The answer is easy, it is the best form of government to produce national wealth. There is not a single, nor a couple of go to authorities on the subject of which nation has the HSL/ best quality of life(BQL), but they all seem to come down to the same countries topping their lists. Those countries, Norway, Sweden , Finland, the Netherlands, the Swiss ect are always at the top. The US is in their about 7- 10th in most lists with Australia placing 1-7th. The Us keeps its position through deficit financing at 1.6 Trillion a year and with the advantage of its currency being used as the world’s currency.

How did these socialist countries, that have sustainable economies, obtain the HSL/BQL’s for their people?
First,and at the heart of it, the question of growing their economies mostly took a back seat to SL issues. The historical record on this is glaring. As these socialist countries rejected what Italy, Britain, Ect embraced- Corporatism under the banner of free markets. The SL grew for the socialists and with bigger deficits the others faded. Also, the debate on war within these socialist style political regimes was much more intellectual because of the socialist nature of the government.

These countries use smart tariffs, to protect their standard of living.Their model for economic success depends on a middle class driven economy. Look at the results, and sustainable.

The main obstacle to preventing war and achieving the HSL is corporatism. Look at your most important issues, you will likely find a large corp or group of large corporations manipulating the situation against your interests.

Here we believe that the transfer of wealth happened in spite of the federal government instead of being fully facilitated by the federal government, and advocate for more federal gov, despite the facts- or that it just needs to be fixed, must be fixed,can be fixed – but every fact is against that happening.

If you think you can have Obamney or even a couple more years with a competition centered around who can be more like Bush, Bigger MCI, more war and not collapse the dollar, you will be proven wrong and the nightmare that awaits on the other side of that collapse will be epic.

The question this post is premised on is the right question to ask. That anyone would advocate that people who support cutting 500 billion from wars and warmongering and closing down Federal Agencies that are part of the conduit of the Federal Government’s transfer of wealth to the 1%,are wacky vs those that have never looked to see if closing down those agencies made sense, would not be able to intellectually defend keeping those agencies, but would just say it is wacky, ending the wars not important, but would be hard pressed to show those savings through domestic cuts, especially if it is wacky to cut fed agencies.

Progressive support for Big federal gov will preclude any movement towards socialist policies. See the last 30 years. Where Montana and Vermont get single payer under State’s rights and you will never get it at the fed level- as designed and the list goes on, just more wackyness