Simple Message for the Day: Corporations sitting on cash? Not Hiring?

[ShockediSay]

Hell they're using their cash to hire Republican/Tea Party Legislators, staff and lobbyists so the Big Money Corporate Boss Billionaires won't pay their taxes!

[bluestateguy]

1. I view it as unpatriotic and un-American

If they loved this country they would contribute to its recovery by stepping up hiring.

We renewed the Bush tax cuts they wanted, now it's time for them to do their part.

[PSPS]

3. There's no reason to hire if nobody is buying

Only direct federal hiring in very large numbers will start the economy running again. Regardless of the amount of cash a company has on hand, they're not going to hire people to sit around idle. Only demand can spur hiring. In fact, one could say that it's "employed people" who are the real "job creators" since they're the only source of demand.

[bluestateguy]

4. If they hire people, they create buyers, they create demand

Again, corporate balance sheets are not my concern here.

[Curmudgeoness]

5. A catch-22. If they never hire, there will never be consumers.

But why hire if they don't need the employees. And they don't need employees because they have the ones who are still there doing three people's jobs.

I guess that workers will just have to stop working so hard to try to keep up all the workload they are under. But that is another catch-22, isn't it?

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Yes ,Gore lost the election and we lost the war.

Our fear & greed , they profit.

[XanaDUer]

6. Is that a picture of Smedley Butler?

Your avatar?

[orpupilofnature57]

7. Yes it is

[demwing]

8. If corporations, sitting on trillions, can't "afford" to hire

then the Federal government should Nationalize these entities, start hiring people, and downsizing CEOs.

[hughee99]

10. The government should just seize companies, for being "un-american"

I can think of no better precedent to set than giving the government the authority to do that. What could possibly go wrong with this. :sarcasm:

On the other hand, I wonder how long it will take under the government's stewardship for not only the new hires to lose their jobs, but for that company's existing employees to be out of work too.

[demwing]

11. those were YOUR words

but they fit.

What I was saying is that corporations that enjoy the benefits of American protection, but act against the economic security of the United States should be Nationalized in the defense of the country.

Would you allow someone to live in your home, eat you food, use your resources, but refuse to pay rent? What if they were actively trying to bankrupt you so that they could steal all your assets?

What would you do?

[hughee99]

12. So a company that doesn't spend it's cash reserves

to hire people that it doesn't need is acting against the "economic security of the United states" and deserves to have it's assets seized (or be "nationalized"). Do individuals deserve the same treatment? I have some money saved up, am I acting against the economic security of the US?

Is it a companies responsibility to do what's best for the country even if it's not what's best for the investors? If you have someone living in your home, do you have the right to just take whatever they may own because they're not acting in YOUR best economic interests?

[demwing]

13. "Is it a companies responsibility to do what's best for the country...

...even if it's not what's best for the investors?"

Yes.

If doing what is best for the country is going to hurt investors, then the investors are investing in the failure of this country. That means they are investing in the failure of you, me, our children, and hundreds of millions of others as well.

Fuck them.

[hughee99]

14. Is this true of individuals as well?

Do they also only exist to serve the "greater good"? Are individuals who are saving money also investing in the failure of the country?

[demwing]

15. no.

Companies and corporations are not individuals

[hughee99]

16. You might want to check with the courts on that

Much to our collective detriment, the seem to be getting closer and closer with each ruling.

[LadyInAZ]

9. I said it bfore...

Its like they are waiting on "something" to hire americans back to work. laughs... as if profit will raise when unemployment is higher then normal.