We may all live in a great big global community, but in my Blog, it's my world.
Elections have consequences, as evidenced here:
... but then again, as always there are unintended consequences in everything we do.
I'm not gonna take the approach that this alleged business owner doesn't have a right to do what is reported to have been done here.  Nor would I argue that his employees don't have the right to vote for whomever they wish.  I find the concept of what is reportedly happening here interesting in that there's absolutely no guarantee that the employees that are/were let go because of the re-election of President Obama were Obama voters/supporters.  It is hard to know for sure, assuming that the business owner wasn't filming the votes actually being cast, who the employees were voting for, or whom they were supporting.  They all might very well have been telling any and everyone they knew to NOT vote for President Obama as it would cost them their jobs if those votes were cast.
I do have to note that I found it fascinating that Nevada broke for Obama given the incredibly high unemployment in that state, but hey, that is the same state the keeps sending Harry Reid back to wreak havoc upon the entire country, so it shouldn't be that surprising.  As a co-worker tells me, there's a ton of union involvement in Nevada and the unions still believe their bread is buttered by the Democrat party, so it shouldn't be that surprising that even with sky high unemployment and a devastated housing/real estate market, that state wasn't winnable by Romney.

Here's where the unintended consequences come into play though.  Lets say that business owner did as reported and jettisoned 22 employees.  What has he he wound up doing?  Think about it...  ok, that should be enough time to figure it out.  What he has done is send the immediate message that elections have consequences.  Most definitely.  He has also unfortunately potentially placed the burden of those 22 employees right back on himself and his employees.  If those employees don't find new jobs, they'll become a part of the entitled "47%" and they'll wind up sucking up unemployment benefits and eventually enjoy free health care compliments of Obamacare -- paid for, of course, by those in the 53% (that continues to be whittled down it seems) that continue to have jobs and continue to pay not just their share, but theirs and a good part of the 47%'s share of the tax burden for all of the benefits life in this country has to offer.

Let me be clear here - I hope that total damage that is done here is placed much more heavily upon the lazy elements of the 47%.  I hope that the damage that I think may soon be unleashed upon us all is just as painful, if not much more painful for the people that are watching others carry the load.  I don't mind helping my fellow citizens, but I fully expect that able bodied people will be put to work.  Something that seems to continue to be lost in our increasingly entitled society.

As I heard discussed on talk radio yesterday, we seem to be heading in the path of the failed economies of many of those in the European Union, apparently unable to recognize that our friends in Europe had it very wrong, as evidenced by their own economic failures and increasing instability in that region.  Apparently our leadership is too stupid or ignorant to recognize that, but hey, they're just doing what the electorate told them to, no?

on Nov 08, 2012

You misconstrued what he was doing and saying.  He did not fire those 22 out of spite.  I suspect, like most small businesses, he was holding on to them hoping for a change.  When the change did not materialize, he let them go.  He is looking for the survival of his company.  regardless of who picks up the tab, he has to balance costs with revenue.  period.  He does not have the luxury of Obama to run up never ending debt,  No private company does.  And that is why so many fail.

Those 22 may become part of the 47%.  If so, they were already a part.  The 53% go out and get another job.  You and I know that.  We have been there.

I think the news station may have been trying to make a point of pettiness.  But it is clear from the business owner, that he was suffering losses and hoping not to lay anyone off until the results were undeniable.  And his story is about to be repeated.  The double dip recession is not coming.  It has been here for the past 3 months.  Say hello to the new normal. 

It is also not unprecedented.  We saw it 80 years ago.  That was a series of recessions with aborted recoveries due to smothering government policies.

on Nov 08, 2012

Hey Terp!

I totally agree with the business owner.  He has every right to reduce his employees to reign in costs.

How does he know who voted which way?  Most of the Obama-bots in my life are PROUD of the fact they voted for BO.  I can't imagine it is much different anywhere else.

As for letting employees go so they can become tax supported moochers....well, I can almost guarantee the stress and unhappiness of a formerly employed person, even on unemployment, is high.  And the length of unemployment benefits is getting smaller.

I am personally done pretending it is ok to mooch off the gov. because we're a land of plenty.

For able bodied adults, I like the Biblical view.

Those who don't work, don't eat.

» 523
» 2
Sponsored Links