And for at least 1.7 million people last year, they were?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101099732

And of course if you look at the economic performance of the US under R administrations, vs D administrations, the Rs win by a hundred miles.

/s

Unless you actually look at economic performance. [1]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/democratic-presiden... [2]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/economy-ha...

As the /s was meant to indicate. :)

(Thanks for the links).

And the whole "it has never worked anywhere else" thing. That might factor into it.

I don't generally support socialism, but your statement is completely wrong. What about Scandinavia and Germany? What about worker's rights? The US itself has plenty of measures which were deemed socialist years ago[1] but are now so common that we take them for granted.

[1] Note that socialism designates a vast array of different ideologies and its meaning is continually evolving. It certainly did not mean the same thing in Steinbeck's time as it does today.

Edit: grammar

Is Steinbeck still right about that?