Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: Favorite displays of conservative outrage following the election

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,071


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Miss_1565 View Post
    Rather, the manager didn't want to *pay* for more people working on the problem. One of the main problems I have with conservative policy towards business is this idea that they will work towards the common good to create jobs, when they'll only do something that's in someone's interest other than its own if they are incentivized to by funding or by force of new regulations.
    That's classic stuff right there. Not only short sighted, but actually pretty ignorant. Business has a basic montra and this is as a going concern. You assume that the business is there for the long term and capable of carrying o beyond the forseeable future. You begin to over-regulate or make unrealistic demands/expectations, you take the GC principle and piss on it. Of course the business is there for the basic benefit of its owner(s). That's why THEY took the risk and opened a business. That is why THEY hold the risk and manage it as best they can. For their benefit. It is not a communal risk generally. But you want communal benefits where the owner(s) assume all the risk. Your living in fantasy land.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    13,832


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOTO13 View Post
    That's classic stuff right there. Not only short sighted, but actually pretty ignorant. Business has a basic montra and this is as a going concern. You assume that the business is there for the long term and capable of carrying o beyond the forseeable future. You begin to over-regulate or make unrealistic demands/expectations, you take the GC principle and piss on it. Of course the business is there for the basic benefit of its owner(s). That's why THEY took the risk and opened a business. That is why THEY hold the risk and manage it as best they can. For their benefit. It is not a communal risk generally. But you want communal benefits where the owner(s) assume all the risk. Your living in fantasy land.
    So why do you live in a fantasy world where business owners who have assumed all the risk are creating jobs out of the goodness of their hearts and love of country so how dare we try to make sure they're not fucking over the people they hire because they're looking out for their bottom line?
    I am part of a degenerate elite
    Dragging our society into the street



  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,071


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Miss_1565 View Post
    So why do you live in a fantasy world where business owners who have assumed all the risk are creating jobs out of the goodness of their hearts and love of country so how dare we try to make sure they're not fucking over the people they hire because they're looking out for their bottom line?
    Are these questions going to get any more simplistic with you? How the hell do you even wake up in the morning and not swallow your own tongue.

    How do you assume all owners fuck over their employees? You make gigantic assumptions when you are basically incorrect. How many people do you employ?

    Without a healthy bottom line, meaning profit, you simply cannot plan for the future. You cannot hire anyone. You live day to day at best. You need healthy profit to have sinking funds for replacement of expensive machinery, you need to fund pensions, you need to be liquid to have any chance of being a viable business. Profit, that word that you'd just as soon piss all over, is VITAL to carrying on a business. Without a healthy bottom line, there are ZERO employees.

    Anyone who wants to make more money can. The amount they can make (or give away in your case) is unlimited. Go take the risk and open a successful business. Just getting a new business past the planning and zoning stage can be a monumental task in itself in the current climate.

  4. #44


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Miss_1565 View Post
    Rather, the manager didn't want to *pay* for more people working on the problem. One of the main problems I have with conservative policy towards business is this idea that they will work towards the common good to create jobs, when they'll only do something that's in someone's interest other than its own if they are incentivized to by funding or by force of new regulations.
    Of course businesses don't create jobs for the common good, that would be asinine! Why not hire twice as many employees as you need (it's for the common good right?), it'll work out real well for everyone, when the lack of profits puts all the employees out of work.

    I don't go to work everyday because I want to feed my lazy neighbor. Do you?

    My outrage wasn't that Obama won, either side is just as bad, it's more a matter of velocity!

    We really need to get back to the ideas of freedom, and states rights, which a big federal government is the antithesis of. Both sides love it when their side is in power, inflating the size and scope of the federal government, but squirm when they see they now larger fed in the hands of the other side. But in truth both sides have the teeth firmly embedded into the corpse of this great nation, sucking out whatever they can to buy another term in power.

    Whats the big deal with allowing the states to be as liberal(big government) or conservative as they like?
    Why is California, Colorado, or Washington, a pariah because they voted to legalize pot?
    Whats wrong with letting mormons have multiple wives, or Massachusetts gay's get married?
    The beauty of states rights is you can leave, and vote with your feet if a state gets too fucked up!

    I've never heard of a tyrannical small government, just sayin.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •