As to FDR, it may come as a surprise to many who have just read the narrative purveyed in most classrooms, but economists who have analyzed the matter have concluded that FDR's programs and policies did in fact significantly prolong the Great Depression for years. Once I posted a link to one of these studies on the HEF, though I don't have the link with me anymore. If you are interested you can probably find some material on this on the Web using Google or Google Scholar. It really is quite interesting.
As to charities providing charity: The "taxes we pay" could be reduced (or at least not increased) and the looming fiscal crisis that will be caused by the explosive growth of entitlement programs could be avoided if ... charities (rather than government) were to provide assistance to those who truly need charity. In some of our recent discussions on the HEF, I posted an article that spelled out the unsustainable burden that will confront the nation in the next couple of decades. Were those decades included in the charts that Curits and I posted, the lines would be zooming off the chart as we move further and further into the future.
As to your other comments regarding tax dollars being wasted ... I could not agree with you more. I am of course opposed to government waste, and believe that one of the most effective ways to lessen waste is to authorize the government to spend money on fewer things from the outset (in order to reduce the possibility that there will be waste).
Also, please don't take my comment regarding the impact of economic incentives and disincentives as absolute. Of course some folk will still be motivated to work as professionals or run businesses even with oppressive government red tape and taxation, just as some folk will be motivated to study or work even if the State does provide them with the basic necessities. The only point I am making is that economic incentives and disincentives do affect behavior, on average. Those effects can be very destructive on a number of levels. Even where the Government Policies are well-motivated, the unintended consequences may at times be worse than the ill they intended to cure.
As to (in your view) my not answering Battle's question, I honestly tried. I didn't quite understand his question. I appreciate the fact that you are clearly interested in a serious discussion of the issues, and it appears on some points we agree while on others we don't. Which is fine. Since you asked (but I really don't want to get sidetracked on the topic) the devaluation of human life is revealed in the way that the abortion of an unborn child is viewed (by many) as involving no moral issue whatsoever, and that the snuffing of folks who are very seriously injured or become seriously disabled is accepted on grounds of "quality of life" and the like (doctors tried to pressure my wife to starve to death both of her grandparents at different times, and we adamantly refused ... so I'm not talking hypotheticals here. Both her grandparents lived for many many more years, thanks to our insistence that the doctors not be permitted to murder them. Fortunately, the decision was in our hands, not in the hands of some third-party bureaucratic Administrator).
As to the nature of our democracy, you are mistaken. It is not a pure democracy (which can easily lead to mob rule). It is a CONSTITUTIONAL Republic. Which means that the "Will of the People" is constrained by Constitutional Limitations. Limitations that were intended to protect the rights of the Individual. So no, I have no plans to "move to another country." I rather like living in a Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution simply needs to be enforced. In many nations, on paper, rights are protected by constitutions, but these constitutions are in practice disregarded. I expect more as a citizen of the United States.
The rest of your comments appear to be more focused on objecting to people expressing points of view in public protest that you disagree with, reliance on psychic powers of mind-reading, and resort to name calling directed at those who don't share your point of view.
In fact, on average, supporters of the Tea Party Movement are more highly educated, more mature, and more successful than the averages for the nation as a whole.
There were, of course, many many protests against Bush, from those on the Left, with offensive signs and statements in plentiful display. It just so happens that during the Bush years, the primary focus was on 9/11, National Security, the War on Terror, Iraq and Afghanistan, and this was reflected in the public protests as well. And of course Bush was a Republican. Thus, the protests emerged from the Left. Prior to the last Presidential Election, the Economy emerged as the primary issue in virtually everyone's mind (on the Right, on the Left, and in the Middle). Therefore, it is not at all surprising that the public protests would now focus on economic issues and the massive economic expansion of Government, Government Debt, the Deficit, and Government Intrusion (with regard to matters that have nothing to do with National Security). And since the Incumbent is of the Left, one would expect that the protesters would be Conservative (rather than being the President's Liberal/Left apologists).
Redjack, inherent in democracy (including a Constitutional Republic) is the right to protest the policies of the Government. This is wholly legitimate.
What is illegitimate is when activists supportive of Obama attempt to disguise themselves as Tea Party Protesters in order to infiltrate rallies and display offensive and misspelled signs in order to fabricate disparaging images for the Media to run with. As has now been disclosed.
As you say, "democracy is an argument." Given this, why in the world you would you think that opponents of Obama's agenda should just remain silent and passively accept his policies like sheep? That is not the way our democratic system operates. The First Amendment to our Constitution was drafted for this very reason. To protect political speech, which is regarded as the most valuable form of speech. It is not reserved to operate just once every four years. Elections are coming up in a few months to fill Senate and House Seats. And even when elections are not imminent, our citizens are entitled to express their political views in public forums. Whether or not you agree with 'em.
Finally, if you are dissatisfied with our Constitution, including its First Amendment Protections (that you alluded to at the outset of your post), advocate its Amendment. In the meantime, it is the governing document of our Nation.