Don t Let Anybody Tell You That Businesses Create Jobs

[kiwiman127]

Who is hiring those illegals if it isn't business?

An awful lot of homeowners, including libs. Maybe especially libs, no one loves a good deal better than they.

Actually, the industries that hire the most illegal immigrants are; agriculture, hospitality (restaurants/hotels/resorts), construction, domestic services.
http://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/21cu/1/Immigration Facts Answer Key.pdf
I'd say it's on you to prove your point instead of giving us your opinion and presenting it as fact. The only fact is that you are way off.

 

[Iceweasel]

Actually, that wasn't my point. The accusation was it was all business' fault and I know for a fact that many homeowners don't care. And yes, it's going to be in the millions given the size of the country. My beef with libs in this regard is that they talk smack against business, the wealthy, greed, the American worker getting a fair wage, etc. but they will hire illegals to save a buck. I know it first hand. Including business owners.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It's kind of odd that you fuckers still argue this point. It's not even complicated.

I'm a business owner. I ain't hiring anyone if I don't need them. I only need them if there is damned for what I am selling. I'm not running a charity.

The fact is without your business there woujd be NO job in the first place.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

 

[Iceweasel]

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

To compete with the other coat stores your profit margin will be on the slim side. Spending more money than you can rake in means that your minimum wage earner will be unemployed and making even less. The business owner is in a better position to know what it takes to keep the doors open.

Now if the store owner can buy coats cheap enough that more people can afford them, the business increases. With the increased business he can afford to pay more for a good employee, and will have to or the employee will go work for the other coat store.

 

[Ava]

She can get away with that in Massatwoshits...she will have a different story when she gets to Iowa.

Where GOP Senatorial candidate Joni Ernst is doing very well with women.

 

[bripat9643]

It's kind of odd that you fuckers still argue this point. It's not even complicated.

I'm a business owner. I ain't hiring anyone if I don't need them. I only need them if there is damned for what I am selling. I'm not running a charity.

The fact is without your business there woujd be NO job in the first place.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

If you think you're going to make money depending on your employees to buy your product, you're a fool. How many of the employees of Rolls Royce can afford to buy the product? How about Boeing?

 

[bripat9643]

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

To compete with the other coat stores your profit margin will be on the slim side. Spending more money than you can rake in means that your minimum wage earner will be unemployed and making even less. The business owner is in a better position to know what it takes to keep the doors open.

Now if the store owner can buy coats cheap enough that more people can afford them, the business increases. With the increased business he can afford to pay more for a good employee, and will have to or the employee will go work for the other coat store.

No one would ever build a coat store in a town that only had three people who could afford to buy the product. Such a town couldn't support one 7-Eleven gas station, let alone a coat store.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It's kind of odd that you fuckers still argue this point. It's not even complicated.

I'm a business owner. I ain't hiring anyone if I don't need them. I only need them if there is damned for what I am selling. I'm not running a charity.

The fact is without your business there woujd be NO job in the first place.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

If you think you're going to make money depending on your employees to buy your product, you're a fool. How many of the employees of Rolls Royce can afford to buy the product? How about Boeing?

Did I say that? No, I don't think I did.

My employees would not be the ones getting the raise, because I already pay them above minimum wage.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It's kind of odd that you fuckers still argue this point. It's not even complicated.

I'm a business owner. I ain't hiring anyone if I don't need them. I only need them if there is damned for what I am selling. I'm not running a charity.

The fact is without your business there woujd be NO job in the first place.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

If you think you're going to make money depending on your employees to buy your product, you're a fool. How many of the employees of Rolls Royce can afford to buy the product? How about Boeing?

Rolls Royce is in London, you idiot. I don't think they are going to fly over to purchase a coat from my small business.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

To compete with the other coat stores your profit margin will be on the slim side. Spending more money than you can rake in means that your minimum wage earner will be unemployed and making even less. The business owner is in a better position to know what it takes to keep the doors open.

Now if the store owner can buy coats cheap enough that more people can afford them, the business increases. With the increased business he can afford to pay more for a good employee, and will have to or the employee will go work for the other coat store.

No one would ever build a coat store in a town that only had three people who could afford to buy the product. Such a town couldn't support one 7-Eleven gas station, let alone a coat store.

When the store was built, the majority could buy a coat. And if someone builds a coat store when there is no demand, they deserve to go out of business.

 

[BluesLegend]

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

A raise with what money from the tooth fairy?

 

[Iceweasel]

When the store was built, the majority could buy a coat. And if someone builds a coat store when there is no demand, they deserve to go out of business.

You're just moving the goal posts wherever you want.

 

[RKMBrown]

And then the dot com bubble busted and Bush spent 8 years blaming Clinton.

Actually it was the Republican Contract On America bubble that burst.

This was the basics of the Contract with America and nothing in it had a damned thing to do with the Dot com bubble.

1. require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
2. select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
3. cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
4. limit the terms of all committee chairs;
5. ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
6. require committee meetings to be open to the public;
7. require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
8. guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Why did you leave out the most important part of the Republican Contract On America that DEREGULATED Arthur Anderson and resulted in the ENRON ponzi scheme, Worldcom, etc?

Enron and Anderson broke the law. It had nothing to do with the GOP or its contract with america.

do you dem/libs ever not lie?

Nope. The entire liberal agenda is a lie, so how can you expect its supporters to be honest?

Lying, theft, ... that's all the liberals have. Honesty? ROFL Libs are dung.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Well, no shit, Sherlock. However, if you had a coat store, and only 3 people in town could afford to buy a coat, you wouldn't stay in business very long. And you wouldn't take you tax cut money to hire people, only to have them stand around.

If you give those poor minimum wager earners a raise, they too can purchase a coat. Now you can go hire someone to help you sell coats.

A raise with what money from the tooth fairy?

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers are now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What actually created jobs during the Clinton Administration?

We had two of the LARGEST TAX INCREASES in history. Spending on the military was being slashed and bases were being closed down. The government (ARPA) created Internet took off and the government was hiring thousands of new cops and teachers.

Tax increases, government investment, reduction in military spending and public sector hiring all contributed to 20 million new jobs.

Compare that to businesses outsourcing millions of jobs overseas because of Republican failed "free markets" dogma, massive taxcuts for the highest earners and illegal warmongering that have cost this nation trillions of taxpayer dollars.

Which scenario is better for We the People?

And then the dot com bubble busted and Bush spent 8 years blaming Clinton.

Actually it was the Republican Contract On America bubble that burst.

This was the basics of the Contract with America and nothing in it had a damned thing to do with the Dot com bubble.

1. require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
2. select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
3. cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
4. limit the terms of all committee chairs;
5. ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
6. require committee meetings to be open to the public;
7. require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
8. guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Why did you leave out the most important part of the Republican Contract On America that DEREGULATED Arthur Anderson and resulted in the ENRON ponzi scheme, Worldcom, etc?

Enron and Anderson broke the law. It had nothing to do with the GOP or its contract with america.

do you dem/libs ever not lie?

BZZZT Wrong!

They didn't break the laws they wrote for themselves in the Contract On America because they had DEREGULATED them.

The laws they broke were after the collapse when they started shredding documentation that was subject to subpoena by the authorities.

 

[Carla_Danger]

When the store was built, the majority could buy a coat. And if someone builds a coat store when there is no demand, they deserve to go out of business.

You're just moving the goal posts wherever you want.

That's how it works with demand. When people have money, they spend it.

 

[Iceweasel]

If I'm such a shitty business owner, who can't afford to pay my help, then I would deserve to go out of business.

Walmart can and should pay their help better. Tax payers and now footing the bill, feeding their employees, since Walmart won't. This is why we need to raise the minimum wage, at least to $10 an hour.

The taxpayers are and legislators are making part time work more attractive to business owners with their over regulation of the market. WalMart's cost will be passed on to the consumer so you aren't helping them. And most aren't making minimum wage anyway.

 

[Dad2three]

Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


1%er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution

Though Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board. Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism – often called “trickle-down economics” – saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying “These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.”


1 er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead To Violent Class Revolution FDL News Desk

 

[Derideo_Te]

national defense is the number one priority of the government

Where does it say that defense is the #1 priority in the Constitution?

It says to "provide for the common defense" in the Constitution and I personally assigned the priority number one. Without defending the Republic from enemies, both foreign and domestic, there would be no need for the rest of the Constitution since the Republic would no longer exist.

Name all of the "enemies, both foreign and domestic" that are a current existential threat to the nation and while you are at it list the damage they could inflict and which agencies are tasked with preventing that damage.

 

[Iceweasel]

That's how it works with demand. When people have money, they spend it.

Exactly. Let's lower taxes so they will have more money.