The False Diviner said:

Hunting the socialist agenda in America, is like hunting magic mushrooms (shrooms) in nature. Initial titillation followed by a double shot of risk if you're cavalier in your approach. This elusive philosophy has many impostors for which in can be mistaken.

The philosophies of socialism could be present in America as most theories on socialism assume wide spread democracy. They do?  As any definition of democracy will include the principle of freedom and equality. Tyranny of the majority and equality of what?  The American experiment has always been rooted in the principle of natural freedom and equality.  You are about to contradict yourself.  However, wide spread democracy was not present in America prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Yep, you did.  Although, many socialist philosophies could be in our democratic society, it is more a matter of similarity as apposed to being part of the founding principles.  Huh?  Matter of similarity?  What is similar to what?

Presently, conservative commentators and pundits use the word socialism when describing any government programs that use public funds to ensure economic security, universal access to the resources for self-development and the reduction of social suffering.  False.  In the U.S., a federal welfare programs were born during the implementation of the New Deal programs, introduced during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration. U.S. welfare can be described on the federal level as public moneys spent for food stamps, primary, secondary and tertiary education, income subsidies for low wage workers, unemployment and disability insurance, housing subsidies, guaranteed public pensions and public health insurance programs. If you combine the logic of the present day conservatives with American history, you are in a sense declaring a one hundred year history of socialist agenda and policies within our federal government. Since it started with the New Deal it isn't quite 100 years old, is it?  If we want to go down this road we can also historically pin the beginnings of socialism on the lapel of the Roosevelt administration, which by the way, was Republican.  What?  FDR was a Republican?  I did not know that.

The for mentioned conservatives also like to table the socialist agenda conspiracy when describing any government intervention in economic matters involving tax payer monies.  False, just some of them.  I also think you are misusing "table".  It means to set aside for future discussion.  They also like to assert that this is an attack on our capitalist economy. Some are, some aren't.  These primarily describe bailouts to the banks and automobile manufacturers, but are not limited to those industries.  Not even primarily.  The U.S. started down the bailout path in 1970 with the failure of the Penn Central Railroad. In short prior to PCR filing bankruptcy they appealed to the Fed for financial assistance. The Nixon Administration and the Fed supported this assistance but Congress said no. PCN filed for bankruptcy and the government supplied the banks with $676.3 million in loan guarantees. In 1976, the federal government consolidated the still struggling Penn Central with five other railroad companies that were also failing to form Consolidated Rail, or Conrail. The government spent $19.7 billion, including roughly $7.7 billion for the initial investment, to keep Conrail operating. By 1981, Conrail began to earn a profit. The government sold Conrail in 1987 for $3.1 billion. In addition to the sale price, the Treasury received a $579 million dividend from Conrail, resulting in a $15 billion loss of taxpayer dollar. Federal Government Bailouts prior to the recent rounds in 2008-09 include Lockheed, Franklin National Bank, New York City, Chrysler, Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company, the Savings & Loan industry, and the Airline industry. Of those, only the financial institutions joined the railroad in providing for lost public funds. Huh?  New York City?  I don't think so.  And what the fuck does "provide for lost public funds" mean?  It is nonsense.  History makes me wonder if Bush should have took us down the rabbit hole with the financial institutions again.  Bush?  I don't think Bush was involved in misappropriating TARP funds for anything other than banks, much of which has already been repaid with tidy public profit.

When talking about our economy and socialism you need to look at capitalism as well. One can't argue that our economy is either completely socialist or capitalist. No, that would be silly.  Historically you cant argue that it was leaning towards capitalism at first, as Benjamin Franklin was appointed first Postmaster General by the Continental Congress in 1775, with postal stamps coming into play in 1847. This is your evidence that we were not primarily capitalist from inception?  You seem to be contradicting your notion that it isn't absolute, which is one of the few sensible things you write.  The reality of the situation is that we have always had what economist refer to as a mixed economy. An example of this is that you can own a business, but our politicians make laws governing how you do business. Unfortunately far too many.  Moreover, the government controls the mail system, It does?  policing, firefighting, airports, as well as, most of the roads, and schools. Additionally the FDA bans certain drugs, we have a minimum wage, social welfare, agriculture subsidies, and the for mentioned bailouts. It is as simple as this we have a mixed economy, always have, probably always will.  No shit, although many of the things you mentioned are locally governed as opposed to federally.  That is a big difference.

What it boils down to is that this country was founded on democratic principles which align closely with those of a socialist democracy.  There is no reason to believe that is so at all.  We have always had a mixed economy which mixes the philosophies of capitalism and socialism, as well as others.  But the debate, which you can't seem to understand is  about just what the mix should be.  When a politician or commentator uses socialism as a talking point they are providing nothing short of a total disservice in relation to the rational debate of our policies.  Bullshit.  When we as the public buy into this, we are doing nothing to promote our democracy.  No matter what an individual voter "buys into" merely by the act of engaging in the debate he is promoting Democracy.  You and your socialist ilk do not control the debate.  Tough shit.  In fact we are wholesale in promoting an assault on the things we cherish most about being American.
I suspect that you and I do not cherish the same things about being American.  For instance I don't think that disagreeing with me is by definition anti-Democratic

---