It was revealed that sign makers were to become the most immediate beneficiaries of the recent historic stimulus package.
Unbeknownst to anyone who read through the thousands of pages of the stimulus bill, the White House initiated the creation of a new emblem.
According to the President “We’re making it easier for Americans to see what projects are being funded with their money as part of our recovery. So in the weeks to come, the signs denoting these projects are going to bear the new emblem of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” Obama said. “These emblems are symbols of our commitment to you, the American people — a commitment to investing your tax dollars wisely, to put Americans to work doing the work that needs to be done. So when you see them on projects that your tax dollars made possible, let it be a reminder that our government — your government — is doing its part to put the economy back on the road of recovery.”
Think of it as the tag on a Christmas present designating who the gift is from.
You.
There is no word as to how much the new symbol costs to make and how much it will cost to reproduce and display on the countless required projects expected of it
But who cares?
Whatever the amount is, it is an amount that is insignificant compared to the spending legislated in the bill.
The new emblem representing the “spread the wealth” legislation is quite symbolic. The creation of the emblem is quite symbolic of how the stimulus package will work.
The stimulus package generates work provided by the government and once that work is completed, where will more work come from? Under this stimulus package the only assured way for their to be more work is by making government create more of it. That means more government spending.
Now never mind the fact that all this spending is not helping the deficit which the left has made one of the top issues to use against Republicans. Never mind the fact that the stimulus package does little to free up lending in the free market and does little to boost free enterprise in America. All of that is not suppose to matter because government spending is creating government jobs. But the problem is that government jobs do not sustain themselves, private sector jobs do.
The problem is that although sign makers with the right government contract will make money from the creation of the new emblem for the stimulus package but what will they do when all those signs have been made?
The free market will not be expanded by the growth of government and the work for more signs will not be increasing, unless of course it is for more government projects.
So this new emblem for projects funded by the new stimulus package is quite a good representation of all that the so called recovery act represents. It represents a short term action that will cost us more than it is worth in the long run. It represents an increase in government control and a decrease in the expansion of opportunity and the free markets that built America.
A much more accurate symbol for the stimulus package which I call the American Economic Socialization package would be the old hammer and sickle.
|
|
| |
|
|
I beg to differ. 700,000 jobs were lost last month alone. Companies are laying off employees by the thousands. Others are seeking cheaper pools of labor to draw from. I consider it a false choice at best to work at a job you can't stand, or lose your house because there's no other jobs out there. As to the corporate superstructure, you may call it an oligarchy instead of a monarchy, but you still have workers in the same position as before. Instead of just the boss taking advantage of labor, you now have a CEO, upper and lower management, and shareholders all benefitting from labor, which has no say in the matter.
Your argument only works for non-corporations. Corporations usually have stock holder elected boards which choose the corporate officers, making them much more like a Parliamentary system than a monarchy. On the other side, no one forces you to work for a given company, but if you want to work in certain fields - you are forced to join a union, which is not a very democratic principle. I just think the analogy is fundamentally flawed, albeit intriguing.
Just something to throw fuel onto the fire--have you ever noticed that businesses are set up like kingdoms, and unions like democracies? A business has an owner, he owns the name, the machinery, and all assets. He makes the rules solely at his discretion. Workers cannot tell a boss what to do, or else he is fired. The owner collects the profit and gives what he feels is adequate compensation for his serfs. The business owner is king, he makes that very clear, and the threat of termination is enough of an intimidation to keep his workers productive. Conversely, every worker in a union has a say. Every worker pays his dues. Every worker can partake in elections, including to create or dissolve the union. We can quibble about corruption on both sides, I'm not talking about how bosses used to fire employees for considering unionizing or union bosses using strongarming tactics. I'm simply referring to their structure. And it's plain to me, a business has the same structure of a monarchy, a union of a democracy. Discuss.
Don't worry. Western Europe is working hard to emulate Eastern Europe and we're not far behind and gaining ground at over $1 trillion a month.
The closest thing to democratic socialism I can think of is the social democracies of europe. They're not doing too bad. They're probably doing better than we are.
Oh yes, the booming economies and world class standards of living of Socialist countries are... wait a minute, they don't have booming economies or world class standards of living. Oh crap, socialism does suck.
Busniess is toxic to the economy. We've seen that when you aren't down businesses throat about what they do, they will cut your wages, cut your beenfits, ship your job overseas, and let their greed ruin the world. Proud to be a socialist.
If businesses were run as the government is run, there would be no economy. Even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were only quasi-governmental and they completely flopped. Government is toxic to business and business is the economy.
The only thing worse than putting the economy under the control of a democratically controlled government, is putting it under the control of big business.
This court would reverse the old ruling and literally march down the middle of the Washington Mall singing kumbaya and carrying signs that say "GOVERNMENT IS THE ANSWER: SUBMIT!"
The question becomes, who will bring the case before the courts. Shall u4prez members join forces and present u4prez vs. The United States?
Just as the Supreme Court declared FDR's NRA unconstitutional in 1936, so should this nonsense be declared unconstitutional. The old NRA signs were just nationalist socialist propaganda and these new ones are just the same. Dumpster them both.
|
|
<< Home