That coupled with teaching how to critically analyze data, not just reach for the first emotional decision.

I'm not sure which faith-based initiatives you are talking about, but I agree with the principle. LESS government spending all around would be a good thing!

Let investment go where it is merited. The problem with government overseeing such is the perpetual problems of cronyism and ROI. "Green" energy is perhaps the most obvious failure in this regard, while there is certainly a tremendous amount of waste in the military's hiring of vendors, etc. that a business could not afford to tolerate.

jrs; exactly. The long term used to mean something when we were proud of ourselves and our accomplishments.

Kind of like creative destruction or discontinuous change.

Your comment reminded me of a segment I recently watched on Bloomberg TV called the 12 Days of Bitcoin. This segment noted that some citizens of countries with rapidly dropping currency were changing their money to Bitcoin. Here's the segment of which I am speaking:

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/the-globa...

I have the whole 12 Days of Bitcoin series captured on a Gibbon learning flow if you are interested in watching the whole series:

https://gibbon.co/jrsedivy/bitcoin

IR; I kind of think of it as: civilization will take a step forward. At least I hope so.

From my perception the main difference appears to be where to spend the money. The Democrats would prefer to spend increasing amounts of funding on social and domestic programs whereas the Republicans would prefer to spend increasing amounts of funding on the military and faith-based initiatives.

I believe each side believes in excessive taxation of producers and free market controls to funnel wealth to projects that they believe are morally or ethically good.

I have found this sort of thing frustrating. It would indeed be interesting to see how a true free market would work as opposed to capitalism with controls. My bet is that it would work very well. I believe the intent of the founding fathers was to create a nation where the government served the people and not the people serving the government. Somehow we have lost our way.

The masses likely do not want to be educated on how the world really works, ignorance is bliss as the saying goes.

In terms of education, what about independent thought? My perception is that this is a critical missing skill among many.

Yes. And when the debt catastrophe occurs it will spread around the globe and civilization will begin a long and painful collapse. .

I have become jaded to the notion that the Republican Party is viable. Many pundits are now likening them to the Whigs that died off with the rise of Abraham Lincoln as President. And why did they die off? Because they presented no real difference to the voters in terms of policy or principle. Sound familiar?

If there were ever to be a Libertarian party, now would be its chance. Frankly, though there is no official TEA party, they have better grass-roots support and I can see them becoming the next real political party much easier.

The Democrats have just swung Progressive. There are no more "blue dog Democrats" - those who were socially liberal but economically conservative. The DNC won't fund for re-election anyone not voting party lines, so they have all died off. Where it used to be that represented in Government were a wide range of constituencies and political ideals, there is now only the hard left (Democrats), middle (Republicans), and a few from the hard right (Tea Party Republicans). The Progressives have effectively split their opposition into two ineffective groups and minimized them. Add to that the liberal press who sides with them and it means that the uneducated masses only see policy being presented in one light.

I agree that the free market is the best method of allowing everyone to pursue happiness. However, the free market can't operate (and doesn't exist) without governmental policies to support it. If the concept of a free market is not supported by lawmakers, it won't matter how well it would have worked because the government won't allow it to be tried!

That is because those who benefit from being able to live on the largess of others outnumber those whose largess is being stolen! In a representative democracy, numbers mean everything.

The only thing that will shake people up and provide impetus for eliminating these programs will be a debt catastrophe - the point at which the federal government (or state governments for that matter) can no longer pay for these types of programs with debt. With our current deficit scheduled to hit $20 trillion by 2020 (and with almost $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities), all it will really take is a bump in the interest rates upward to collapse the whole house of cards. And it won't even take a huge rise. Even a point or two will cause the debt service obligations to rise dramatically, increasing the spin of the snowball...

Or they are simply listening to the wrong media. When NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN are all in your pocket and you only have Fox News (sometimes) and others like The Blaze and radio talk shows to offer counterpoint, it is an uphill climb to educate the masses. To further complicate things, the masses really are pretty self-interested and uneducated about how the real world works: everything from politics to economics and more.

I sometime wonder what ISN'T getting taught in high school. I would love to see some basic economics and civics (not just the HISTORY of government) be included with all the math and science educators are foaming at the mouth about these days. Understanding compound interest is WAY more important than understanding calculus!

Agreed. My comment was meant to address changes in general, not this specific law.

Agreed... Reagan was great with the delivery but you could also tell he was sincere about his message. Tough to find another Reagan...

" I think that many people forget that our system was create with intent to make it it difficult to make such changes.” I agree with that logic but not to get support getting behind the law; the system should have made it difficult to PASS THE LAW.

The system failed and we are stuck with a law that until they repeal it, I can’t take my government serious. I will NEVER sign up for health care.

The only thing gun control has done is raise the prices of rifles and semi automatic pistols. Maybe with big government as an accomplishment either a tea party run Senate and House we can get something done. Even if Obama veto's a bill it can be overturned in the house. There's still hope.

There really does seem to be an increasing sense of it being viewed as unpatriotic to disagree or prolong critical decisions such as war or major changes to the law such as healthcare. I think that many people forget that our system was created with the intent to make it difficult to make such changes.

I can't speak to Gary Johnson's delivery, but this is an important quality. Your later comments about Regan ring true as I find that even seeing clips of his past speeches that they are very engaging and feel sincere. Years ago I read a Reagan biography called "Dutch" which added to his authenticity.

I don't have an issue with Ron Paul's delivery. Similar to Reagan I find myself stopping what I am doing when I hear him speak to fully engage. It could be that his message is well aligned to my beliefs, I've enjoyed his books, and that I feel that he is authentic and sincere.

Few, if any, can compare to the presence of Reagan, however I find both to be endearing and powerful in their own way.

I'm hoping for "real change" to get this country out of this communist's grip. I'm done with the Republican Party too... Based on the "budget" deal they just signed, they have betrayed us. They are cowards...

He has divided the nation into groups and put a negative on any that would have the nerve to go against his policy,

LL

I'm not so sure. The last 125 years have taught us that once the Progressives get their hooks into our property, 16th Amendment, Social Security, Medicare, etc., they never let go. We have been unable to reverse or eliminate one of their major statist programs.

Except for one thing: Henry Waxman is an incumbent. If he were just starting out, he wouldn't get elected dogcatcher.

One look at Henry Waxman will tell you the Democrat voters have already arrived at the point where obnoxious looks and speaking voice don't matter. To those for whom belief stands above all else, an intelligent candidate who can spell out the message well deserves support, but the style of delivery and believability was what made Reagan the "Great Communicator." Tones of frustration or anger undermine the delivery of the message, unless that's the preference of the audience (as it is with most Democrats). Most listeners are inspired by a positive delivery that conveys personal concern for others, and that's hard to fake.