Maybe you could go to Canada or the UK for better health care. Oh wait, they already flee here to get better than their own national health care provides them. Oh well, there’s always Mexico….

As for these other things you list. Think about it.

DOD: handles the National Defense, which is a Constitutional function of the Federal Government.

Justice system: a Constitutional function of the Federal Government.

Roads: a function of local governments or private enterprise EXCEPT for the National Defense Highway System (which falls under National Defense, a Constitutional function of the Federal Government, by allowing military forces to be road-marched around the country as needed. Military logistics, by the way, is also a reason for Federal Government funds to be expended to keep rail and air services viable. For that matter, it was the underlying reason that the Reagan Administration allowed Chrysler, that grand old maker of tanks and military transport systems, to be bailed out. It’s also an underlying reason for the current bailout of the U.S. auto makers. Would YOU like to rely on Japanese, Korean, German or Chinese companies to build our military vehicles? Oh that’s right. War is not the answer. We can safely kill our military machine with no ill effects, because people will love us like squishy teddy bears, at least once The One is in office).

These other socialized “insurance policies” of which you speak? Where are they enumerated in the Constitution?

Oh, that’s right. You believe the Constitution is simply a living document which changes with the mores of the culture. If most people want bread and circuses, then by golly, we’ll make that a right under the Constitution as well!

And you’ve made my point about the whole socialization of our society. Yes, the Dems thwarted the conservatives when it came to curbing government social programs. Including, of course, Bush and McCain when they called for regulating the amount of subprime loans the government, through Fannie and Freddie, was guaranteeing. Which was a policy put in place by THE DEMOCRATS in the late 1990s. (Yup, that’s right. The current economic crisis was spurred by Democrat social policies.)

But you also note that “it is part of our national DNA at this point” — the Social Security network put in place by the likes of Roosevelt and Johnson have become permanent fixtures in our society. Here is my whole complaint with this: Once in place, these programs cannot be dismantled!!!

But the damned politicians ignore the debts accumulating in those programs and blithely promise ever more spending to make constituents happy and buy votes. Do you HONESTLY ever expect to see anything come from your Social Security contributions when you retire in 20 years? Do you honestly expect Medicare to pay for your Viagra the way so many Baby Boomers do? Will the government care for you throughout your statistically long retirement years just because of these programs? That’s exactly what millions of Boomers and their children expect. We have a negative national savings rate, choose not to buy private insurance, and expect the Federal Government to pick up the tab for any and all consequences.

Republicans lost their ideals and became politicians grubbing for votes. How else could they even hope to compete against their Democrat opponents, who promise the moon? Fiscal conservatism doesn’t sell as well to voters as do promises of bread and circuses.

Tell me Gus. You are entering your peak earnings years. How many workers like you support how many retirees accepting government largesse? Are you willing to work until age 70? Canada was ready to raise the national retirement age to 70, with no benefits accruing prior to that age. My children will support many more retirees than you or I ever will. It’s sad really. We are robbing the next generations of their own fiscal comfort in order to pay for the excesses of today. But let’s just ignore that and order another round of Government spending programs for “the masses.”

“Every time conservatives have tried to curb these in-place social programs, they have been thwarted.”
By whom? By Democrats sometimes, but also by their own constituents! It is part of our national DNA at this point– it’s only a matter of greater or lesser socialistic policy. Admit it.
What is your medical, life or auto insurance policy except a smaller-than-national pool of risk? Not to mention all the gov’t programs that you happen to agree with– the DoD, police, justice system, roads, etc. are all kinds of socialized “insurance policies”. Get off your high horse.
Don’t like it? Then put a “permanent Republican majority” in place. Oops– you already tried that. How’s it working out for ya? Enjoy your years in the wilderness! Don’t forget to write!

And ever since the 1930s — under Roosevelt — this country has been moving toward the socialism. Johnson’s policies furthered Roosevelt’s. Clinton pushed a “social equality” platform by forcing banks to loan money to people who could not afford to pay it back on the basis of ensuring their “civil rights.” Every time conservatives have tried to curb these in-place social programs, they have been thwarted. Obama is promising sweeping socialist changes. You cannot deny that, however much you try by lying.

“Tax cuts were also out of the question…”
Obama has a great package of tax cuts, so that doesn’t apply.

“along with massive road building, subsidies to the auto industry, lots more bureaucrats to enforce all the new controls and regulations, and bribes to women to get married and stop working.”

Many Republican economists are calling for massive infrastructure projects. Bush just gave auto companies a hunk of cash, with more to come. It remains to be seen how much O will increase the bureaucracy– every sane person agrees that more financial regulation is inevitable after W starved the SEC. O sure ain’t gonna keep women barefoot ‘n pregnant.

“centralized agricultural policy”
Ain’t gonna happen w/ O.

“He [Hitler] subsidized preferred market sectors”

House Republican leader John Boehner… has proposed measures including incentives for the U.S. energy sector

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSTRE4A12E020081102

“real wages in Germany dropped by roughly 25% between 1933 and 1938″

Average hourly real wages [in the US] for both college and high school graduates actually fell between 2000 and 2005

(article from 2006)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5303590.stm

“The largest firms were mostly exempt from taxes on profits”
That’s straight Bush & McCain.

“Banned labor unions versus making them a tool of government policy enforcement.”
Unions’ status as arms of the State in the USSR had nothing to with his distaste for them. Let’s ask Adolph himself! Here are his ideas from Mein Kampf (1922):

For a trade-union movement which sees its mission only in competition with the Marxist unions would be worse than none at all. It must declare war on the Marxist union, not only as an organization, but above all as an idea. In the Marxist union it must strike down the herald of the class struggle and the class idea and in its stead must become the protector of the occupational interests of German citizens.

http://www.crusader.net/texts/mk/mkv2ch12.html

And putting his ideas into play in 1933:

Hitler met with some right-wing industrialists, reassuring them of his respect for private property. He told them that democracy led to socialism and that he would curb socialism and the socialist-led labor unions. The industrialists liked what Hitler told them, and, in January 1933, Hindenburg gave power to Hitler and his new coalition…

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm

The fact remains that his econ policies are not what we remember him for (and which provides the shock of your & Mlah’s comparison). There have been (and are) many socialist-leaning countries/leaders who have not been tempted to slaughter all the Jews in sight. Duh.

“Unlike labor unions in the West, Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU. As such, they were partners of management in attempting to promote labor discipline, worker morale, and productivity.”

Banned labor unions versus making them a tool of government policy enforcement. Hmmm. The whole idea of unions was ultimately destroyed by the respective Socialist and Communist governments.