Eri, you have got to get past the Bush obsession. While you're worried about whether or not your phone calls are being tracked, people are running for office that believe nothing you own or accomplish should be beyond the reach of the government. You have got to see the larger picture.

You and Robert grudgingly admit that social engineering doesn't really accomplish what it set out to do, and yet we push more of it. Why?

Once you realize that it isn't about helping the unfortunate as much as it is about accumulating centralized power, the dismissal of the mediocre results fits right into place. A true collectivist doesn't really care if his people are eating bark, as long as he has the power.

Welfare destroys families and cultures. This might be considered a failure if the goal was actually making the poor self-reliant and prosperous. From the point of view of power, it's not a failure--an entire segment of society is dependent on the State and will reliably vote for more socialism. Programs like Social Security deliver a marginal existence that is a fraction of what would have been delivered by private investment of the same amounts over the years. A failure? Again, not when the result is a dependent population that can be counted on to support socialist programs and those who push them.

Will nationalizing health care provide better health care than almost every American is already getting? I've shown many examples of how it won't. But who cares? Once again, total dependence on the State is the goal, not fixing the problem.

In the case of health care, the proof of this is the complete rejection by proponents of the idea of leaving a working system in place, and targeting assistance to the small groups that are having problems.

No, it has to be the entire population hauled into it whether they want it or not, or the goal has not been accomplished.

Get over Bush. Go read what Obama, for example, wants to do.