OMG that is too stupid but perfectly liberal. Communism in USSR and Red China slowly starved to death about 120 million.
the 1880's saw the fastest economic growth in American History. Those that liberals call Robber Barrons got rich by gifting 10000 times the riches to Americans in the form of steel, autos, oil, and railroads, etc. For example Henry Ford made most Americans wealthy enough to afford cars but only got $1.49 himself for each car. Rockefeller actually turned night into day for most Americans by making kerosene affordable!!! Its was a capitalist miracle of miracles which, sadly, the liberal will lack the IQ to understand.
Ahhh, perspective is wonderful thing isn't it? The contrast you draw is stark, and implies that the attributes of one do not belong to the other . . .but during that time we have starving people in America (how exactly do you think unions got started?) and Russia developed a powerful infrastructure.
But i do agree . .. insofar as people like ford, who willingly gave workers good wages and benefits of work beyond what was required help bring the nation up. It's true, under most circumstances I prefer the option of "giving to each according to their need" rather than by force.
God never got angry at people living in luxury while needs were met; only when they were not.
norman said:Higher taxes but less spending by almost 50%? Impossible equation.
It's the 50s that were capitalist, now it's socialism for the wealthy + interest groups./QUOTE]
Both of those statements are wrong. It is possible to increase tax rates, and reduce overall spending-that may have something to do with total income being taxed; or deliberate policy.
and you are claiming that after the new deal and during the great society was the least "socialist" period of out of the last century? I assume that you don't consider taking over car manufacture plants to build tanks to be socialism either.