Liberals: Companies cutting hours, workforce over ObamaCare, so let’s BOYCOTT!

Posted by: ST on November 11, 2012 at 11:22 am

Via Twitchy:

Yesterday Twitchy reported that the unhinged Left was targeting Applebee’s because one monstrous franchisee may implement a hiring freeze to deal with the financial realities of Obamacare. Today, the target is Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter.

Schnatter was hammered with Twitter abuse in August after he told shareholders he would raise prices to offset the cost of Obamacare. Now, he expects franchise owners will reduce employees’ hours rather than provide costly, mandated insurance coverage to people working 30 hours per week.

“That’s probably what’s going to happen,” he said. “It’s common sense. That’s what I call lose-lose.”

In response to Schnatter’s candid assessment of his company’s future, Twitter liberals – in their predictably moronic and clueless fashion – called for a “boycott” of Papa John’s pizza (see the tweets at the Twitchy link).  Because to them, Schnatter lives in a nice home and is “rich” so he can afford to pay for ObamaCare and should ABSORB the higher costs associated with it, damn it.

So let me break this down for you: One more company in a long list of companies having to cut back on hours and/or employees  in light of ObamaCare and the disastrous results of this election should be boycotted … which, if effective, would mean even MORE hours would be cut, jobs lost, hiring freezes put in place, people on the unemployment rolls, higher unemployment rates, etc.

What a stupid, naive mindset.  It’s class warfare at its most dangerous, a tactic mastered by ignorant liberal Democrats who despise companies that are successful – unless they are contributing to the DNC machine, that is.

And we’re supposed to try and “appeal” to these people???

RSS feed for comments on this post.


23 Responses to “Liberals: Companies cutting hours, workforce over ObamaCare, so let’s BOYCOTT!”


  1. Tim (Jumper2point0) says:

    No, were not suppose to appeal to those people. We need to appeal to the people that find issues with Obamacare and it’s effects but don’t see any other way to go. They think there is no choice. It’s either go along with it or allow people that can’t buy insurance due to preexisting conditions suffer? Which is the Republicans fault btw. Republicans did close to nothing regarding health care for decades while the situation was worsening. We got the “warning” with Hillarycare. Then nothing. One thing they did do was introduce the high deductible plans. Very successful. Too bad more wasn’t done.

  2. ChuloDO says:

    Sorry, Toldjah, but we can get our pizza and go out to dinner anywhere; we don’t have to support greedy millionaires / billionaires such as Papa John and the Applebees clan who can’t bring themselves to pay another 14 cents per pizza (or entree) for health care.

    And the employees whom he fires or whose hours he cuts back can find other employment elsewhere. While the job market isn’t great in a lot of fields, it’s still OK in food service and hospitality.

  3. ChuloDO says:

    BTW, that “twitter abuse” you were talking about, as the article clearly states, is that most (if not all) people were tweeting that they were willing to pay the extra 10 or 15 cents for pizza if the employees can get decent health care, which really flies in the face of your whining, because the customers are saying that they will absorb the cost, making John Schnatter’s threat to still cut employees empty and greedy. He built that; and he’s ruining it, too.

  4. Carlos says:

    Gosh, Tim, I wasn’t aware that Republicans were running the country with an iron fist all those decades, until the jackasses got a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress and jammed the victims’ medical freeload bill down our throats.

    If you’re so concerned about how nasty and evil Republicans are (since they’ve ruined the country with their autocratic rule), why not do what any peace-loving, all-inclusive, can’t-we’all-just-get-along politically correct jerk does and try to shut us up forcefully? Seems to be what “your” side is aiming for, ultimately, since you can’t seem to win arguments based on merit.

    And as for finding employment somewhere else, ChuloDO, has it occurred to you that, if it’s unprofitable for a food place to have enough employees, they’ll ALL cut back to the point of profitability?

    Or maybe that’s going a little bit further than a socialist brain can figure?

  5. Matthew says:

    I would prefer to stay quiet at this site, but reading ChuloDO’s comments, I had to respond.

    You have never run a business or tried to, have you? Here is what you need to know: In order to stay alive, you need to stay competitive. You raise prices, and people will go elsewhere because they will NOT be willing to spend more than what a competitor is offering for the same product. If you want to keep prices where they are, then you have to make cuts, specifically in staff.

  6. It is interesting those providing “post mortem” on the political inefficiencies of the GOP have never so much as even run for sheriff. Where is it written the first and most basic requirement of liberalism is bad manners followed closely by idiocy?

  7. lyn5 says:

    Obamacare was negotiated behind closed doors with the health insurance companies. What’s happening now with businesses could have been prevented with open congressional hearings. Everyone will be paying for Obamacare in one way or another. Welcome to Omerica.

  8. Tim (Jumper2point0) says:

    Carlos, I’m a conservative! I think you need to re-read my comment. Where in the hell did I say anything about autocratic rule or evil nasty Republicans? All I said is that the Republicans screwed up. They didn’t offer alternatives while the public was getting more nervous about such issues. Thus now this is where we are. I think I offered quite a fair, though incredibly simplified, reason for the situation we’re in.

  9. Great White Rat says:

    ChuloDO bleats:

    And the employees whom he fires or whose hours he cuts back can find other employment elsewhere.

    Haven’t checked the unemployment rates lately, have you? And I’m not talking about the ‘official’ rate, I’m talking about the one which includes all the people who have flat out given up looking for work thanks to President Downgrade’s War on Business and Employment.

    As Matthew said so well, if you’re going to survive, you need to remain competitive. Businesses have three choices due to the huge costs of Obamacare: (1) raise prices, (2) cut staff, or (3) both of the above.

    Conservatives have been warning everyone about what would happen ever since that idiotic bill was passed. Did you liberals listen? No – you figured you could just ignore the laws of economics, because, hey….CLASS WARFARE!! HATE everyone who makes a nickel more than you!!

    It’s only common sense – you do not improve the lot of the employees by punishing the employers. And that holds true no matter what Obama reads from his teleprompter.

    But I’m wasting my time here, trying to explain basic economics to a leftist. Might as well try explaining the rules of football to a chicken.

  10. Noble Pils says:

    The Republicans did not have a majority in Congress from 1944 till 1994. So for 40 years they could not do it.
    They did control the Senate a few times but ALL spending bills by law must orignate in Congress. (This is yet another reason that the Afforable Care Act is unconstitutional but I digress)
    Republicans got a mandate in 1994 and cut spending, reformed Welfare, then rested, and were made minority in 2006.
    From 2006 to 2010 the Democrats controlled Congress, and made a pidly effort to actually work, spending most of their time ginning up their crowd in fake anger issues against Bush, then spending 2 years pushing Obamacare in yes, back room deals.
    (Remember someone promised that NO FEDERAL MONEY WOULD GO FOR ABORTIONS)
    Thanks Obama and thanks Stupak.
    If Obamacare is the law of the land, then amend it in 2 ways:
    One) Take the Health and Human Services control part completely out, no proclomations or waivers from that office and
    Two) Make is apply to every single citizen, take all waivers away for all. If I have to have it, then it is only fair that Congress, Senate, and Administration has to have it and that the Autoworkers Union also has to have it

  11. JayW says:

    Tim: you haven’t been paying attention. This is about a single payer system. Obamacare brings the Democrats closer to their goal. If you think the Republicans can come up with an alternative that would satisfy the Democrats and stop them from trying to create an NHS style system here, well I have a bridge I would like to sell to you.

  12. Carlos says:

    “Which is the Republicans fault btw. Republicans did close to nothing regarding health care for decades while the situation was worsening.”

    Tim, this is what I based my rant upon. I still think my assumptions are reasonable, since your conclusions spin from this.

  13. In other words, those calling for the boycotts don’t understand basic economics.

    1) When costs rise, prices rise.
    2) To avoid increasing prices, companies may cut costs.
    3) Companies that don’t do either of the previous two go bankrupt.

    The students in my high school economics class learn that very early. I guess Democrats don’t

  14. Tim (Jumper2point0) says:

    Carlos, you’re assumptions are wrong. I still don’t understand what the hell you’re talking about?

    Show me proof that they were addressing the issues regarding healthcare issues. Now, if they proposed and tried to pass legislation to help then you would have a point.

    My criticism isn’t that they didn’t pass legislation, it’s that they were silent in the issue. Ignored it. First time I’ve ever heard it during a campaign by a Republican was McCain. And I liked his ideas. Unfortunately, as you know, we never got to test them.

    If you’re just upset because I’m criticizing the Republican Party? Well, I could care less.

  15. Carlos says:

    Tim, your statement that I replayed indicates the Republicans were in control of Congress for decades. That is patently false and misleading.

    Could they have done more to stop the creeping socialism? Undoubtedly, but when greed goes crazy and the desire to buy votes for re-election by endearing themselves to voters gets in the way of voting what’s good for the country (a foreign concept to Democrats), the result is the Democrats are mostly (but not entirely) to blame for the present-day mess.

  16. Tim (Jumper2point0) says:

    I didn’t say or indicate any such thing Carlos. I said that they did nothing for decades. There is nothing false about what I said.

    It would be better for me to say that Republicans were partially to blame. Of course they didn’t pass Obamacare. But, If they would have passed legislation to fix some of the distortions in the health care sector during the Bush years, then they would have released some of the backlash that propelled Obamacare into enactment.

    Thus, blame. And it’s right to lay some of the blame with them. I’m sorry that some people can’t handle that.

    Jay, did I say anything about satisfying democrats? I care nothing about what they think. If Republicans would have done the job, then it wouldn’t have mattered what the Dems think because they wouldn’t have “won” on this issue. If the problem would have been resolving then most of the people (yes, not the 35% that identify themselves as Dems) would have not voted for an alternative. The electorate is mostly quiet about it because they can’t find any other way to resolve it. The Dems provided a solution (a poor one) but the Reps didn’t seemingly provide one at all.

  17. Tim (Jumper2point0) says:

    If you want to keep up on good info and how to rightfully fix the healthcare system. Take a look at this site and sign up for updates.

  18. Carlos says:

    I still stand by my interpretation, Tim, but you are correct in saying Republicans could have done something. Especially when they had control of Congress, for 12 years.

    But when they had a jackass prez, they knew they didn’t have an override majority, so (stupidly) let it lay, then, when they did have a “Republican” prez, they were too busy lining their own pockets to pay attention to such a silly little problem. After all, which is more important, to redistribute wealth and line one’s own pockets, or take care of the peoples’ business?

    Obviously, to them it wasn’t to take care of the peoples’ business, and there we agree.

    But I suspect we disagree on what that solution should have been, since part of my belief is that medical costs were skyrocketing BECAUSE of government direct interference and lawmakers’ unwillingness to stop judicial redistribution through lawsuits.

  19. Tim (Jumper2point0) says:

    No, I would agree regarding the government being too involved. But that doesn’t mean that we couldn’t set policy to help take care of some of the distortions that government creates to decrease they amount and influence on the government. Again, take a look at But, I do have to be honest, I wouldn’t mind compromise on this. But a lot less compromise than you might initially want to assume. Take a look at this article at Forbes regarding Swiss health care. I would totally accept a compromise like this. Checks and balances. We can win the healthcare argument on a proposal like this despite it not being “pure”.

  20. Michael says:

    Who is John Galt?