No one took the bait. I will answer the question I posed in R69.
In 1956 the Republican Party, then as now, the one party everybody admits is locked into wealth and corporate power, ran on that platform.
They had a popular president, Dwight Eisenhower, running for re-election. They controlled both houses of Congress. It was very likely that the election would give them a free hand for the next four years.
This platform laid out what the party thought were reasonable solutions to serious issues, and what would bring them the most support. You can bet this platform was vetted at the highest level of Wall Street.
If any of you don't know about Taft-Hartley you really should. It was designed to tame unions, make them lapdogs. The Republican Party(!) wanted to make the law more favorable to unions.
How was the economy then? We were well into the greatest expansion of wealth and GNP of any country ever. Everyone's life was improving every year.
College was affordable with no loans, everyone approved of Social Security, and workers felt secure in jobs where there was lifetime commitment on both sides. People could pay for routine medical care out of take home pay.
There was a vast commitment to rebuilding the infrastructure. Plans were laid out for the largest public works project in history -- the Interstate Highway System, started the next year.
How does the economy then compare to now? Why do low wage workers make less than subsistence wages?
The rich have stolen us blind.
"Corporations systematically created a wealth gap over the last 30 years. In 1955, IRS records indicated the 400 richest people in the country were worth an average $12.6 million, adjusted for inflation.
"In 2006, the 400 richest increased their average to $263 million, representing an epochal shift of wealth upward in the U.S.
"In 1955, the richest tier paid an average 51.2 percent of their income in taxes under a progressive federal income tax that included loopholes. By 2006, the richest paid only 17.2 percent of their income in taxes.
"In 1955, the proportion of federal income from corporate taxes was 33 percent; by 2003, it decreased to 7.4 percent. Today, the top taxpayers pay the same percentage of their incomes in taxes as those making $50,000 to $75,000, although they doubled their share of total U.S. income.
"Over the past 30 years, the income of the top one percent, adjusted for inflation, doubled: the top one-tenth of one percent tripled, and the one-one-hundredth quadrupled . . . Meanwhile, the average income of the bottom 90 percent has gone down slightly. This is a stunning transformation." See link
The economy was booming for everyone because those at the top knew they could achieve wealth and at the same time let the rest of us share in that wealth.
More than that. They knew that sharing was essential to their long term wealth, not to mention their health.
These facts are all out there. We have nothing to prove. The burden now shifts to those who hate the poor and love the rich. How can you contradict the fact that when the economy crashed, we got hammered and the wealthy got bailed out?
Do you have an alternate explanation as to why the economy can't recover other than the vast majority have nothing in their pockets to spend?
If the busting of unions, the breaking of wage scales, and the impoverishment of 99% of the population was going to turn things around through trickle-down, then 30 years of failure is enough evidence that it never will.
Come on apologists for the rich. Present your theory that making the rich filthy rich is good for everyone.
Don't blame greedy unions. That's bullshit. Unions built the middle class we used to have.
Plenty of countries have powerful unions while having better economies and public services than we do.