Talk:Office of Economic Opportunity

Native American impact section
I added Peacock warning to the Impact on Native Americans section. this makes large proclamations about its impact and is biased towards a certain (imo very colonial) view of Native Americans' capacity. ("never been given the chance for major responsibility", etc). this whole section needs citations where it mentions impact. PaulSutherland (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Office of Economic Opportunity under a Cabinent control?
where in the government heirarchy did the office fit? direct reporting to the President or under control of a Cabinet division (Treasury?)?--68.173.2.68 (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OEO was a cabinet level department and during most of its time had direct access to the President. Of course practially speaking different presidents treated OEO differently. But Nixon and Reagan hated the program because of the efforts it made on behalf of poor people and especially minorities. Many positive results, that had impacts on native american's and mexican americans came from legal services and happened in California. Hence part of the reason why conservative tried and finally ended OEO.

However Community Action Programs still exist and if you listened to The President's speech on Tuesday he said that he would cut the program even though it was something he believed in. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed
I don't really know how to do this, but I found a legit citation for William B Mullins being the co-founder here: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/16/obituaries/w-b-mullins-52-a-founding-official-of-the-peace-corps.html

Who’s the contributor obsessed with editorializing?
There are so many "Editorializing" notes across a large portion of this article that it looks like someone has attempted to do their own guerilla editorializing by dropping in so many of them. I am not a contributor to this article, except to add this Talk point, as I'm not especially conversant with its subject matter, so I don't think I'll edit it. I hope others will step up. At least the ones who added so many editorial insinuations didn't remove the portions that they assert are problematic. Fjeinca (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)