And when unions raise the price of labor to uncompetitive heights, are your socialists going to force the employers to not outsource for cheaper labor? Who're the truly greedy in that situation? Are the socialists then going to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize these now-uncompetitive enterprises, in essence forcing taxpayers to buy uncompetitive products they neither want nor receive, all in the name of "fairness"? Is this they good system you're talking about?
And this explosive inequality. Is it not possible that arbitrary restrictions on trade, bailouts, and subsidies keep the powerful powerful and the impoverished impoverished by means of selecting winners and losers according to their political or lobbying power as opposed to honest victories or failures in the marketplace? If a businessman can make more money not by making a superior product, but by hiring the best lobbyists for government handouts, doesn't that represent a major problem?
Righties can take the sidestep that lefties do when challenged on stimulus: If the problem doesn't go away, you didn't spend enough money. Similarly with us, if you the problem doesn't go away, you didn't cut enough taxes.
Job creators aren't living up to their bargain? You mean, they're not producing enough employment sufficient to make you happy? Surely, you know the reasoning behind this. There can be no other answer then that (1) they're just being greedy bastards, and (2) they want to make Obama look bad. For this brazen offense, you decree they must sacrifice. Nevermind the small business owners who have put their life-savings on the line or have otherwise bet the farm. Nevermind that they pay taxes already. Nevermind that perhaps, like most people, they sense a serious, grave reckoning on the horizon, and are hunkering down in hopes of weathering it.
But no. We should force them to hire people, whether they want them or not. They'll do what we tell them to do. After all, it's not like they're normal people, right? They're just greedy pricks.