When will America Abandon Socialism?

So how do we stop the vicious circle? How do we get into the schools (overcoming the teachers' unions) and start teaching democracy? How do we stop the give-away society which has generations bogged down in expecting the government to give them everything? When the Republicans in Congress go on with pork like they don't even realize they are in the minority because of overspending, how can the rest of the country even begin to think there's another way?

It has to start somewhere, as you've implied. But I don't think we get into the schools, we get RID of the bad schools. Force them to compete. Let the consumer be the judge, not the government. If the consumer isn't happy with the level of education their child is receiving at a school, allow the kids to go to another school (or even homeschool!). I think the voucher system is a good start, but it will have to be followed up with pure democratic supply and demand.

As far as Congress goes, I don't respect the logic that you vote for someone just becuase of their party affiliation. This will have to be dealt with on a candidate-by-candidate basis. Eradicating socialism in government should be a priority when voting. Our representation WILL hear us if we speak loudly enough. I think many of them WANT to hear this message from the people, instead of the special interests begging for money.

No system is perfect. There will always be strings to pull to get things done, and corruption, to a degree. You will never get everyone to see the long view. However, if we start teaching by example, taking responsibility for ourselves, maybe we can make a dent.

It takes guts to do this, and so far not enough people are willing to show their guts.

It's true, Cajun. If people had any guts at all, they would have voted for Ron Paul in their primaries, instead of towing the socialist neo-con party line.

You will never avoid socialism as long as the IRS and Federal Reserve exist. Any sensible person should recognize this. Hayek and Mises were right on the money, literally.

I think the problem is not lack of guts...it's inertia...whether from ignorance or lack of compulsion or timidity or disinterest...
There are too few people who believe this is a priority.
The status quo is easier to live with than making a scene.
We get idiots who demonstrate about owls or worms or animal pelts, but when it comes to something important, like the future of the country, they don't see the need.

You're right, Emjayne. Apathy is a huge problem. So is intimidation, although indirect.

I think this, too, goes back, at least in part, to our socialist schools. Kids separate into groups in school for emotional support and survival. School teaches kids not to speak out. If they do, and it's not groupthink, the kid is excluded or even mocked. This is the fear that paralyzes the current generation of voters. They don't want to be out of the group.

They've got us so convinced that we have to be a part of the Democratic group or the Republican group that we don't dare question the logic of the groupthink. The media shows us only examples of people practicing the groupthink. They toss us a bone every once in a while to keep us fat and apathetic.

If a voter wakes up from this apathy, it really does take guts to jump out of the groupthink.

So, I guess this leaves open the question of how to awaken the voting public from it's apathy. If the idea of choosing between Obama, McCain and Clinton doesn't shock 'em, nothing short of another great depression will.

When the water finally boils us, it'll be too late to jump out of the pot.

How did we ever get a Dept of Educ in the federal govt anyway??? It is one more federal bureaucracy that was unneeded and is probably growing exponentially as we speak.

Thanks, Doc. There are countless government agencies that have no business existing. Abolishing the Department of Education is a good start. Getting popular opinion behind these common sense ideas should be a priority.

Emjayne is right. Many of the problems these departments were created to deal with could, and should, have been dealt with without resorting to government intervention. For some reason, socialism and communism were popular in the early part of the last century, when most of our socialist policies and bureaus were created.

The old rule that if you break it, you have to fix it does NOT apply in the arena of politics and social policy.

Democrats have broken everything they laid their hands on.

When, oh WHEN will America stop believing them when they cry about ANY horrible social ill that they created, and promise to have the wisdom to fix it?

I addressed this on my blog post, "Dems Want to Fix Problems They Created?" at http://pdxdave.blogtownhall.com/2007/10/29/dems_want_to_fi x_problems_they_created.thtml

Getting popular opinion behind any common sense idea is...a dream? an impossibility? a tough nut to crack?
People in general don't get excited about something that doesn't seem to affect them personally, even when it does affect them. (Gee, if someone up there in Washington thought we should have a national department to 'help' education, then it must be a good idea)
When you consider the large number of people who don't know what's going on, or, if they get some idea, just don't care, it's a wonder we have any country at all

Dave, in some ways, you're more right than you know. NO, we shouldn't let those who 'broke it' fix it. The Democrats have been the biggest threat to individual freedoms, and, indeed, have been responsible for most of the socialist legislation passed into law. They always cave to the whims of popular opinion, instead of standing upon principle. But let's be honest... We the GOP are to blame, too, in that we haven't really done anything to stop it.

Too many Republicans are willing to 'compromise' their principles to be re-elected. I'm not saying compromise as a general concept is a bad thing. I'm saying there are limits. You don't give up secure ground to the enemy and call it compromise.

Yet, the government has already gone too far by compromising our principles and allowing the implementation of socialist policies. Do we want to keep compromising our prinicples away, allowing our government to be the nanny to everyone in the world? Passing laws upon laws, regulating ourselves into oblivion IS NOT the answer. When will we grow up from our spoiled nanny-state and realize that we have to take responsibility for ourselves or our free Republic will fail?

There is a huge block of people who depend on the nanny state and can't imagine surviving on their own. They consider living off the government their right!
Roosevelt started it, Johnson increased it,and I don't see any way to turn it backwards. It would take a revolution, I think.
Those who see what is happening and want to stop it are too few. Sounds defeatist, doesn't it! But it is a huge problem to solve.
I only have another 15 years or so and I won't be here to see how it goes, but, as most parents, I am sorry for my children ...and for the country. What a shame to do this to a truly great country.

You're right, Emjayne. Too many people rely on government to survive. It is possible, though, to wean ourselves. It will have to start with small steps in the right direction, and it will have to start soon.

Abolishing the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and allowing young people to opt out of Social Security are some goals worth working towards. These would probably be more popular, as they give money back to the individual. Taking away some of the services government provides will be a little less popular, and a lot less likely to happen. Take away the funding, though, and these programs will slowly disappear.

I'm afraid that nothing short of our country's financial collapse will start to wake people up. Even a financial collapse will only make many people look for help from some form of government.

We are currently following the road to despotism and communism. When we come to that fork in the road, many will think those are the only two options (although I seriously doubt they'll call them by those names. It'll probably be 'Democratic People's movement' or 'American Central Nationalism' or some other seemingly positive moniker.)

There is another option, though... turn around now!

So are you in favor of the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax??
Have you been listening to Boortz?
I agree that it will take something drastic like a collapse to show people what is happening and, you are right, there will be plenty of people who won't believe it even then.
HA! I just read the news flashes at the bottom of the page. Obama is calling his pastor's remarks as "foolish" Now there's an understatement for sure! I don't want to listen to his speech but I am curious to read what he says.

Sorry, I didn't see your comment earlier, Emjayne.

No, I'm not really in favor of the Fair Tax or the flat tax. They're both rediculous. We don't need the income tax, nor do we need something with which to replace it. Government's litany of tax legislation overburdens us far more than enough, already.

I don't really listen to Neal Boortz, although I've heard he's in favor of the so-called Fair Tax. I'm not for any new tax, period.

uh, how would you pay for the things the federal govt. is supposed to do? Like defense?
I do believe most of the government needs to be thrown out...the Dept of Educ, for example, but the Dept of State, bad as it is, is a necessity. And the Treasury. and of course, Defense. I'd like to have a red pencil on most of the rest.
Boortz is not just in favor of the Fair Tax . He and a congressman named Linder (sp?) started the whole thing.
And it is not a new tax. It throws out the whole kettle of federal taxes completely and replaces it with a national sales tax.
The IRS is a disgrace and grows with every year.

lol. Emjayne, who ever said the IRS pays for ANY of the services you expect from government? The Constitution called for taxes to apportioned. The orignial intent of the framers was not to have some big grab-bag tax that would fund multiple projects.

We have a litany of taxes that pay for everything we expect from government. The Federal Income Tax pays only interest on the money we owe to the Federal Reserve Bank, which is NOT a government run agency, but a private bank. The FED is no more 'Federal' than Federal Express. That's the way I've heard it put best.

There is strong support for the abolition of both the FED and the IRS, neither of which meet the intended freedoms of our Constitution.

Excise taxes and user fees pay for pretty much everything we need. We don't need a 'fair tax' or an income tax. I personally find the idea of a 'prebate' repugnant. Let me keep my money, don't take it away, and let the free market work.

Thank you!! And here I was believing I was contributing with my income tax and yelling at the Alaskan reps for spending "my" money!!
This is the first time I have had this explained!
Unfortunately, it makes too much sense!
I agree that the "prebate" was repugnant! I thought it was ridiculous.
I guess I am willing to listen to anything that will do away with the IRS. And our daughter works for H&R Block! :-))
I also understand the original framers never meant to start the IRS. But then they never meant to start half of what we have for govt.
Thanks for taking the time and patience to explain to a non-economics major! :-))

I wasn't an economics major, either. Although I did make A's in my econ classes in college, I wasn't keen on monetary policy at the time. And it's no wonder... monetary policy is a fairly opaque subject. Exacerbating this is the FED, with it's 'FED-speak' and very secretive practices. Most people choose to ignore it, or trust that it is somehow being 'taken care of'.

All federally collected taxes go to the Treasury, who's funds are controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank (the FED). The FED is controlled by it's governors and board members appointed by 'member banks' which own stock in the FED. These banks are completely privately owned. The FED then regulates the country's banks, including the 'member banks' that appoint the controlling members of the board.

When government spends more than it takes in (which is all the time, to the tune of 14 Trillion or so...) the FED increases the money supply to extend credit to the government. This causes inflation, and creates the debt that is owed to the FED.

See a conflict of interest there?

The FED and Federal Income Tax were both created in the same year, 1913. The popularity of utopian socialism in the early part of the 20th century was probably the reason for such legislation, although big money bankers are said to be the true profiteers. It's time we do away with these archaic vestiges of the failures known as communism and socialism by abolishing the IRS and the FED.

So where does Bernanke fit in?
I knew there was a reason I never took Econ. but I was in an Educ major and it would be dangerous if teachers knew too much about how the government is run.
And opaque isn't the word for it! :-))
Thanks for the short course!

Just like Greenspan before him, Bernanke wields a lot of power to affect monetary policy. A word from the FED chair could crash markets. Just the RUMOR of a word coming from the FED could send markets diving or soaring.

The FED controls the value of money. The more money you put into circulation, the less it's worth. Remove money, and the value rises. Increasing or decreasing interest rates has this effect, as well.

Opponents of the FED say that any artificial manipulation of money causes instability in the economy, and has become the reason for the dips in the business cycle the FED was intended to cure.

That's an oversimplification, but it's how I understand it. I'm no expert. What I can remember from econ in college is that the textbooks disparaged anyone with the opinion I now hold, for reasons that were either inaccurate, or unclear.

Von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Friedman... I think they'd all agree with what I've said. Even Keynes would probably be on my side, these days. Oddly enough, Alan Greenspan was in agreement, before he was tapped to be FED chief. Now that he's left the post, he's expressed approval for these policies, again. Curious, ain't it?

While I agree that the Fed can wreck considerable havoc with little more than words of encouragement...see the subprime crisis...it can also do remarkable good. I think one of the best examples is the collaboration between the Regean admin and Volker of the Fed. Their model for using the currency markets to control inflation and interest rates held for 20 years. It would be working today if not for financial deregulation and unsustainable debts levels, this administration being the main culprit with their tripling of the national debt.

Bryce, I understand what you're saying, and I agree that the Reagan administration did a very good job working with the FED to keep inflation down. You can make flawed systems work for limited amounts of time, if you possess the skill to continue tweaking as you encounter errors that the flaws create.

My argument is that it shouldn't be the function of government in a free market society to make these kinds of alterations to our monetary system without the oversight of our elected representatives. A free market will have fluctuations and corrections on it's own. When things begin to go sour, we should resist the temptation to allow government to intervene with an easy fix. This is what will lead to an eventual collapse when market uncertainty rises and consumer confidence drops due to a government quick-fix that misses the intended target.

That is one thing I have been thinking...every time something comes up the Congress thinks they have to hurry up and DO SOMETHING. It seems to me that if they just kept their noses out of it things would even off and maybe a lot sooner.
Now whether that applies to the Fed or not, I don't know. But I do think that Bernanke has rushed to lower the interest rate too quickly and too far. And that's without my knowing how it works!
OH, by the way, thanks for coming by, Tone. I just posted again today and put your addr. in.
To get back to Congress for a min. what the devil did they get into football and baseball for? If they spent half the time doing the things they are supposed to do we might have a decent government

A lot of legislation gets pushed through Congress in a hurry, never having been read by the representatives and senators who vote on it. HR 63, The Sunlight Rule, was introduced by Ron Paul last year to keep bills from passing into law without at least 72 hours to read any amendments. He wrote an article about it on his 'Texas Straight Talk' column: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst091607.htm

Sports are popular. They serve as a diversion from the real issues. Congress should be having hearings on the validity of the Federal Reseve instead of wasting taxpayer money finding out what athletes have used steroids.

I know...I know...
I was just reading that JPMorgan is paying $10 instead of $2 for Bear. Naturally I didn't understand the whole article , even with your instruction. But I got the point that the Fed is supporting. And toward the end of the article there is the fear that the Fed will not stay independent and the Congress will start putting its two cents in.
That latter is a real possibility anyway.
The article was called "Pushovers at the Fed" and was in a newsletter I get from the Wall Street Journal.
(I figure I have, at the most 15 years left on this earth and , maybe, before I go, I will understand what it's all about! :-))) )

I have a couple of new posts if you want to waste some time . :-))

I can remember my grandparents saying, "Lord willing and if the Lord tarries, I'll be 90-something years old next year." Three of my grandparents lived into their 90s, but they all talked about going to meet the Lord for decdes before that. I guess we're not really guaranteed tomorrow.

As far as the FED goes, I think it'd take more than a lifetime to unravel their twisted logic. If the Lord tarries, that is.

I'll be sure to check out your new posts!

OK, don't get me wrong, I'm about as conservative as you can get, but not reactionary, or radical, like the joke that's occupying the White House.

Would you like to privatize the fire departments, police, health departments, transportation departments, etc also. This myth about universal health care being "socialism" is getting old. We pay more on our insurance and income taxes because destitute people go to the emergency room for care - on our dime - right now. Under our current system, people are losing everything they own, just to pay medical bills, while the poor continue to milk the system.

This is really what your blogging about isn't it? You don't actually think we're going to privatize all of our schools, do you? An education, like health care, is a right, not a privilege.

First of all, what's old is the 'well, if you're going to privatize education, you gonna privatize the PD, FD?' argument. Protection of your constitutionally guaranteed rights is a duty of government. Property rights, the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness were all reasons we declared independence from Great Britain. Police departments and Fire departments WERE ORIGINALLY PRIVATE, but local governments made them public to protect the rights of the people, as they should have.

What kind of conservative are you if you believe that all of these socailist ideas conform with the idea of personal freedom? We are conserving our personal freedom. Any time you allow government to supply or control something the free market can give, you give government control over that aspect of your life. Giving government the ability to control any aspect of our lives gives up freedom.

Government's commission is to protect our rights and freedoms, not to infringe upon them. The implication that education is a right is why so many students don't respect schools. They, as well as you and those like you, should understand that getting an education is a very precious privilege that should be respected. Giving it away on the government dole has not only destroyed the quality of education, but has caused students to lose respect for education, as well.

I do believe our public education system is now flawed because it is socialist in nature. Any centrally planned socialist bureaucracy will eventually fail. It has the inherent defect of denying the demands of the market in favor of what a few central planners believe is best.

Finally, although I never touched on healthcare in my blog entry, your agenda seems clear, and I feel I must address the topic... Universal healthcare is socialism. Implying otherwise is just plain intellectual dishonesty. Using the word 'myth' is irresponsible. Allowing a central government to plan or control any aspect of your life is diametrically opposed to the concept of freedom.

Why go liberals think that more government is better when it only means more control??
They claim to want "freedom" and then try for one more government program to help the "needy" which then means more regulation and more bureaucracy.
The size of the federal govt is already out of control and each bureaucracy wants more money and more employees to prove they are necessary.