It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Clinton: "Don't Let Anybody Tell You Corporations Create Jobs"

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Don't let these deliberate 'mis-direction' posts throw this off thread topic.

Hillary's comment is a flagrant lie. Business and corporations, obviously, OBVIOUSLY. produce jobs.

The scary part of all this is that populace that buys into it!!

Fair, equal and justice. the three greatest lies of all time.....




posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

what's that got to do with her being on the board and not voice her opinion on unions one way or the other.
if she was so concerned with the people that worked for a big major corporation, she should have said something good, bad or indifferent.

instead she sat silently, saying nothing. to me that speaks louder than words.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: badgerprints

hmm.. her background...



she served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans;[17][18] with this Rockefeller Republican-oriented group,[19] she supported the elections of John Lindsay and Edward Brooke.[20] She later stepped down from this position, as her views changed regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War.


there was that bit about her becoming


a mind conservative and a heart liberal


which is sappy BS if I've ever heard it.

wait I think I'm getting to the part on the wikipedia page you're really citing,

she worked at a law-firm with two communist-party members, or ex-communists-party-members anyway...
eh..

she served on one of the investigative panels during the whole nixon/watergate-shebang.

not really enough to prove she's some kind of "spooky socialist". She might have had a stereotypically left-wing youth, in the 1960's. More recently though (1980's) she was a figure of the "new left" (neoliberalism with a dash of progressive-flavoring added). She seemed mostly to push for feminist-issues throughout the 1980's and 1990's.

Feminism is acceptable to neo-lib(backers) since it's progressive/left wing, but doesn't focus on economic issues.
the same can be said for LGBT-rights. Both channel Activists away from Economic issues(such as economic inequality), and have the added benefit of "culture-war"!

though I get labeled a "brocialist" (bro-socialist= misogynistic male socialist) by feminists for saying this sort of thing.
edit on 25-10-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Shes not wrong, at all.

Trickle down has not, does not, and never will work. Even its architects admit that.


Corporate interest is in ELIMINATING jobs, not creating them.

edit on 25-10-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
A lot of companies out there are trying to replace jobs with robots in recent years. Take BNSF railroad, for example. They are trying to replace all of the human conductors on the trains with robotic drones that will "do the job faster, etc., etc." They want to phase out all of the human conductors eventually. I don't have a source on that, but if you search the web, you will find where the people that are conductors are complaining about it.

I don't think corporations are primarily concerned about creating jobs. If it is more profitable in the long-run, corporations would much rather have robots working for them. It's happened in so many industries, primarily in manufacturing. With all the black projects and secret stuff, I say we should be using the humans that are called "excess" and start using them to do things like making mines on the moon and colonizing Mars. We COULD be there already....



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Hillary is a corporate fascist like a lot of our past presidents and politicians.
Her support for Walmart and our foreign and economics policies speaks volumes about where her loyalty lies and it is not with the majority of American people.

She is pulling a hope and change slogan



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
The rich do not create jobs -- it is the masses with disposable income and demand that create jobs.

You can throw tax cuts at the rich, but we've seen that just because they profit more they don't create more jobs.

Jobs are only created when an increase in demand for a product goes up. A demand for a product only goes up when people have the money to spend.

I've said this a gazillion times. The middle class is the foundation for the top 1%. If they kill the middle class, they're only short changing themselves.

You won't have any customers when you've horded all the money to yourself. Tax cuts don't = re-investment and new jobs. Why is this? If there's no demand, there's no new jobs. Corporations don't just create new jobs out of thin air because their profit margins are bigger due to tax cuts and low labor costs. If they don't have paying customers -- there's no need.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Think rich, then vote republican. Then when you hit the unemployment line, the governments says," Sorry, don't expect a hand out from us. You are on your own. No one to blame but yourself."

Unless you have a very innovative idea that people will back, it takes over $100k to start a business.

Not sure why people hate the Clintons. The country was very prosperous when Bill Clinton was president.
edit on 25-10-2014 by eManym because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

If there wasn't a demand for the product or service that your corporation provides, you wouldn't have a job.

If no one has any money to pay for whatever product or service your corporation provides, they will go out of business and you will loose your job.

The masses that have disposable income to spend on goods and service dictate how many jobs are needed in any economy. If demand is down, layoffs will happen. When demand goes up, more manpower is needed to fill the demand and jobs are created.

Initially yes, corporations do create jobs -- but over the life of a corporation, it is the masses that directly dictate how much manpower and labor is needed.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Corporations look for the most profit potential. The human factor is a liability. Cheap labor that requires no benefits and automation seems to be the norm.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: badgerprints


wait I think I'm getting to the part on the wikipedia page you're really citing,



I rarely wiki politics. Too many self appointed experts.

I was thinking of a political show on her background that I saw back in the 90's.
20/20, 60 minutes or something like that.

Her voting record has some influence in my opinion as well.

I also remember an appearance she made when she started parroting the Marxist line of government providing "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" blather which was quickly hushed up when even the left got kinda antsy.

She's a socialist politician.
"Me rich, you voter. Spread the wealth...as long as it's coming from the middle class."


edit on 25-10-2014 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yeah. There's a lot more to job creation than just a corporation starting one up. The whole economy has to be considered. But, to say, "corporations don't create jobs", is false.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: guohua

Consumers create jobs not the wealthy.

People buying tv's computer's and cell phones, tax breaks create nothing but more inequality.


The butcher of Benghasi giving economics lessons how's that for intelligence. And speaking of intelligence just where do you think consumers get the cash to consume. Ah could it be from their labor? and who do they provide that labor to? Could it be businesses who produce goods and services and provide wages so that consumers can consume Judging from the stars this comment received it would appear that we have a disturbing number of economic geniuses who agree with Hill the killer. Get a job.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
The biggest employer in the United States are small business, not corporations.

Small businesses employ WAY more people, and treat them way, way better.

That would fall under businesses ... the people she says do NOT create jobs.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001
Hillary is a corporate fascist like a lot of our past presidents and politicians.
Her support for Walmart and our foreign and economics policies speaks volumes about where her loyalty lies and it is not with the majority of American people.

She is pulling a hope and change slogan

at the risk of sounding rude, NO DUH.

That doesnt make her statement any less true.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Shes not wrong, at all.

Trickle down has not, does not, and never will work. Even its architects admit that.


Corporate interest is in ELIMINATING jobs, not creating them.

Umm corporate interests are to run a business which means either hiring workers or automating their positions if possible. Who else is going to be hiring workers? The NEED to fill positions to produce a product or service is the reason anybody gets hired. What Hillary is saying is she thinks the government would be a better corporation than private corporations. The NEED to fill positions would be present, but APPARENTLY the government would choose not to automate positions or to treat their workers as slaves. I guess you just have to trust Hillary that the government will have us in their best interests, despite the enormous evidence to the contrary.

What hurts job growth is too many regulations. The money may not filter down to the poor if the business is run out of the country. There's also the overgrown beauracracy. A business can lose everything if the ice cream was too cold or somebody left the fridge open. It's a hostile environment for a business. Businesses tend to save a lot of money as a result to protect themselves from the storm. I think this is a big reason company owners allocate a large income for themselves. They NEED it to do business successfully.
edit on 26-10-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

Workers are overhead for corporations.

With todays tech, corporations are looking to automate, eliminating jobs, thus eliminating overhead.

This is basic economics.

Small business has FAR more interest in hiring workers than corporations, as they dont have the deep pockets to be on the cutring edge of tech.

Again, basic economics.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Trickle down has not, does not, and never will work. Even its architects admit that.


When did Art Laffer, Jude Wanniski or Victor Canto say that?




edit on 26-10-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots
Small businesses don't use automation? No machines? No computers? No conveyer belts? Are you making a joke?

Comes down to the NEED to fill positions to produce a product or service. Small or big, it doesn't matter. So you advocate we should punish a larger business if they can afford better automation?

Seems to me we should blame computers and machines for filling positions, not blamie corporation. This is luddite philosophy.

You can be one of the first to start the revolution. Throw away the machiens and computers. Get a club and find the nearest cave. There'll be lots of work for everyone, if they're not dead.
edit on 26-10-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
Small business has FAR more interest in hiring workers than corporations, as they dont have the deep pockets to be on the cutring edge of tech.


Most small businesses are incorporated so I do not see a difference.

As for the automation aspect when we bought our first restaurant they were washing dishes by hand. We bought a dishwashing machine and automated the process.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join