Can any conservative differentiate for me "Privatization of gain" vs. "Socialization of loss?"?

It is for the very, very rich, who write the policies and fund the campaigns.

If you are trying to make the argument that the 50's had a stronger economy with "Liberal" policies than today's economy with "Conservative" policies, you leave out a few things, maybe some you didn't even know. The Great Depression ended in 1933, yes 1933. This was due in large part of the policies FDR did with the banks.

One of these, the creation of the FDIC, made it safe for people to put money back in banks. FDR practically begged people to start putting their money back in banks, which they did. This wasn't so much to protect peoples' money as it was to give banks the money they needed.....to loan out again to businesses.

This is the heart of Capitalism. FDR knew that banking is the backbone of the economy and Capitalism. When he did this, the Great Depression ended later that year.

What he did was a good part of what Conservatives champion today, business-oriented supply-side economics. When business thrives, everybody rides. But then, FDR pivoted to what he wanted to do, grand social spending, managed by government policies, governed with the idea that prosperity flows from government.

He wanted to change the country into what much of European countries have today, Social Democracies. He distrusted big business, thinking they should be more outlets for government social policies. The result?

The effects of the Great Depression, even though the actual depression ended, lingered on for 7 more long years. He thought pushing the economy car was the way to get it running again. When he thought the economy was starting to do well in 1937, he though he could stop pushing.

The result was a recession that only ended when he started pushing again. Then, in 1940, despite himself. He was forced to start spending huge sums on planes, tanks, ships, bombs, bullets and beans for the upcoming war effort.

This was again, supply-side economics, albeit a spending version of it, aimed straight at business. The sharp economic recovery, that should have happened in late 1933 after the depression ended, then occurred in late 1940 instead. I told you that story to help tell you this one.

After the war, into the 50's, business was up and running, with plenty of new customers with cash to spend. Add to this, foreign business in Europe and the Pacific Rim was smoking holes in the ground for years after the war. The US was the only game in town in which to buy stuff.

It had a lock on business, regardless how high taxes were. The government also spend huge sums with the Marshal Plan, all this money went to nations ravaged by the war. They had little place to spend it except with US business.

It was an indirect version of the supply-side spending FDR did in 1940. It created even more demand for US business. All those images of the US being a world exporter were born during this time and after.

The economy of the 50's was humming right along due to all this. Even with all this going on, the economy started slowing down by the end of the 50's. Foreign business were getting back on their feet and could now compete for customers.

The US lost it's monopoly. It wasn't until JFK came up with a solution, a drastic cut in taxes (which LBJ posthumously implemented), that the economy got fundamentally better. It also broke the 3-4 years between cyclic recessions, doubling them to 8-10 years.

Your free-market comparisons totally ignores how the tax cuts of the Reagan era, as well as tightening up the money supply, broke the Stagnation the country devolved into by the 70's. Starting in 1983, the country started on economic prosperity that lasted the next 17 years. The booming economy continued into the Bush (41) and Clinton eras.

Clinton did little to impede it. Although he raised taxes some, the economy was a strong thoroughbred racehorse that didn't feel the few extra pounds of the jockey riding it. The strong economy made mincemeat of the two cyclic recession in 1991 and 2000 (9 year separation, thank to JFK), making them practically only recessions on paper.

You ignore how most of the Bush (43) economy was OK. Bush was a mixed bag of Conservatism and mild Progressivism. His few Conservative policies, like the tax cuts worked well.

It's was his Progressive streak that resulted in huge unforced spending, adding $5 trillion in debt and contributed to the mortgage meltdown and resulting recession. You compare todays economy with the 50's. Conservatives have NOT been in the driver's seat with this economy for almost 7 years.

As bad as the recession was, it ended by July 2009, any legitimate Bush bashing ended then too. The current economy is ALL a reflection of Obama's Progressive thinking of how he thinks an economy should work and what it should be. His is much like the mindset of FDR from 1933-1940, except Obama has no impetus to switch to supply-side spending.

Although the economy is getting better, it has been perpetually sluggish, just like those European economies Obama pines for, for much the same reasons. If your intent was to point out the weakness of this economy, OK. However, thank Obama for it, not Conservatives.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.