Current Events > Trump budget cuts $238 MILLION from Job-Training program for Low-Income 18-24yos

(+) Yeah! (+)

Kineth posted...

games_pot1 posted...

Kineth posted...

games_pot1 posted...

Dude, things need to be cut from the budget. No matter what he cuts people will complain. Things nees to be cut if our country wants to survive without bankruptcy. Everyone has agendas and eays to stabalize it, but not one plan will make everyone happy. Kids 18-24 are going to be upset, moms and dads with young kids are going to be upset, but everyone else just shrugs their shoulders.

How about we blow up less million dollar bombs in another country to support these programs that take up infinitesimal parts of our budget.

Man i covered this already. If they cut anything great, get that debt deficit down. Theres so many ways to do it.

I don't want to read through the topic. Show me where you covered this so I can either drop my argument or tailor it to what you said.

I don't support the lazy, find a new topic with 1 or 2 posts.
---

games_pot1 posted...

Kineth posted...

games_pot1 posted...

Kineth posted...

games_pot1 posted...

Dude, things need to be cut from the budget. No matter what he cuts people will complain. Things nees to be cut if our country wants to survive without bankruptcy. Everyone has agendas and eays to stabalize it, but not one plan will make everyone happy. Kids 18-24 are going to be upset, moms and dads with young kids are going to be upset, but everyone else just shrugs their shoulders.

How about we blow up less million dollar bombs in another country to support these programs that take up infinitesimal parts of our budget.

Man i covered this already. If they cut anything great, get that debt deficit down. Theres so many ways to do it.

I don't want to read through the topic. Show me where you covered this so I can either drop my argument or tailor it to what you said.

I don't support the lazy, find a new topic with 1 or 2 posts.

So you're not lazy for not wanting to restate your position? You might be doing me a favor from not bothering with you.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

Reminder: Conservatives do NOT give a single flying fuck about improving the lives of the poor and marginalized..

These govt programs did more harm than good. Remember the public housing projects where they demolished more homes than they built and turned nice neighborhoods into dangerous ghettos?

When that was done away with people like you were all "OMG why don't you care about poor ppl??"
---

Reminder: Conservatives do NOT give a single flying fuck about improving the lives of the poor and marginalized.

Neither do Liberals, and as part of the lower class myself, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of both sides pretending otherwise while they simultaneously look for new ways to put me over a barrel.

To hell with all you libbies and connies, you're a goddamn blight on this country.
---

JuanCarlos1 posted...

games_pot1 posted...

Dude, things need to be cut from the budget. No matter what he cuts people will complain. Things nees to be cut if our country wants to survive without bankruptcy. Everyone has agendas and eays to stabalize it, but not one plan will make everyone happy. Kids 18-24 are going to be upset, moms and dads with young kids are going to be upset, but everyone else just shrugs their shoulders.

Anything EXCEPT the military, eh?

IIRC he is also allowing a lot for infrastructure as well.
---

The Catgirl Fondler posted...

Neither do Liberals, and as part of the lower class myself, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of both sides pretending otherwise while they simultaneously look for new ways to put me over a barrel.

Let's start with those that support and fund Job Corps. At least we give more of a fuck.
---

^Well saying "we give more of a fuck" doesnt mean your helping. For all we know you might just go on message boards and complain on the internet.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

The Catgirl Fondler posted...

Neither do Liberals, and as part of the lower class myself, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of both sides pretending otherwise while they simultaneously look for new ways to put me over a barrel.

Let's start with those that support and fund Job Corps. At least we give more of a fuck.

It really depends if the funding for Job Corps helps people get education and better jobs by participating though.

I posted these items from its annual audit of its success before that nobody mentioned, and I am sure nobody here knows how successful the program is or isn't. These were picked from their report and the website is a conservative one, but it isn't like Job Corps is a complete success in all regards. In some cases it was better compared to the control group, others it is not.

Compared to non-participants, Job Corp participants were less likely to earn a high school diploma (7.5 percent versus 5.3 percent);

Compared to non-participants, Job Corp participants were no more likely to attend or complete college;

Four years after participating in the evaluation, the average weekly earnings of Job Corps participants were a mere $22 higher than the average weekly earnings of the control group; and

Employed Job Corps participants earned only $0.22 more in hourly wages compared to employed control group members.

You can create a government program called "The job creation program for underprivileged citizens" and give them $100 billion a year. If that program doesn't improve the situation for participants vs non-participants and funding is cut, that isn't really a bad program to cut funding from. But people on this board seem to just see "Job program funding is being cut" and assume its some successful program that is losing funding when nobody even knows if the program is successful or not.
---

SK8T3R215 posted...

You can create a government program called "The job creation program for underprivileged citizens" and give them $100 billion a year. If that program doesn't improve the situation for participants vs non-participants and funding is cut, that isn't really a bad program to cut funding from. But people on this board seem to just see "Job program funding is being cut" and assume its some successful program that is losing funding when nobody even knows if the program is successful or not.

You're ignoring the fact that 'non-participants' typically don't need the program to begin with. Job Corps caters specifically to those that need it the most and would be worse off without it. It's like arguing that people that don't eat at soup kitchens are generally healthier than those that do, or that people that don't take cancer medication are 'generally' better off than those that do.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

You're ignoring the fact that 'non-participants' typically don't need the program to begin with. Job Corps caters specifically to those that need it the most and would be worse off without it. It's like arguing that people that don't eat at soup kitchens are generally healthier than those that do.

They have an audit they do where they compare participants to a control group. The "non-participants" are people in similar situations who were not allowed into the program so it would compare people who qualify and enroll vs people who qualify and were used other programs or no other programs. So no your response is not accurate. This is talking about people who can enroll but do not, then comparing the "success" of the two groups to see if the program is worth the investment on a cost-benefit basis.

From their report: The National Job Corps Study, funded by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), was designed to provide a thorough and rigorous assessment of the impacts of Job Corps on key participant outcomes. The cornerstone of the study was the random assignment of all youth found eligible for Job Corps to either a program group or a control group. Program group members were allowed to enroll in Job Corps; control group members were not (although they could enroll in other training or education programs).
---

SK8T3R215 posted...

The "non-participants" are people in similar situations

Not similar enough.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

SK8T3R215 posted...

The "non-participants" are people in similar situations

Not similar enough.

From their report: The National Job Corps Study, funded by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), was designed to provide a thorough and rigorous assessment of the impacts of Job Corps on key participant outcomes. The cornerstone of the study was the random assignment of all youth found eligible for Job Corps to either a program group or a control group. Program group members were allowed to enroll in Job Corps; control group members were not (although they could enroll in other training or education programs).


???
---

SK8T3R215 posted...

control group members were not (although they could enroll in other training or education programs).

That, in itself, perfectly demonstrates what I'm talking about. There are other training and education programs that they could've used - and they ARE ALL ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK under the Trump budget.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

SK8T3R215 posted...

control group members were not (although they could enroll in other training or education programs).

That, in itself, perfectly demonstrates what I'm talking about. There are other training and education programs that they could've used - and they ARE ALL ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK under the Trump budget.

And then for those programs we should evaluate the results of those studies to see if they are successful at improving the participants vs the cost of funding them. If so, then we should not cut funding and even increase funding. If they are not successful, the program should not receive funding that can be used for more productive items.

And that would take a lot of time so again just saying "Funding is being cut that's bad" isn't really true unless you look at each program and determine which are successful and which aren't. Then you can say "Cutting funding to Program X should not be done."
---

SK8T3R215 posted...

And that would take a lot of time so again just saying "Funding is being cut that's bad" isn't really true unless you look at each program and determine which are successful and which aren't. Then you can say "Cutting funding to Program X should not be done."

The Trump budget isn't replacing the Job Corps funding and diverting it to another job or welfare program - that's the fucking point. It's going straight to building on top of the existing missiles that we already have.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

The Trump budget isn't replacing the Job Corps funding and diverting it to another job or welfare program - that's the fucking point. It's going straight to building on top of the existing missiles that we already have.

So are other government funded job programs successful on a cost-benefit basis? Just throwing money into programs when others aren't successful could just mean the government is poor at running these programs so creating new ones would just not be worth the investment.

If you can show other programs being successful I would be interested in which are good investments for taxpayers vs which are not. For this topic at least cutting funding to Job Corps doesn't seem like a huge deal.

I mean even Obama's last budget proposed cutting funding from Job Corps and this program has been losing funding from what I've seen.
---

games_pot1 posted...

Dude, things need to be cut from the budget. No matter what he cuts people will complain. Things nees to be cut if our country wants to survive without bankruptcy. Everyone has agendas and eays to stabalize it, but not one plan will make everyone happy. Kids 18-24 are going to be upset, moms and dads with young kids are going to be upset, but everyone else just shrugs their shoulders.

True, the cost of these free rides is finally starting to catch up with us and that isn't fair that we get stuck with the bill.

Edit: Maybe once we get the debt under control we can offer this again.
---

SK8T3R215 posted...

So are other government funded job programs successful on a cost-benefit basis?

Yes, when you consider the alternative in which ppl do nothing and people simply go hungry, die from sickness and injury, or join a gang to stay alive.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

Reminder: Conservatives do NOT give a single flying fuck about improving the lives of the poor and marginalized..

These govt programs did more harm than good. Remember the public housing projects where they demolished more homes than they built and turned nice neighborhoods into dangerous ghettos?

When that was done away with people like you were all "OMG why don't you care about poor ppl??"

What a load of bullshit.
---

Man, if there is one thing that gets conservatives pissed off, it is poor people.
---

SK8T3R215 posted...

Well does anyone here actually have any knowledge about this program and how effective it actually is? I found these stats from this website that says they should just eliminate the program because it is a waste of taxpayers money.

Compared to non-participants, Job Corp participants were less likely to earn a high school diploma (7.5 percent versus 5.3 percent);

Compared to non-participants, Job Corp participants were no more likely to attend or complete college;

Four years after participating in the evaluation, the average weekly earnings of Job Corps participants were a mere $22 higher than the average weekly earnings of the control group; and

Employed Job Corps participants earned only $0.22 more in hourly wages compared to employed control group members.

I looked at the actual study they pulled these from and found them there, but also there were other conclusions that were favorable towards the program. But I don't really care enough or have the time to go through them.

Looks like a sensible cut then.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

SK8T3R215 posted...

So are other government funded job programs successful on a cost-benefit basis?

Yes, when you consider the alternative in which ppl do nothing and people simply go hungry, die from sickness and injury, or join a gang to stay alive.

Any actual stats to back this up? I provided some showing Job Corps didn't increase education and increased wages minimally so funding being cut to it is fairly justified. I'm sure in the study you can find benefits of the program also so weighing the pros and cons would need to be done. What are the other programs that are successful at creating jobs and improving education, and is funding being cut to those?
---

The Catgirl Fondler posted...

Neither do Liberals, and as part of the lower class myself, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of both sides pretending otherwise

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Compared to Obama who spent $4 billion on job training in his first 100 days.

Both parties are to blame though I guess.