Just picture the firestorm if we had a government program that was to create jobs but never did

[ck4829]

Government creates a new program for job creation, there will have to be some cuts to social programs and infrastructure, but the payout will be tremendous. There will be a chicken in every pot, and a job to be had anywhere; no place of work will have a "Now hiring... sorta" sign on it, but will have a "We're always hiring" sign instead. Government revenues will go up, the American Dream will be able to be achieved at all, and our country will enter a new golden age.

All these promises were made ten years ago.

Instead of creating jobs, this program that was so expensive that it required extensive cuts in other areas was used for other things:
Money for it was hoarded
Money for it was used for pet projects
Money for it was sent overseas
Jobs from it were created, just in third world countries

And it was very ineffective, with unemployment actually going up.

Who doubts that there would be massive protests? Who doubts that there would be constant Congressional investigations? Who doubts that the President would tell the people involved with this program to just get out of the country? Who doubts that this program would really be allowed to exist for a decade?

If this is what happened, then there would be calls for resignations, federal charges, impeachment, etc.

But change "government" to "tax cuts" and then we talk about extending it. Why?

[valerief]

1. This sounds like our WAR-Military budget.

Money for it was hoarded
Money for it was used for pet projects
Money for it was sent overseas
Jobs for it were created, just in third world countries

[Poboy]

2. recommend. Very good points and should be echoed loudly.

[Zenlitened]

3. K&R. -n/t

[RandomThoughts]

4. Becuase the correction is not just having laws.

But having transparency and people in private and public sector that either want to do the most good, or can get the help of the concepts of jail time, to understand they probably should.

Legal systems are a form of protection, not only to people that would be harmed by criminal actions, but also to protect the criminal from doing those actions when they are not strong enough to fight some self interest that allows for an action for only selfish reasons.

So it is correct government needs correcting also, but the correction is not removal of government but the fixing of government. Removal of government gives up on concepts of justice and lets it all go into anarchy and survival of those that can steal the most.

If government is bad, educate the people by transparency and accountability. It is pretty easy for bad to effect a few people in power, or get people that are easy to effect in power. It is much harder for them to corrupt everyone, that is why they have to corrupt the top parts of a pyramid, and also why consolidated power is so dangerous.


If you know that bad has limited resources, and can only get to a few, you understand why authoritarianism happens.

If everyone had equal power tomorrow, who would end up in jails, who would have a stable and reasonably equatable life?

If .0001% had power who would end up in jails, who would end up in luxury.



And actually I do agree with libertarians on their concepts and why they want less government, but the corporate structure is a form of governance, and that has to be less consolidated first, since it is even more corrupt then public sector.


It went like this, private sectors became monopolies by corporation, and 'networked ceos' where ceos were in many different companies, and in same 'thought' groups with same required rules sets.

Then they moved into government to control, or destroy all government.

And they move into information systems so you don't know about it.

And education so it is more rare that a person even thinks about it.


So the corrections to unwind the mess are better education towards questioning and thinking, transparency, getting bought people out of politics, and removing consolidation in the private sector.



On a side note.

If God wanted us to just 'do what we were told' why do we have the ability to think and feel? And what could God ever feel from something that was just doing what it was told when expressing feeling to God? I think we have a mind and a heart for a reason. To share love with God, and to share love with each other, because it makes sense.

Someone showing submission is a substitute for love, you actually see that in control freaks, and why in the 'bag of bricks' speech sadist was mentioned, since the thing that speech is about has no love and is an authoritarian. Because things that need power (a substitute for love using control), find that feeling by getting you to agree to do something that hurts you.

If you hurt yourself, it means you must care enough about them to be willing to do it. That is how sadism is translated to feelings of love, but it is not love, it is not knowing what love is and trying to get it by only obedience in a bad situation. Feeling love is not wanting control or power, but letting something be free, and being nice and kind even when hurt, and then sometimes that learning, has a free will decision to show love back, real love, not control, or submission, but partnership or friendship.

That is also why some people are sadistic, if they can get you to hurt yourself to try and please them, then they feel you must care about them. Same thing in society, same thing for some 'things' that have no love in them.

It is confusing power for love.

However if someone else humiliates you because you love someone, that is not the same thing then something asking you to be humiliated. So if anything asks you to hurt yourself, or be humiliated, don't, but if there is an action that might end up with some of those effects by other peoples actions, that is something different. (unless you like being controlled, some people are that way.)

[toddwv]

5. +1

Exactly.

That's the mentality of the war-for-profit crowd that we now call "Republicans".

I'm not sure how they are allowed to spew their "we need tax cuts in order to create more jobs" from one side of their mouth while loudly proclaiming that the Stimulus Act which actually created jobs was/is a failure.



The only thing we get from Republican economic policy is a continuous concentration of wealth into the hands of a few which only the most derided believe is good for the overall health of the a country in general.



It's either a recipe for destruction or revolution.

[Poboy]

6. I'm going to kick this as the OP makes a great point.