• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs'

Hillary may be a lot of things, but she is not an idiot. Its obvious what she meant is that demand creates jobs. es.
lol.
If she thinks that then she's an idiot.

I think it's more a case where she has no clue about how businesses operate, but she does know what to say to the rubes.
 
There was no distortion.
She knows she effed up and she walked it back pretty quickly.
Reducing anything to a single line soundbite will distort the viewpoint. Or did you forget how Romney's 47%'er comments got twisted? For what it's worth I don't trust Hillary any farther than I can throw her and I view her policies even in context with disdane... but I don't need single line soundbites to determine whether I agree with her or not. I'm afraid we'll have to just agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Reducing anything to a single line soundbite will distort the viewpoint. Or did you forget how Romney's 47%'er comments got twisted? For what it's worth I don't trust Hillary any farther than I can throw her but I don't need single line soundbites to determine whether I agree with her or not.
As was noted at the time, the rest of her comments didn't bail her out.
 
I agree that her comments don't necessarily bail her out when it comes to those who don't agree with her take on trickle down economics, but on the same token I don't think it's really necessary to over do it. The most simple way I can state the opinion I have is that when we start complaining about the other party taking our words out of context, and then continue doing it ourselves, there is no real surprise when we are labeled as hypocrites. It's probably a little too idealistic to wish for that to disappear in politics of course.
 
Last edited:
The real truth of the matter is that you'll not be creating very many jobs without both demand and business.

That Hillary doubled down on such a ridiculous assertion that jobs aren't created by business does in fact show her to be pandering. Pandering to the far left, business hating part of the electorate. Like some of those that have posted here and made themselves be known. Something about an oral fixation and business if I recall.

Without a thriving and growing business segment an economy is sure to flounder and fail. Just have to look at what Communist Russia's economic performance.

Without demand, you've got nothing to drive business to invest and expand. So you can't really do without that either. Just look at the lagging demand of any recession, and you can see the downward economic spiral (demand lags, businesses lay off people, more demand lags, more businesses lay off people, lather, rinse, repeat).

The reverse work equally well. Demand increases, businesses invest and grow, creating even more demand, lather, rinse, repeat. And upward economic spiral.

The real pity here is that some some can't come to grips with the fact that both demand and business are required for the upward economic spiral, and pretty much give in to their partisan ideology and ignore that real facts here.

Further, it's also a real pity that some are so pro-union, that they seem to propound the crippling of business in favor of the union so much so that the business would die. I guess they've never come to the realization that the two are co-dependent, and that without one, you won't long have the other; that the Union in fact relies on the business to be there, healthy and profitable, so as to be able to afford union labor.

In both cases, it's a reasonably fair and reasonably equitable balance that it the best of all situations. Tilting too far from that reasonably fair and reasonably equitable balance and one of the parties involved will start to die, and directly affect the other with great detriment.

All true to a point but without a job and an income you can't buy anything so you demand nothing
 
Demand is an emotion...emotions cannot create anything.

Only a human can create jobs.

Hilary is wrong...and her context is irrelevant; her statement is factually impossible.

Public demand for products and services cretes jobs: Hilary is exactly right. Your post is senseless hairsplitting.
 
Just because this woman got through Yale Law School, it doesn't mean she knows **** from Shinola. Her notions about economics are embarrassingly stupid, and they reveal her for what she is at heart--a communist.
 
How far do you get when you hook the horse to the rear of the wagon and try to make it push

Without demand their are no jobs or products. Ask a blacksmith.
 
Without demand their are no jobs or products. Ask a blacksmith.

Was there a demand for NASCAR, or did someone create a product and market it? Job creation isn't driven strictly by demand.
 
Public demand for products and services cretes jobs: Hilary is exactly right. Your post is senseless hairsplitting.

sorry, but hillary got this one ALL wrong
yes, without demand - or potential for demand - there is no basis for the employee to be on the job
but that is not what she said
her erroneous statement was that businesses do not create jobs
then who the hell does?
your employee can make five widgets a day
demand is for six widgets daily
do you, the business owner, hire another employee because of the demand exceeding the first employee's capacity
or do you streamline how he performs and/or offer him overtime to fabricate the one extra widget that is needed
just to illustrate that additional demand does not always result in additional job creation
 
I agree that her comments don't necessarily bail her out when it comes to those who don't agree with her take on trickle down economics, but on the same token I don't think it's really necessary to over do it. The most simple way I can state the opinion I have is that when we start complaining about the other party taking our words out of context, and then continue doing it ourselves, there is no real surprise when we are labeled as hypocrites. It's probably a little too idealistic to wish for that to disappear in politics of course.

but her words were not taken out of context
she exhibited a lack of understanding about job creation when asserting that businesses do not create jobs
not a weakness we need in a presidential candidate
 
Public demand for products and services cretes jobs: Hilary is exactly right. Your post is senseless hairsplitting.

The public must be employed to demand anything unless of course they have their own business they earn money from. Either way business creates the wealth that allows demand
 
This is one of those WOW just WOW moments. Could this leftist really be our next pres?

"Appearing at a Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley on Friday, Hillary Clinton told the crowd gathered at the Park Plaza Hotel not to listen to anybody who says that “businesses create jobs.”

“Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs,” Clinton said.

Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs'

So long as we only vote for the republocrats, then yes, of course she could be our next president.
 
Was there a demand for NASCAR, or did someone create a product and market it? Job creation isn't driven strictly by demand.

There certainly was a demand for NASCAR or it wouldn't exist now would it...
 
There certainly was a demand for NASCAR or it wouldn't exist now would it...

There's a demand, now, someone created a product and marketted it.
 
This is one of those WOW just WOW moments. Could this leftist really be our next pres?

"Appearing at a Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley on Friday, Hillary Clinton told the crowd gathered at the Park Plaza Hotel not to listen to anybody who says that “businesses create jobs.”

“Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs,” Clinton said.

Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs'

Ya... apparently only government can create jobs.

What's amazing was that the entire crowd agreed with her too... Where's the kid to point out that the (wanna be) emperor had no clothes.



Another thread on this, and as pointed out in that thread, it is a quote taken out of context. She is referring to "trickle down economics", or as it is referred to now since trickle down failed, "supply side economics"

Ok... you seem to have said this with a straight face.

First, your explanation does not make her statement any more valid.

Second, the context is clear and not misrepresented.

Third, she backed off of those comments, she did not try to explain the "proper context", she backed away. She KNOWS she was laying it on thick and got called on it.
 
And if you actually consider that past a talking point, she's absolutely right. Demand by consumers (whether they be other businesses or individuals or MIC) create the need for more product or service and then the business fills that need with more employees. DEMAND by CONSUMERS creates jobs, and not a damned thing else.

Who hires people when consumers create demand? Even Karl Marx knew this. :2wave:
 
No business no jobs no jobs no demand. What do people with no jobs use for money?

Oh please. You just want Hilary to be wrong; but public demand for products and services is what creates jobs and businesses.
 
sorry, but hillary got this one ALL wrong
yes, without demand - or potential for demand - there is no basis for the employee to be on the job
but that is not what she said
her erroneous statement was that businesses do not create jobs
then who the hell does?
your employee can make five widgets a day
demand is for six widgets daily
do you, the business owner, hire another employee because of the demand exceeding the first employee's capacity
or do you streamline how he performs and/or offer him overtime to fabricate the one extra widget that is needed
just to illustrate that additional demand does not always result in additional job creation

This is sort of a re-do of Obama's (businessmen) "don't do it alone". And they don't: usually they go through banks etc for loans: sometimes - a lot of times - through government loans, they have to have people to help get them up and running etc. Hillary's point is that businesses don't create jobs - out of thin air -if that were so, there'd be a lot more jobs available every day: if the corps and the wealthy created jobs there'd be zero unemployment in this country and the great depression wouldn't have happened. She's not making an anti business stament, but more telling a great truth; that without demand and spending power business is really nowhere and I think that is very true. Try and see through partisanship to what's really going on here. Mind you - I'm not a Hillary fan by any stretch of the imagination, but reality is just that. A business cannot be created unless it has a place to go and a reason to hire people.
 
Great discussion. For me, when democracy is used to favour corporations and dictate policy, the interests of the individual are completely subordinate. I'm not an economist but the current model shows an unprecedented gap between the distribution of wealth in the U.S. A good economy works when you have a workforce, work to be carried out and the resources to do so. The U.S. Is completely dysfunctional on these terms. A 'type' of business may create a few jobs to create wealth for the company but the general masses and real needs are left out.
 
eohrnberger said:
The real pity here is that some some can't come to grips with the fact that both demand and business are required for the upward economic spiral, and pretty much give in to their partisan ideology and ignore that real facts here.

Wait a minute. The debate seems to be over which is more fundamental, and it seems pretty obvious to me that demand is more fundamental. There was demand long before there were businesses, at least as I understand those terms. There was demand before there was money, when people traded goods or labor in barter. Heck, there was demand before people traded with each other at all.

While this does mean that businesses aren't strictly necessary, it doesn't mean that they aren't useful, nor that we'd be anything other than foolish not to make use of them. What it also means is that demand is where we have to start. It's more fundamental than whether businesses exist or not.

Given our current economic circumstances, it's surely the case that we'd be wise to see to it that businesses continue to do well. I would point out that there's been a considerable shift in what "doing well" means for businesses over the last 70 years or so. 5% net profit used to be considered a gangbuster rate--almost unheard of. Now, investors back out when they can't make at least 20% for reasons that are ancillary to the discussion. 5% may be a little too low, but surely 8-10% is a reasonable rate and wages could be increased proportionately to the reduced profits. I don't know how much money would get poured back into the non-investment economy if, say, half of all business profits were used to increase wages, but I would imagine it's a lot of money. Back when the U.S. had a good economy, that was roughly the prevailing balance. But now we've gone out of balance, and the downward spiral is beginning.
 
apdst said:
There's a demand, now, someone created a product and marketted it.

This confuses demand with demands. There are only a few very basic things that count under the first heading--food, water, medicine, clothing, entertainment, love, comfort...that's pretty much it. These all really come down to just two things: what we need to survive, and what we need in order to want to continue to survive. Perhaps more basically, what keeps us alive, and what makes us happy. NASCAR is just a specific instance of the latter.

Before NASCAR, there was demand for things that make us want to continue to survive. NASCAR helps fit the bill for some people--they enjoy it, the enjoyment makes them happy for a while, and happiness is a reason to live. The point is that this demand existed before NASCAR; NASCAR merely filled that demand as a concrete exemplar. That seems about right to me: clearly, if NASCAR didn't do anything that has to do with making us happy or keeping us alive, no one would have anything to do with it. The fact that, for any given product, we can see what about it makes us want more, and that thing is always logically prior to the product, or demand for the product, seems like a pretty good argument for this point.
 
Wait a minute. The debate seems to be over which is more fundamental, and it seems pretty obvious to me that demand is more fundamental. There was demand long before there were businesses, at least as I understand those terms. There was demand before there was money, when people traded goods or labor in barter. Heck, there was demand before people traded with each other at all.

While this does mean that businesses aren't strictly necessary, it doesn't mean that they aren't useful, nor that we'd be anything other than foolish not to make use of them. What it also means is that demand is where we have to start. It's more fundamental than whether businesses exist or not.

That's true. In the past people did trade with each other. However, not much of that going on these days in modern economies, where the mechanism of trade is uses the intermediate of currency.

Given our current economic circumstances, it's surely the case that we'd be wise to see to it that businesses continue to do well. I would point out that there's been a considerable shift in what "doing well" means for businesses over the last 70 years or so. 5% net profit used to be considered a gangbuster rate--almost unheard of. Now, investors back out when they can't make at least 20% for reasons that are ancillary to the discussion. 5% may be a little too low, but surely 8-10% is a reasonable rate and wages could be increased proportionately to the reduced profits. I don't know how much money would get poured back into the non-investment economy if, say, half of all business profits were used to increase wages, but I would imagine it's a lot of money. Back when the U.S. had a good economy, that was roughly the prevailing balance. But now we've gone out of balance, and the downward spiral is beginning.

Not sure where you are getting your information from here. 20% investment payback sounds like the very top tier of the highest risk investments. The old adage, if you can't afford to lose, you can't afford to win, applies here. Especially when more normal businesses' profit rates are in the single digits.
 
Wait a minute. The debate seems to be over which is more fundamental, and it seems pretty obvious to me that demand is more fundamental. There was demand long before there were businesses, at least as I understand those terms. There was demand before there was money, when people traded goods or labor in barter. Heck, there was demand before people traded with each other at all.

While this does mean that businesses aren't strictly necessary, it doesn't mean that they aren't useful, nor that we'd be anything other than foolish not to make use of them. What it also means is that demand is where we have to start. It's more fundamental than whether businesses exist or not.

Given our current economic circumstances, it's surely the case that we'd be wise to see to it that businesses continue to do well. I would point out that there's been a considerable shift in what "doing well" means for businesses over the last 70 years or so. 5% net profit used to be considered a gangbuster rate--almost unheard of. Now, investors back out when they can't make at least 20% for reasons that are ancillary to the discussion. 5% may be a little too low, but surely 8-10% is a reasonable rate and wages could be increased proportionately to the reduced profits. I don't know how much money would get poured back into the non-investment economy if, say, half of all business profits were used to increase wages, but I would imagine it's a lot of money. Back when the U.S. had a good economy, that was roughly the prevailing balance. But now we've gone out of balance, and the downward spiral is beginning.

There's no way a business could survive on 5%.
 
Back
Top Bottom