Because it's hard to lose an election by promising people everything they want for free. That's pretty much it.

That there's no such thing as a free lunch is something for the future to worry about.

Robert's history is flawed. Economists have shown how the restrictions and regulations on economic activity during the New Deal actually extended the Depression.

Robert's history of the thriving post-war period also overlooks that the role of government was far smaller then than it is now, and the role of government now is far smaller than what people like Robert think it ought to be.

You really think American post-war prosperity was based on "New Deal" programs and government? In 1955, in constant dollars, the Federal Budget was one-fifth what it is now. The population since then hasn't even doubled. Many of the Federal programs, the ones that statists will tell you now we could not possibly live without, didn't even exist.

The problem in the present day is that the Democratic Party is largely run by the leftist faction now, and cannot conceive of a situation where there would be "too much" state control of our lives and economy. For fun, ask a Democrat if there's any point where they think enough money is being spent on a government program. Education, social programs, pick one. Other than defense, of course. Not only will they not have an answer, you'll realize as you watch them that their minds don't even have a receptor for that question to land on.

Some people seem to believe that all that is good in America is due to government action. If this were true, nations that had more government control of their economies, or complete control, should be more prosperous. Look at history. Are they? Have free-market countries or centralized economies been better places to live over the past fifty years?