Speaking of propaganda...

parados wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

parados wrote:

So..

Employers have few if any responsibilities when it comes to employees but employees should work at a job that their employer doesn't care about them or else they are no good lazy libruls.

Do I have that right?

Nope.

But, coming from you that doesn't really surprise me.

Oh.. so then a person is at fault or not if they are poor and refuse to work for an employer that doesn't care about them?

Maybe read more and misunderstand less. That might help you.

She dropped out of South Side High School in the 12th grade, but earned a GED from a program she later found out wasn't certified.

She can't afford a car, so her world is limited to where she can get rides or where the bus goes.

Best-case scenario: She earns $800 a month cleaning houses. That's $9,600 a year, which puts her at less than half of the federal poverty level for a family of four -- $21,200.

First second I read this..

Quote:

She dropped out of South Side High School in the 12th grade, but earned a GED from a program she later found out wasn't certified.

Gee.. A poor choice. She let herself get ripped off by an unscrupulous business person. Yeah. It must be her fault.

Quote:

She can't afford a car, so her world is limited to where she can get rides or where the bus goes.

Her fault because she can't afford a car I guess.

Quote:

Best-case scenario: She earns $800 a month cleaning houses. That's $9,600 a year, which puts her at less than half of the federal poverty level for a family of four -- $21,200.

There it is folks, the absolute proof that there is no such thing as the "working poor."

Paris Hilton was dealt a very good hand at the beginning because of some choices made by her parents and grandparents, but she could be involuntarily poor as a church mouse in a hurry if she makes some really crappy choices.

Everyone take a second and read this.

Yup. I sure haven't seen anybody else make that claim.

McGentrix wrote:

Everyone take a second and read this.

The moral of the story is this:

People are poor and downtrodden because of the choices they make and, although it is bad for society to be entwined in the filth and detritus of their poor decisions, they, and they alone must pay for those choices.

This, my friends, is Compassionate Conservatism.

Thanks for the link McG, it shows how shitty you and others on your team view people.

Welfare reform forced Nelson, and thousands of other Memphis mothers who receive government assistance, into a workforce-readiness program at BRIDGES.

Nelson came to the Downtown center last July with a bad attitude, a pierced eyebrow and yellow hair she later dyed hot red. Her clothes were better suited for a night club than an office.

But that was before she was taught what it'd take to succeed in a professional environment, lessons her mother, who is an IT coordinator for BRIDGES' workforce-development arm, had tried to teach her but Nelson wouldn't listen.

"My attitude has really improved," says a poised Nelson over dinner, her brown hair braided neatly.

But, Nelson admits, "It took someone else to tell me."

That someone else was Pam McCoy. Dr. McCoy, director of supportive services for BRIDGES' Work Bridge program, who is proud to tell you she went from a GED to a Ph.D.

McCoy, 51, dropped out of high school and had her first child at 15. She married her daughter's father, but was separated just a few years later and divorced in eight years.

Unmarried, she relied on the government for help, following in the single-motherhood path traveled by her mother and her grandmother.

But then she got a break, a break that makes the difference between failure and success: Patient teachers and a devoted financial-aid counselor at what was then Shelby State Community College.

Her first day at junior college in 1977, she showed up wearing a halter top and too-tight jeans, sporting red hair and a gold tooth right in front.

"With the attitude I had, the first week, I ended up cussing out the dean of students," probably over her financial aid, she assumes.

"My mindset was, 'You owe me something.'"

The kindness of her teachers softened her spirit. After she got her degree in counseling at Shelby State, she was hired as an academic adviser. And she had her gold tooth replaced with a natural-colored one.

In 1991, she got her bachelor's degree in human relations from Western Illinois. She moved to Tulsa, Okla., and earned her master's degree in counseling from Oral Roberts University in 1996. Her Ph.D. came from Jacksonville Theological Seminary in 2003.

But then she got a break, a break that makes the difference between failure and success: Patient teachers and a devoted financial-aid counselor at what was then Shelby State Community College.

Her first day at junior college in 1977, she showed up wearing a halter top and too-tight jeans, sporting red hair and a gold tooth right in front.

Diest TKO wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Diest said...

Quote:

An employer does have a duty to their employees, and I'd love to hear anyone argue against that.

Tell me, what duty is that?

An employer is required to obey the labor laws, to provide a safe environment, and to pay what they said they would pay.

An employer is NOT obligated to provide day care for the employees kids, an employer is NOT obligated to provide healthcare (beyond workers comp),an employer is NOT obligated to provide any social services to their employees.

A company goes into business for one reason...to make a profit.
They dont go into business to provide social services to employees, they dont go into business because of some sense of moral duty, they go into business to make money, period.

If you dont like what the company is doing or not doing, dont work for them.

color added for ease of addressing points.

Red - I agree 100% that these things should be taken care of. I see this as a baseline.

Blue - These examples are certainly not expected, and I would desribe them as being the kind of bennefits that make an employer more appealing to potential talent etc.

Green - I think you miss the point. When I say that an employer has a duty to their employees, I am talking about security and compensation, not social programs. How many times have their been large lay-offs while upper management gets a raise?

Look at any large city of industry and tell me that mass unemployment is not the interest of the city/state/nation to address. If a company is playing a hand in ths kind of thing, I don't think it is unreasonable for government to put pressure on the bussiness.

No company would be anywhere without their base, they owe their success to their employees.

T
K
O

REad your post again.
I think you got the red and blue mixed up.

Foxfyre wrote:

Yup. I sure haven't seen anybody else make that claim.

I see Fox.. So then your entire argument about how people need to work hard and they won't be poor is based on what? Wishful thinking?

I guess when you categorically presuppose that we liberals simply want to hand out money to anyone wishing to take it, you have us incredibly mischaracterized.

I don't oppose programs designed to help people get into school or the workforce. Programs like this take money. Programs like this are called social programs. Conservatives hate social programs.
Sure "they made a choice" to do x or y, but without the money for the program and the program itself, the result would never have become what it was.

Hey McG..
What welfare reform are you talking about?

1977 was a time of Government assistance for schooling not "compassionate conservatism" of cutting off that funding.

Quote:

But then she got a break, a break that makes the difference between failure and success: Patient teachers and a devoted financial-aid counselor at what was then Shelby State Community College.

Her first day at junior college in 1977, she showed up wearing a halter top and too-tight jeans, sporting red hair and a gold tooth right in front.

candidone1 wrote:

I guess when you categorically presuppose that we liberals simply want to hand out money to anyone wishing to take it, you have us incredibly mischaracterized.

How wonderfully moronic of you to make this statement and follow it with

Quote:

I don't oppose programs designed to help people get into school or the workforce. Programs like this take money. Programs like this are called social programs. Conservatives hate social programs.
Sure "they made a choice" to do x or y, but without the money for the program and the program itself, the result would never have become what it was.

quit being a freaking idiot

McGentrix wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

I guess when you categorically presuppose that we liberals simply want to hand out money to anyone wishing to take it, you have us incredibly mischaracterized.

How wonderfully moronic of you to make this statement and follow it with

Quote:

I don't oppose programs designed to help people get into school or the workforce. Programs like this take money. Programs like this are called social programs. Conservatives hate social programs.
Sure "they made a choice" to do x or y, but without the money for the program and the program itself, the result would never have become what it was.

It is moronic if it's untrue.

It is untrue since many social programs that actually address basic human needs; i.e. prison ministries, soup kitchens, thrift shops, homeless shelters, help with legal services, taxes, prep for job training, Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, tutoring programs, after school programs for kids and similar groups and agencies have been mostly started, funded, and operated by conservatives. Therefore a statement that "conservatives hate social programs" is not only absurd, it sounds rather hateful.