Democrats continue to insist that they created jobs. To do this they extracted trillions from our economic future in an effort to create jobs that did not yet exist–that perhaps were not needed yet. Looking at similar exercises, cash for clunkers–which moved car sales forward a few months but has since resulted in a collapse in the market; the home mortgage bail outs, supports, credits, and the "home affordable" programs which improved home sales briefly but which have since collapsed (also to historic lows); and then there’s the stimulus, several public sector employee bailouts, bank lending infusions, small business bills, and everything in between including health care reform–many trillions spent, all made with claims that they would create, save, or incentivize job creation.
Lets concede the possibility that some jobs were saved or created with money from the future. Let’s also, for academic purposes, concede the number of 1.4 million-3.3 million jobs saved or created ( quote from Paul Hodes campaign if that matters). What happens now? Even if we can agree to these figures the mathematical reality is that despite these efforts, and at great expense, we still lost more jobs than we saved or created. Millions are still unemployed with hundreds of thousands more people working less, working shorter hours, or who have given up looking altogether just in the 12 months since someone declared the recession over. We got a net sum loss with the price of admission, and that debt is now looming over our ability to sustain or improve the job picture moving forward because of the Faustian fiscal political calculation the democrats made in what now appears to be a series of vote getting scams gone horribly wrong.
Comparing
Pick and environment and socialists will ruin it, even the green socialists. Case in point; the mess the left after their little gathering in DC. They left trash everywhere with the obvious expectation that someone else will come along and clean up their mess.
Carol SEIU-Porter seems to think we need government. That the Tea Party and others do not want any government. That there is no role for government. And while there is a minority of people within the various facets of the movement who might agree, most of us do not because anarchy leads to oligarchy and totalitarianism. That’s just how people are wired.
The economic relationship between government, the private sector, and the people, has been the object of much debate as democrats try to convince people that spending trillions we don’t have has some kind of payoff at the other end. The fact that we can’t see that "end" and none of their predictions have come true fuels the fires of the opposition while encouraging proponents to claim we just need to wait a bit longer–or spend a few trillion more.