Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However at the end of the day government spending did break the back of the great depression. WWII opened government coffers to the point of nearly 75% of the overall GDP at the time. This money flowed directly to manufacturing companies in support for the great war machine. Without this direct subsidy, many of these plants would have gone under. So yes the “New Deal” did have limited effects in the overall economy however this fact is understandable considering the limited dollar figure attributed to it. To argue however that government interference does not work because of the New Deals failure is disingenuous at best considering the profound affect that the later government war time economy had on generating jobs and the boost it gave to the overall economy.
sigh.....The government did not create the War to solve economic problems. To give credit to that is absurd.
I disagree, the social programs set about by FDR were the reason the depression lasted so long.
btw there were no stories about the economy recovering on it's own back then because that was not allowed to happen.
There have been plenty of posts here on CD about how the economy "would have" recovered on its own, and sooner, had FDR, etc not meddled with it. There is no proof of that, in in the meantime, people were starving. Of course, the "love my country" types don't care about starving people, just about making money, apparently.
The same things that are being said about Healthcare Reform were said about Social Security benefits, Unemployment benefits, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Prescription Medicine bill, etc.
Well I for one would hate to go back to a world without government legislation in place that protects it’s citizenry. That world would look a little bit like a Dickens novel. A large populace working around 80 hours a week for meager wages. A large child working class. Massive slums of overcrowded tenements with many left to die in the streets. Sounds very utopian and cozy. The people taking care of themselves.
I find it laughable that people consider this flawed corporatist bill "socialism." There is no public option, just a horrible mandate to BUY insurance. Sure, the gov't will tax those who don't pay their corporate masters, but it's still not a socialist plan. It's a bonanza to big insurance companies and big pharma.
I don't believe the Tea people were the ones shouting out racist insults. I think it was your people using the backs of minorities to further your Marxist push.
I was there. All day. I didn't hear anyone shouting racist insults on either side. Just very civil disagreement. There were thousands of people at the demonstration on both sides. There were cameras and cell phones everywhere. If the insult were loud enough for our esteemed representatives to have heard, surely someone has a recording. If they don't have one, maybe they can make one real quick like!
Economist of both the fiscal and monetary schools point to Roosevelt's adoption of not New Deal policies but the very policies that today's conservative advocate, reductions in Federal expenditures and tightening the money supply for causing the 1937 recession.
So thanks for pointing out, inadvertently I am sure, the correctness of Democratic policies.
Are you trying to rewrite history? Your conclusions are all wrong. It was because of the governments intervention there was no money in some individuals and corporations pockets not some made up tightened by the Feds. Except for the segment of people FDR decided to line the pockets of by setting wages. This was the 2nd time he tried this and both times it failed miserably.
Payments for social security took money out of the economy. Government levied taxes on corporations undistributed profits so there was no money to hire people or invest in equipment and research.
LMAO Thanks for proving MY point.
sigh.....The government did not create the War to solve economic problems. To give credit to that is absurd.
Of course they did not. No one said they did. However due to WWII the government was able to open its coffers at previously unprecedented amounts. This stimulus filtered directly to the people giving them jobs and wages. Without this stimulus the depression would have lasted a lot longer. To again summarize direct government action aided the economy. Oh and sigh back at you.
There have been plenty of posts here on CD about how the economy "would have" recovered on its own, and sooner, had FDR, etc not meddled with it. There is no proof of that, in in the meantime, people were starving. Of course, the "love my country" types don't care about starving people, just about making money, apparently.
I can't speak for all the "stories" but don't you think some are based on what happened in history previously. Laissez faire was not used during the depression.
I am surprised you don't know why people were starving. Surely you have seen films of crops being plowed under haven't you? Did you ever ask why that happened?
"The New Deal years were characterized by a belief that greater regulation would solve many of the country's problems. In 1933, for example, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) to provide economic relief to farmers. The AAA had at its core a plan to raise crop prices by paying farmers a subsidy to compensate for voluntary cutbacks in production. Funds for the payments would be generated by a tax levied on industries that processed crops. By the time the act had become law, however, the growing season was well underway, and the AAA encouraged farmers to plow under their abundant crops. Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace called this activity a "shocking commentary on our civilization." Nevertheless, through the AAA and the Commodity Credit Corporation, a program which extended loans for crops kept in storage and off the market, output dropped."
You get that? Plow under abundant crops to make money. People were starving and our government did that. I'll correct the last sentence of your post.
"Of course, the "government" types don't care about starving people, just about making money, apparently."
? Quite an educated response. ? Again read a Dickens novel or beef up on your stats of America pre 1920. The people taking care of themselves was laughable. There is a reason why our grandparents organized Unions and demanded better pay and working conditions. There is a reason that child welfare laws, and tenement bylaws were passed. There is a reason for social security. All stem from the fact that corporations did not and do not care about the general populace. They’re only game is to make a profit. Now if this profit comes at the expense of you or I, then so be it. This is capitalism in its rawest form, something that you sadly seem to support.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However due to WWII the government was able to open its coffers at previously unprecedented amounts. This stimulus filtered directly to the people giving them jobs and wages. Without this stimulus the depression would have lasted a lot longer. To again summarize direct government action aided the economy. Oh and sigh back at you.
