft Noise Abatement Act of 1968
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-07-2011, 04:21 PM
MY WORDS:

Now, all of these--let's break away the ideals the programs represented, from the legislation that they were attempted through and look at them as ideals. Poverty is a curse on the human race; It is a horrible social disease and many suffer with it--Not simply the non-workers and those who don't try, but also those who cannot try; those who cannot work, and most of all, those innocent people who, with no say of their own in the matter, are affected by the poor choices of their parents, grandparents, and other guardians--Those who suffer from poverty not of their volition but because of the choices of others.

Who doesn't want to see an end to poverty and all of it's terrible effects? Who doesn't want to see the day when there will be no children living in squalor? Who doesn't want to see the death of that horrid plague and all the other social maladies it brings with it?

Many of those whose words I've read have argued and said that the poor in this country live better and longer than the poor of most nations, and while that is most likely true, it is still not an excuse for poverty to exist in this great nation. Simply because our problems are not as severe as the problems of lesser nations is not an excuse for us to have the problem. An illness is still illness no matter how severe, and poverty is an illness both of the body, mind and spirit of a nation. It weakens and lessens a nation as a whole no matter how small or large an issue it is.

Now, we can debate and argue how poverty should and can be dealt with. We can question if poverty can even be destroyed, if it is possible through ANY means. I believe that perhaps, with a combination of federal, state, local and individual coordination and individuals and communities working together, it can be. I don't believe the Federal Government alone can or should assume the burden of a War on Poverty, but I do believe that a War on Poverty, fought through different means than LBJ's War, is a moral war which should, in every generation, be fought.

Now, let's look at education. I personally support public education. I believe it is the right of every CHILD to get at least a minimum level of education. I am talking specifically and only about CHILDREN here--Those below the age of 18. A child should not go without an education because his or her parent decided to throw away their fortunes or simply didn't care to ensure that they be educated. I believe once again, that this problem should be met with a combination of Federal, State and Community efforts.

I believe every child born legitimately in this country, to parents who were either born here or came legally here from abroad, are entitled to a minimum level of education. An educated society is indeed a "Great Society." A society of educated people is a good and productive society. But to paraphrase President Teddy Roosevelt, we must educate our people both in morals and mind, for to "educate a man in mind and not in morals is to create a menace to society."

The education of morality belongs in the home, and if children's parents wish, in the local Church and Private school; The education of the mind belongs in a classroom. We must differentiate education from indoctrination, as the two are too often mixed by teachers and school administrators who attempt to use their positions and influence to "teach" children their political or social views. We must clean up the overwrought bureaucracy that exists in many educational agencies, for I believe such entangling and confusing bureaucracy is what makes public schools inefficient--not the concept of public education itself as some would argue. We must clean away and eliminate also the politicized education that exists in many schools. Indoctrination should never be funded by tax dollars; I do not care if that indoctrination is of a Liberal, Conservative or Communist nature; It simply has no place in a classroom. Education does, and is wholly separate, and moral. It's a teacher's job to educate and a parent's to indoctrinate.

Where merited arguments can be made, in my view, on both sides, is whether public colleges and the like should exist, whether the education of adults should be paid for at the public's expense, and if so, to what extent, and why? That is a very complex issue both in terms of morality, practically and legality and because I myself am not entirely convinced either way on the matter, I will not speak of it here, except to say that my own mother was able to become a Registered Nurse because of LBJ's Nursing Grant, and with that grant and the education she received because of it, she spent over 20 years in the field and saved many lives. She also excelled in all her classes, never having less than a B, for all her years of college. But that is just one personal anecdote and one success alone is no excuse for a hundred failues. But again, I will not speak conclusively on the matter either way.

Having written a lot and revised this a bit to clean it up, my hands are kind of tired, so I will speak on the other matters and platforms of the Great Society--environmental protection, healthcare, consumer protection agencies, public arts programs and the like, later. But I was hoping, and my intent is, to discuss the Great Society, in it's ideals, and in it's actions. I encourage you all to put forth your own ideas as to how the ills the Great Society sought to correct can be better fought.

Thank you for reading.

Starbuck
06-07-2011, 06:15 PM
............ I encourage you all to put forth your own ideas as to how the ills the Great Society sought to correct can be better fought..........

There is a component of the population that will fail. No matter what opportunity is presented, no matter how skilled the teachers, no matter how many studies are undertaken, they will fail to provide for themselves.

There is another component that will succeed. No matter what the personal price, no matter what the conditions of their birth or what their education, they will succeed and they will end up with a larger slice of the pie than their fellow citizens.

People who succeed are much like the engine of a train. They pull. Hard. And the vast majority of us are somewhere in the middle doing the best we can - sometimes keeping up and sometimes maybe not - but doing the best we can.

We will always have to pull those people who are cabooses. We either pull them along with us or allow them to stop us.

Johnson's program (and Obama, too) allows or even encourages people to become failures and become dependent. Obama wants to take power from the engine; give it to the caboose people and somehow expect that the caboose people will magically know what to do with it. They will not. The will consume power and energy and drag their heels (because that is what they do) and eventually cause the entire train to stop.

I am making the case for a welfare program, but one that is not-so-easy-to-get-on. Out of a population of 300 million people, I would think about 15 million (5%) should be allowed to be on welfare/Medicaid,Food Stamps.

Today we have 50 Million on Medicaid; 40 Million on Food Stamps; 4 1/2 million on welfare. That is way, way, too high.

The solution is to power up the engines. Because the caboose people are dragging us down.

Madisonian
06-07-2011, 06:40 PM
No.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-07-2011, 07:32 PM
No.

So the idea of having clean air and water = sucky?
The idea of having an educated society = sucky?
The idea of having the elderly and poor taken care of = sucky?
The idea of having more nurses and doctors = sucky?
Corporations acting responsibly and having their products labeled properly = sucky?

I'm not talking about the METHOD. The Great Society was a METHOD, achieving those goals above via the Fed Gov. The end result is what I'm talking about. Not the Method

KhrushchevsShoe
06-07-2011, 07:37 PM
There is a component of the population that will fail. No matter what opportunity is presented, no matter how skilled the teachers, no matter how many studies are undertaken, they will fail to provide for themselves.

There is another component that will succeed. No matter what the personal price, no matter what the conditions of their birth or what their education, they will succeed and they will end up with a larger slice of the pie than their fellow citizens.

People who succeed are much like the engine of a train. They pull. Hard. And the vast majority of us are somewhere in the middle doing the best we can - sometimes keeping up and sometimes maybe not - but doing the best we can.

We will always have to pull those people who are cabooses. We either pull them along with us or allow them to stop us.

Johnson's program (and Obama, too) allows or even encourages people to become failures and become dependent. Obama wants to take power from the engine; give it to the caboose people and somehow expect that the caboose people will magically know what to do with it. They will not. The will consume power and energy and drag their heels (because that is what they do) and eventually cause the entire train to stop.

I am making the case for a welfare program, but one that is not-so-easy-to-get-on. Out of a population of 300 million people, I would think about 15 million (5%) should be allowed to be on welfare/Medicaid,Food Stamps.

Today we have 50 Million on Medicaid; 40 Million on Food Stamps; 4 1/2 million on welfare. That is way, way, too high.

The solution is to power up the engines. Because the caboose people are dragging us down.

Those "engines" unhitched the rest of the country behind them years ago

Zathras
06-07-2011, 07:42 PM
Those "engines" unhitched the rest of the country behind them years ago

No, not the rest of the country. Just deadweight losers like yourself are the ones who got left behind.

KhrushchevsShoe
06-07-2011, 07:46 PM
No, not the rest of the country. Just deadweight losers like yourself are the ones who got left behind.

To be fair I dropped out of their little game years ago. I just feel bad for people with kids and stuff who cant get away like I did.

Zathras
06-07-2011, 07:47 PM
To be fair I dropped out of their little game years ago. I just feel bad for people with kids and stuff who cant get away like I did.

Translation: I'm a deadbeat loser living on the fruits of other peoples labor.

KhrushchevsShoe
06-07-2011, 08:05 PM
Translation: I'm a deadbeat loser living on the fruits of other peoples labor.

Not really. If I could support my lifestyle on welfare I probably would, but unfortunately I cant. I just dont see working for these assholes as some sort of privilege; so when I get the desire to spend a year in another country or just want to change jobs for whatever reason I go ahead and do that. I always find a gig that can sustain myself, if I have to get a visa or really bullshit them that "I'm in it for the long haul!" I have no problem doing that.

I've quit 4 jobs in the past 2 years and have spent maybe a grand total of two weeks unemployed. Not being a career oriented individual doesn't necessarily mean I'm lazy.

BadCat
06-07-2011, 08:20 PM
Not really. If I could support my lifestyle on welfare I probably would, but unfortunately I cant. I just dont see working for these assholes as some sort of privilege; so when I get the desire to spend a year in another country or just want to change jobs for whatever reason I go ahead and do that. I always find a gig that can sustain myself, if I have to get a visa or really bullshit them that "I'm in it for the long haul!" I have no problem doing that.

I've quit 4 jobs in the past 2 years and have spent maybe a grand total of two weeks unemployed. Not being a career oriented individual doesn't necessarily mean I'm lazy.

HUH?

Tell us, shitstain, what is it you do for $$?

Madisonian
06-07-2011, 08:22 PM
So the idea of having clean air and water = sucky?
The idea of having an educated society = sucky?
The idea of having the elderly and poor taken care of = sucky?
The idea of having more nurses and doctors = sucky?
Corporations acting responsibly and having their products labeled properly = sucky?

I'm not talking about the METHOD. The Great Society was a METHOD, achieving those goals above via the Fed Gov. The end result is what I'm talking about. Not the Method

Talking one without the other is pointless.
You could get the same results you posted here if you killed off 90% of the population. That also would be a method.
Looking at them one by one...
Clean Air and Water
Might give you that one, but allowed the proper authority, the states could handle this just as well and have more of a local interest than the Potomac Swampland does.
Educated Society
Trillions of federal dollars loped on top on the state and local taxes into education and by what measure is the educational system any better than before the Feds put their hands on it?
Elderly and poor
Its called Family or Charity, if need be. Because the Feds do it, you don't have to worry about poor old relatives anymore and can still suck down their inheritance because you threw all their expenses on the backs of everyone else's wallet. When I listen to some investment programs, the number one question is "How do I hide Mom and Dad's assets so I can get them, but make the government think they are broke so they will pick up the tab" Truly disgusting.
The unmentioned flip side of the inheritance tax issue is that while I (and many others) are opposed to any form of inheritance tax, I believe that those assets should be used first to pay incurred expenses. So no, you can't leave a million dollars to your greedy kids if you are trying to con Medicare into paying for your retirement or nursing home care.
More doctors and nurses
I have never had a problem finding a doctor and chances are most here never have either. Of course, ObamaCare has not taken hold yet, so that may be soon to change.
Corporations acting responsibly and product labeling.
Yes, knowing that I should not spray Windex into my eyes is a Federal responsibility. Don't know what's in it? Don't buy it. Seems fairly simple. If everyone did that, we would not need Uncle Simpleminded to pass Federal Laws saying a can of Tomatoes has tomatoes and salt.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-07-2011, 08:26 PM
Talking one without the other is pointless.
You could get the same results you posted here if you killed off 90% of the population. That also would be a method.
Looking at them one by one...
Clean Air and Water
Might give you that one, but allowed the proper authority, the states could handle this just as well and have more of a local interest than the Potomac Swampland does.
Educated Society
Trillions of federal dollars loped on top on the state and local taxes into education and by what measure is the educational system any better than before the Feds put their hands on it?
Elderly and poor
Its called Family or Charity, if need be. Because the Feds do it, you don't have to worry about poor old relatives anymore and can still suck down their inheritance because you threw all their expenses on the backs of everyone else's wallet. When I listen to some investment programs, the number one question is "How do I hide Mom and Dad's assets so I can get them, but make the government think they are broke so they will pick up the tab" Truly disgusting.
The unmentioned flip side of the inheritance tax issue is that while I (and many others) are opposed to any form of inheritance tax, I believe that those assets should be used first to pay incurred expenses. So no, you can't leave a million dollars to your greedy kids if you are trying to con Medicare into paying for your retirement or nursing home care.
More doctors and nurses
I have never had a problem finding a doctor and chances are most here never have either. Of course, ObamaCare has not taken hold yet, so that may be soon to change.
Corporations acting responsibly and product labeling.
Yes, knowing that I should not spray Windex into my eyes is a Federal responsibility. Don't know what's in it? Don't buy it. Seems fairly simple. If everyone did that, we would not need Uncle Simpleminded to pass Federal Laws saying a can of Tomatoes has tomatoes and salt.

The reason the Nurse Training Act was put in place was because there was a nurse shortage.
I'll get to the other points later--I have company over.

BadCat
06-07-2011, 08:28 PM
Hey college boy. You think the "great society" is so "great"...YOU FUCKING PAY FOR IT. Right now, you owe $514000...better get your worthless degree and start humping it.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-07-2011, 08:33 PM
Hey college boy. You think the "great society" is so "great"...YOU FUCKING PAY FOR IT. Right now, you owe $514000...better get your worthless degree and start humping it.

I'll get right on it, chief.

Bailey
06-07-2011, 08:34 PM
Hey college boy. You think the "great society" is so "great"...YOU FUCKING PAY FOR IT. Right now, you owe $514000...better get your worthless degree and start humping it.

You know whats sad? I didnt have a say in how that 514,000 was spent :( :mad:

BadCat
06-07-2011, 08:37 PM
I'll get right on it, chief.

You do that son. If you socialist shits want that crap, then you pay for it. Leave those of us who don't want it alone.

With my share (and we'll throw in Bailey's share too) that's 1,542,000 dollars you owe.

I don't think your degree in women's studies is gonna cut it.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-07-2011, 08:57 PM
You do that son. If you socialist shits want that crap, then you pay for it. Leave those of us who don't want it alone.

With my share (and we'll throw in Bailey's share too) that's 1,542,000 dollars you owe.

I don't think your degree in women's studies is gonna cut it.

Women's studies? It's between either Law (as a stepping stone to more), or a Nurse Practitioner. In either case I'm going to minor in History. Right now I'm taking some time off to decide my future.

BadCat
06-07-2011, 08:58 PM
Women's studies? It's between either Law (as a stepping stone to more), or a Nurse Practitioner. In either case I'm going to minor in History. Right now I'm taking some time off to decide my future.

Law or a nurse?

You are a confused little guy.

What are you living on while you take this "time off" to decide your future?

Madisonian
06-07-2011, 09:06 PM
The reason the Nurse Training Act was put in place was because there was a nurse shortage.
I'll get to the other points later--I have company over.

The reason there was a shortage is because there was not enough money in it to do it.
So instead of the industry upping the wages to draw more nurses in, they lobbied the feds to let everyone else (us poor dumb taxpayers) pay for their training. Then, because the feds put up some funding, they pass laws, rules or regulations to be imposed as a condition of doing business with them. Laws sponsored, curiously enough, by health care and education lobbyists to keep their lock on the cover to the pie plate.

KhrushchevsShoe
06-07-2011, 09:29 PM
HUH?

Tell us, shitstain, what is it you do for $$?

Whatever I feel like doing. I have a college degree, language skills and I interview very well so its not hard for me to get a job. When I get sick of it I quit. At some places they dont mind at all, at others they look at me like I'm crazy for reentering what is supposed to be an impossible job market.

I'd probably make more if I just held the same job for a couple years, but I have enough money to buy my plane tickets, pay my bills and do the things I want to do. The obsession people have with hording wealth and flaunting how rich they think they are never appealed to me.

Right now I'm at my seasonal gig in Chicago which is kind of my steady go-to plan. They let me take years off, I make my own schedule and in mid-September its over so I'm not really tied down at all to it.

BadCat
06-07-2011, 09:31 PM
Whatever I feel like doing. I have a college degree, language skills and I interview very well so its not hard for me to get a job. When I get sick of it I quit. At some places they dont mind at all, at others they look at me like I'm crazy for reentering what is supposed to be an impossible job market.

I'd probably make more if I just held the same job for a couple years, but I have enough money to buy my plane tickets, pay my bills and do the things I want to do. The obsession people have with hording wealth and flaunting how rich they think they are never appealed to me.

Right now I'm at my seasonal gig in Chicago which is kind of my steady go-to plan. They let me take years off, I make my own schedule and in mid-September its over so I'm not really tied down at all to it.

Oh, so you just kind of never really grew up.

KhrushchevsShoe
06-07-2011, 09:47 PM
Oh, so you just kind of never really grew up.

If growing up means becoming a corporate slave, then I guess I never grew up. Thank god.

Rockntractor
06-07-2011, 09:55 PM
Women's studies? It's between either Law (as a stepping stone to more), or a Nurse Practitioner. In either case I'm going to minor in History. Right now I'm taking some time off to decide my future.

I think you would be well suited to nurse practitioner, don't sell your soul to become a lawyer.
I have nurses in my family and they are happy, have well balanced lives, and are always employed.

Gingersnap
06-07-2011, 10:50 PM
The goals of eliminating poverty and advancing education are laudable. The method is the problem. As a nation we are still coming to grips with that. On the one hand, children in this country only starve and remain ignorant because their caretakers (often one biological parent, not always) allows it to happen. On the other hand, invasive means to "save even one" diminish liberty.

In real life, we have to accept that a certain percentage of the population will piss away whatever chances they have or that the government/charity extends to them. Not designing/planning/funding for this population will free up a huge amount of opportunity for those that can be helped.

It's like this. We always wring our hands and design studies to detect how people fail. Kids, teens, young adults, elders, etc. What we should do is design studies to discern how people in bad circumstances eventually succeed. I'm one and I bet a number of people here fit that bill. What did we do right despite our genetics, social environment, poverty-level, lack of sex appeal, etc.? Why did we succeed where our siblings or cousins failed?

That would be some intense date-rich information.

Starbuck
06-07-2011, 11:16 PM
.............so when I get the desire to spend a year in another country or just want to change jobs for whatever reason I go ahead and do that. I always find a gig that can sustain myself............

Caution. That will end for you some day. You will not be notified beforehand. It'll just be gone.:)

Starbuck
06-07-2011, 11:18 PM
........... What did we do right despite our genetics, social environment, poverty-level, lack of sex appeal, etc.? Why did we succeed where our siblings or cousins failed...........

From sire to sire
It's born in the blood
The fire of a mare
And the strength of a stud
It's breeding and it's training
And it's something unknown
That drives you and carries
You home.:)

noonwitch
06-08-2011, 09:58 AM
ADC is a great example of a Great Society program with good intentions that had very bad long-term implications. The intention was to help single mothers keep out of poverty. It ended up becoming a way of life for people who were stuck. It encouraged illegitimacy and rewarded promiscuity.

Of course, we didn't have DNA technology in the 60s to determine paternity, or mandatory child support would have been a better solution. The welfare system now uses it to get support money from non-custodial parents in situations where the custodial parent is receiving assistance.


Head Start, on the other hand, is an excellent Great Society program. It prepares kids and their parents for kindergarten. It makes it possible for poor kids to enter kindergarten without being academically behind children whose parents paid for them to go to pre-school. It also helps uneducated parents understand how to help their kids get a good education, and helps those parents find resources to improve their own educational or vocational skills. It's unfortunate that most kids who graduate from Head Start end up in kindergarten in the worst public schools there are.

Starbuck
06-08-2011, 11:35 AM
ADC is a great example of a Great Society program with good intentions that had very bad long-term implications. The intention was to help single mothers keep out of poverty. It ended up becoming a way of life for people who were stuck. It encouraged illegitimacy and rewarded promiscuity.

Of course, we didn't have DNA technology in the 60s to determine paternity, or mandatory child support would have been a better solution. The welfare system now uses it to get support money from non-custodial parents in situations where the custodial parent is receiving assistance.


Head Start, on the other hand, is an excellent Great Society program. It prepares kids and their parents for kindergarten. It makes it possible for poor kids to enter kindergarten without being academically behind children whose parents paid for them to go to pre-school. It also helps uneducated parents understand how to help their kids get a good education, and helps those parents find resources to improve their own educational or vocational skills. It's unfortunate that most kids who graduate from Head Start end up in kindergarten in the worst public schools there are.

7 Billion dollars. That's what Head Start costs. Per year.

841,000. That how many children participate.

$8,320. That's what it comes to per kid per year.

0. That's the percentage of improvement that has resulted from federally regulated education, which began with Department of Education established by Carter in the 80's. (Head Start is actually part of HHS) If Head Start actually worked this figure would be something other than 0.

Rebel Yell
06-08-2011, 12:31 PM
Everyone being able to shit ice cream sounds good, but eating shit is still not a good idea.