Occupy Wall Street

[Comish]

They aren't hiring because it wouldn't be profitable to the businesses despite helping out the unemployed.

 

 

 

 

Are you insinuating that the primary role of starting/running/expanding a business is to create jobs?

 

We may not want to acknowledge it, but the primary instigator of starting/running/expanding a business is to create a profit. Certainly, an ancillary benefit to the s/r/e is providing jobs and, (if it applies, and by extension) helping the unemployed.

 

But the notion that it is altruism as a motivator that prods someone to undertake the considerable risk and liability that ensues with the launch of a private venture is simply untrue in the majority of cases.

 

Capitalism can offer numerous benefits, but not if emotionalism supercedes business decisions.

 

Nope, I am not insinuating that the primary goals of business is to create jobs. Their goal is to turn a profit by any legal means possible, of which one is hiring enough workers to where they have the highest productivity with the lowest costs.

 

The jobs aren't there because:

 

A) Businesses are operating to where they turn the best profit. We have too many people so naturally there aren't enough jobs to provide for all the workers.

 

B) Businesses are handcuffed by a minimum wage law and inflation so hiring more workers would put them in the hole [which would be stupid on their part].

 

 

That is what I'm insinuating

 

Good insinuating.......................but an even better sig line......................

[It'sNotAFakeID]

A further point: There will never be 0% unemployment. There will always be those who are unemployed.

[johnnyrodgers20]

So in your little mind, freedom should not be fought for if there is a cost to it?

 

Ah we don't need anywise ass cracks from you just the facts!!! And you should know what the term little means!!

 

So you're OK with freedom going by the wayside, if there is a cost to it.

 

And lost in your little answer is the hypocrisy of it all. If it is free for OWS it should be free for the tea party. The cost should be the same Einstein!!

 

The Tea Party has corporate money to back it up.

 

That is not the point!! The point is even OWS gets it and that is everyone should be treated the same!! BUT you can't handle that because the tea party is not for your causes. So don't paint me with the letting freedom go by the wayside when you don't even believe in freedom.

[carlfense]

Approximately 1.9 million veterans are unemployed.

 

They should "go get a job" right after they "take a bath."

 

(Hopefully the insert sarcasm here emoticon is not needed.)

[carlfense]

Really? 'Handcuffed by minimum wage laws?' Really? I would love to hear the argument for paying a full time worker less than $15,000 a year. Why don't we just do like China and give you a nice shiny quarter for a day's work so the greedy SOB in the boardroom can take that other $57.75 for that 8 hour day and shove it in his pocket?

That greedy SOB cut costs and increased profits! We should give him a multi-million dollar bonus.

[johnnyrodgers20]

I am sure nobody noticed that the freeloaders expressing their freedoms were a drain on the economy of the cities.

 

So in your little mind, freedom should not be fought for if there is a cost to it?

 

I also noticed you don't mind someone abusing his power if it is in your interest. Remember that when you are crying about your assertion that the pubs abusing their power in the house or senate!!

[Sub-Husker]

So in your little mind, freedom should not be fought for if there is a cost to it?

 

Ah we don't need anywise ass cracks from you just the facts!!! And you should know what the term little means!!

 

So you're OK with freedom going by the wayside, if there is a cost to it.

 

And lost in your little answer is the hypocrisy of it all. If it is free for OWS it should be free for the tea party. The cost should be the same Einstein!!

 

The Tea Party has corporate money to back it up.

 

That is not the point!! The point is even OWS gets it and that is everyone should be treated the same!! BUT you can't handle that because the tea party is not for your causes. So don't paint me with the letting freedom go by the wayside when you don't even believe in freedom.

 

OWS is about civil disobedience and fighting against the status quo... you don't get a permit to demonstrate indefinately in a park.

 

The Tea Party was about having rallies that lasted a few hours, that supported the interests of the staus quo.

[Sub-Husker]

I am sure nobody noticed that the freeloaders expressing their freedoms were a drain on the economy of the cities.

 

So in your little mind, freedom should not be fought for if there is a cost to it?

 

I also noticed you don't mind someone abusing his power if it is in your interest. Remember that when you are crying about your assertion that the pubs abusing their power in the house or senate!!

 

Who am I supporting that is abusing their power?

 

A demonstrator who is protesting in a park against the unsonstitutional abuse of power by banks and corporations?

 

Yeah, that's the one. They may even be demonstrating with the benefit of money or items that I donated!

[johnnyrodgers20]

So in your little mind, freedom should not be fought for if there is a cost to it?

 

Ah we don't need anywise ass cracks from you just the facts!!! And you should know what the term little means!!

 

So you're OK with freedom going by the wayside, if there is a cost to it.

 

And lost in your little answer is the hypocrisy of it all. If it is free for OWS it should be free for the tea party. The cost should be the same Einstein!!

 

The Tea Party has corporate money to back it up.

 

That is not the point!! The point is even OWS gets it and that is everyone should be treated the same!! BUT you can't handle that because the tea party is not for your causes. So don't paint me with the letting freedom go by the wayside when you don't even believe in freedom.

 

OWS is about civil disobedience and fighting against the status quo... you don't get a permit to demonstrate indefinately in a park.

 

The Tea Party was about having rallies that lasted a few hours, that supported the interests of the staus quo.

 

 

It was about trying to change the big govt and it is not in the interest of the status quo or the dems wouldn't be so vehemently opposed to them.

 

The fact of the matter is either you let the tea party rally for free or you change the way you treat the OWS you can't have it both ways.

 

And you are still dodging the fact that the mayor of Richmond was using his power to intimidate the tea party. So are you in favor of abuse of power or aren't you?

[johnnyrodgers20]

I am sure nobody noticed that the freeloaders expressing their freedoms were a drain on the economy of the cities.

 

So in your little mind, freedom should not be fought for if there is a cost to it?

 

I also noticed you don't mind someone abusing his power if it is in your interest. Remember that when you are crying about your assertion that the pubs abusing their power in the house or senate!!

 

Who am I supporting that is abusing their power?

 

A demonstrator who is protesting in a park against the unsonstitutional abuse of power by banks and corporations?

 

Yeah, that's the one. They may even be demonstrating with the benefit of money or items that I donated!

 

 

Are you even following along? The mayor of Richmond audited the tea party when they showed their invoice to the city. Pretty shady for a mayor to do.

[Sub-Husker]

It was about trying to change the big govt and it is not in the interest of the status quo or the dems wouldn't be so vehemently opposed to them.

 

The only challenge the Tea Party wants to make to big government is to cut social programs and to eliminate regulations, but will continue with the wars. Exactly what the banks and corporations want.

 

The fact of the matter is either you let the tea party rally for free or you change the way you treat the OWS you can't have it both ways.

 

How would OWS get a permit for civil disobedience?

 

And you are still dodging the fact that the mayor of Richmond was using his power to intimidate the tea party. So are you in favor of abuse of power or aren't you?

 

How specifically did the Mayor of Richmond use his power to intimidate the Tea Party?

[johnnyrodgers20]

It was about trying to change the big govt and it is not in the interest of the status quo or the dems wouldn't be so vehemently opposed to them.

 

The only challenge the Tea Party wants to make to big government is to cut social programs and to eliminate regulations, but will continue with the wars. Exactly what the banks and corporations want.

 

From what I understand they want a balanced budget I haven't heard anyone from the tea party promoting wars. Show me a link please!

 

The fact of the matter is either you let the tea party rally for free or you change the way you treat the OWS you can't have it both ways.

 

How would OWS get a permit for civil disobedience?

 

I didn't say they needed a permit I said they should be treated equal if they do not need a permit then the tea party shouldn't need one either!!

 

And you are still dodging the fact that the mayor of Richmond was using his power to intimidate the tea party. So are you in favor of abuse of power or aren't you?

 

How specifically did the Mayor of Richmond use his power to intimidate the Tea Party?

 

You figure it out you the smart one. As soon as the tea party gave them an invoice and asking for their money back he used the power of the local govt to audit them. I am sure if it was a Pub doing this your precious Maddow will have figured it out by now!!

[Sub-Husker]

You figure it out you the smart one.

 

Grammar, spelling and punctuation can be your friend.

 

As soon as the tea party gave them an invoice and asking for their money back he used the power of the local govt to audit them.

 

Audits are an abuse of power?

 

I am sure if it was a Pub doing this your precious Maddow will have figured it out by now!!

 

What facts to you base your assured opinion on?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

If you don't understand what I meant by "being handcuffed by minimum wage laws" I'll explain it to you:

 

Businesses, to turn the best profit want to hire cheap and produce a lot. They want to hire for cheaper than $7.50 [i think that's minimum wage]. Because government has a forced minimum wage law, companies cut down their workers because if they just hired willy nilly they would end up losing money [which isn't exactly the point of business].

 

So they cut workers or send jobs overseas. Low supply, high demand. You do the math.

[Sub-Husker]

If you don't understand what I meant by "being handcuffed by minimum wage laws" I'll explain it to you:

 

Businesses, to turn the best profit want to hire cheap and produce a lot. They want to hire for cheaper than $7.50 [i think that's minimum wage]. Because government has a forced minimum wage law, companies cut down their workers because if they just hired willy nilly they would end up losing money [which isn't exactly the point of business].

 

So they cut workers or send jobs overseas. Low supply, high demand. You do the math.

 

What should our minimum wage be?

 

If we put tariffs on certain goods, should we also put tariffs of foreign labor?