Thank you, Quazi!
I don't have a link, because it was a flyer that they handed out at a campaign event I attended. It had a little man in a hard-hat on it who looked like Bob the Builder emphasizing that the EFCA didn't ban open shops, and that it wouldn't be used to create closed shops. I doubt that's strictly true, but the moral hyperventilating on the subject is incredibly annoying.
I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent mad-redeemer (your Divine Democrat your Hebrew Madman) and write over his thorn-torn brow, The true prince of Evil the king of the Slaves!
- Ragnar Redbeard, Might Is Right, 1890
He isn't threatening to fire anyone for voting for Pres. Obama though.
He's simply acknowledging that if Pres. Obama raises taxes as planned he will have no choice but to fire employees. In other words: no duh.
What did you think he was going to do? Operate at a loss and just pay these people out of his own pocket?
I don't understand why this is even remotely controversial.
However, though it would piss me off as an employee, an employer's threat to take his toys and go home if Obama is re-elected (leaving me without a job), it's well within his/her rights to close up shop whenever and for virtually whatever reason they wish.
President Obama and Democrats have built their message around the populist idea that wealthy business owners and executives need to be socked real good but the inevitable - and I stress inevitable - outcome will be a loss of jobs and that is all this guy said. He did not say he is firing employees who vote for the POTUS and saying otherwise is simply a lie.
employees are not hired or fired based on tax rate or taxes paid
the taxes are paid on taxable income
income generated by the employee
the business which terminates employees because taxes/tax rates will be higher is not making an economically defensible decision
that person is only terminating employees who were generating the revenues upon which tax was ultimately paid
in short, it is a very stupid premise