Tea Party: Hurt the President, don't hire

[5thHorseman]

We, in the UK, let the elected government do what they are elected to do. If we don't like it, we don't elect them next time. If we don't like something we protest, unlike your protests, we number up to 500000, not 1000 in Wall Street.

Why fuck the economy to spite yourself? Just vote differently next time! How does the tea party and other sorts not get this?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, let's say your president is a very good liar. And has a large portion of the population sheepishly follow him.
You try to show them the truth.
These guys are showing the public that Obama cannot solve the problem of unemployment, because it is these guys who actually have the power to employ people, not Obama.
Unless Obama implements policies to nationalize various enterprises(or create new ones), there is nothing he can do about it.

[5thHorseman]

'These guys are showing the public that Obama cannot solve the problem of unemployment'

Pretty sure it's the republicans stopping everything in congress, not Obama, that is the problem.

[kılıç_mehmet]

'These guys are showing the public that Obama cannot solve the problem of unemployment'

Pretty sure it's the republicans stopping everything in congress, not Obama, that is the problem.

Well, even if they didn't, America's economy is centered around the private business system. So if the businesses think that they do not need to hire anymore people, they won't.
Those people who protest are probably people who are not in need of more employees, as you cannot run a business without reaching a bare minimum of employees to get the operation running.
If you employ less, you'll produce/sell less, if you employ more, you have to pay more wages.
That's also the case for bigger corporations. If two corporations are merged, many people will in return, become unemployed(but are being compensated for it depending on their business contracts), but that's just how it works down there.
So what can Obama actually do to decrease unemployment?
He has to create new jobs. And how do you create new jobs?
In here, it generally falls down to either Government investments, like state-owned factories, farms and etc. or foreign/domestic investors.

And since America is a capitalist country, if the domestic businesses cannot afford, or do not need to invest anymore, it falls to foreign investors to create jobs.
And to lure foreign investors requires for some major changes in tax policies and etc.(which would probably not allow for the healthcare reforms that he was expected to make).

[paintpooper]

The Tea Party still thinks that tax cuts on wealthy create jobs.

If I make 10 TV's a day and only can sell 10 TV's a day, and my profits go from 1000, to 10,000 due to tax brakes, how does that create a job? It doesn't. I'm still only able to sell 10 TV's a day, so I wouldn't hire additional people to produce more TV's with my extra tax brake monies.

Obama should nationalize the banking system.

[The Grand Nudger]

Showing someone that they cannot solve a problem that you have intentionally created knowing full well the limits of the persons position in the first place proves exactly what? Obama can't cure cancer either, worthless motherfucker.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Showing someone that they cannot solve a problem that you have intentionally created knowing full well the limits of the persons position in the first place proves exactly what? Obama can't cure cancer either, worthless motherfucker.

I don't think that those guys out there, who protest are the root cause for all ills that befall America.
Like, why aren't the companies who supported Obama during his campaign helping him to solve the problem of unemployment?
And now you expect me to believe that these guys who are probably not in the need to hire more employees, are the causes of unemployment?

Let's think about where unemployment actually arises from:
1-You are not qualified enough to work somewhere.
2-Supply&Demand. There is no more demand for someone who is in your line of work.
3-You are too lazy.

These are the only ones I can think of. Like no one refuses to hire people, unless they are in need of employees.
This is true in case for free enterprises.
What about governmental ones? Well, if the state had any investment in it, than, it'd feel compelled to hire you, however, not for the best of wages.
But since (higher)education in the US is not under the regulation and sponsorship of the US government, it does not feel compelled to hire you in place of a more experienced someone. So you have to go and earn experience in low-level private owned enterprises who help young graduates to do so.
That's how it generally works out.
But if you are like..someone who lacks in qualification, where do you hope to go?

[paintpooper]

McDonalds

[Anymouse]

The further these maniacs go to the right the further they take themselves out of the mainstream - they simplify Obama's problem.

This could simplify the problem of some businesses. Everyone who is opposed to the Tea Party Express movement ought support this movement:

If a business refuses to hire, yet loses people through natural attrition, it certainly cannot grow its business, nor even maintain it. They get the business equivalent of a Darwin Award.

Businesses who do not follow along with this nonsense, however, get an opportunity to hire qualified and exceptional employees with less competition. They can replace attrition, and grow their businesses without that competition.

At the same time, those businesses have a bully-pulpit from which to advertise: The Tea Party business-owners not interested in helping you find work nor grow your communities, but we are. Come work and shop with us.

The "anti-Obama" platform seems to work for certain obstructionists; why not an "anti-Tea Party" platform for progressive business? (Or at least businesses that wish to stay in business.)

James