Political Cartoons

Ask all the unemployed people right now-- and boy howdy, I hear there's a few!-- who are only making ends meet because of unemployment insurance how they feel about the New Deal. And ask them if they agree with rich Ann Coulter that it was a mistake.

Etc etc...

From:

Too bad the New Deal did nothing to get us out of the depression but did everything possible to make it worse.

From:

milkquasy.livejournal.com

"...but did everything possible to make it worse."

Could you please explain this?

From:

More unemployed in 1939 than when the depression started, made people dependent on the government for their well-being for generations, did away with personal responsibility, created government agencies which are still around although they do nothing, ...

From:

milkquasy.livejournal.com

"Too bad the New Deal did nothing to get us out of the depression but did everything possible to make it worse."

I asked you to explain. You replied...

"More unemployed in 1939 than when the depression started, made people dependent on the government for their well-being for generations, did away with personal responsibility, created government agencies which are still around although they do nothing..."

This does not explain your answer, or answer my question. You are simply throwing out opinions, and stereotypical information. Please explain how it made the depression worse, not what it did in the decades since.

The New Deal was not supposed to last these last 70+ years. It was a short term solution to a country that had been hit with economic hardship, a drought, and the effects of extremely bad farming practices.

From:

According to Jim F. Couch and William F. Shughart II, among other political economists have concluded that New Deal programs probably retarded rather than promoted recovery from the depression. And this is not even going into the long term devastaing impact of the new deal.

Then there is this: A study of the 1930s by Christina D. Romer, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley (“What Ended the Great Depression?,” Journal of Economic History, 1992), confirmed that expansionary monetary policy was the key to the partial recovery of the 1930s. The worst years of the New Deal were 1937 and 1938, right after the Fed increased reserve requirements for banks, thereby curbing lending and moving the economy back to dangerous deflationary pressures.

Roosevelt instituted a disastrous legacy of agricultural subsidies and sought to cartelize industry, backed by force of law. Neither policy helped the economy recover.

He also took steps to strengthen unions and to keep real wages high. This helped workers who had jobs, but made it much harder for the unemployed to get back to work. One result was unemployment rates that remained high throughout the New Deal period.

From:

fleaplus.livejournal.com

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

From:

agueing economics isnt my strong point, ill be honste, but...

it seems to me the new deal helped ease the great depression. ive seen the graphs, witch i will find latter, if you want of new deal projects and income. the new deal created work, helped genrate electricy that was afordable, secured people aginst the lose of there jobs, ensureing that rather then hitting jaggdy spikes after the fall, the blow was cushioned. projects under the new deal built thousdon of school and roads.

just as importantly, the new deal created hope, something sorely lacking in 1933. it has created a lasting legecy that helped stop banks from calpsing (regultions witch were removed, and helped cause the new banking crises, i belive, regultions to do with persnal and merchent banking), and helped sheild people from the worst (and the worst was pritty bad) of loseing your job.

i think the new deal was a success. or, at least, a partial success.

From:

Perhaps you should spell first. It would make it easier to read. Although you would still be incorrect.

From:

i did spell. just not corractly all of the time.

and, the graph i spoke off.

looks clear to me. the man who promised a chicken in every pot and a car in every garge prosied over a pirod of massive lose in gdp, depriveing meny people of both, whilst the FDR prosided over an incress GDP.

prhapse you would care to offer your evidence.

From:

It took time, but yes the New Deal helped the country recover from the Great Depression. It was a series of programs and initiatives aimed at long-term gain, not short-term fixes (I hope Obama shares the same philosophy). Go talk to your grandparents and ask them if they hated all the things that FDR did for this country.

The problem is that so much of what we got out of FDR/the New Deal-- 40-hour work week, child-labor laws, unemployment insurance, Social Security other worker protections and social safety nets (not to mention development of national infrastructure and things that helped create the modern middle class like the GI Bill and FHA loans), etc etc-- we completely take for granted. So conservatives can get away with demagoguing these things... when in reality, a) they'd never give up any of these things themselves, and b) any Republican crazy enough to run on repealing these things would get Ralph Nader #s at best.

Again, ask all the unemployed people right now-- I think we all know at least a few (I do, for sure)-- who are only making ends meet for their family because of the assistance that unemployment insurance gives them how they feel about the New Deal. The vast majority is sure to not share your sentiments.

[PS- And don't give me that 'personal responsibility' canard (we all do our best). Give that lecture to these guys (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/meltdown_secrets).]

From:

The problem is that so much of what we got out of FDR/the New Deal-- 40-hour work week, child-labor laws, unemployment insurance, Social Security other worker protections and social safety nets (not to mention development of national infrastructure and things that helped create the modern middle class like the GI Bill and FHA loans), etc etc--

I'll continue the list for you: the nanny state, economic enslavement to the government, destrcution of personal responsibility, big government that we can't get rid of, wasteful spending, destruction of the 10th amendment, using big government influence over the allocation of New Deal dollars because Democratic representatives and senators wanted to enhance their own reelection prospects as well as aid Roosevelt’s reelection chances whcih continues even today with pork spending.

From:

That response is just a bunch of ranting. It doesn't actually address the substantive things I mentioned in my comment.

From:

When you ever mention anything of substance please let us know. It'll be a banner day indeed.

From:

he had. read the comment. in anycase, the evils, or persved evils you mentioned (rosovelt wasnt nanny state, what with repealing prohibition, that would make him the arch anti nanny statesit, surely).

i cant see any economic enslavement to the goverment, pork spending, as you call it, can and dose still contribute usefuly, even if it is also riddled with problems, and for the others, whos veratasity im not sure off, im gona say that the evils you mentioned are far outweighted by the goods mentioned by blue duck.

From:

Your reply was a just a bunch of angry opinions ("nanny state", etc)... mine was referring to actual specific programs and policies which continue to affect all of our lives to this day, and seeking a response to such. I'll repost it now just to reiterate this (bolding the areas I was most invested in).

It took time, but yes the New Deal helped the country recover from the Great Depression. It was a series of programs and initiatives aimed at long-term gain, not short-term fixes (I hope Obama shares the same philosophy). Go talk to your grandparents and ask them if they hated all the things that FDR did for this country.

The problem is that so much of what we got out of FDR/the New Deal-- 40-hour work week, child-labor laws, unemployment insurance, Social Security other worker protections and social safety nets (not to mention development of national infrastructure and things that helped create the modern middle class like the GI Bill and FHA loans), etc etc-- we completely take for granted. So conservatives can get away with demagoguing these things... when in reality, a) they'd never give up any of these things themselves, and b) any Republican crazy enough to run on repealing these things would get Ralph Nader election #s at best.

I reiterate that a) we take these changes to how our society and economy works for granted (as shown by your rhetorical willingness to throw this baby out with the bathwater because of some occasional abuses, which are not the norm), and b) you'd never run on repealing them unless you intended to lose.

Again, ask all the unemployed people right now-- I think we all know at least a few (I do, for sure)-- who are only making ends meet for their family because of the assistance that unemployment insurance gives them how they feel about the New Deal. The vast majority is sure to not share your sentiments.

Seriously, please go talk to these people.

[PS- And don't give me that 'personal responsibility' canard (we all do our best). Give that lecture to these guys (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/meltdown_secrets).]

Because nobody else seems to want to.

From:

That we have a nanny state is not an opinion but a statement of fact. FDR's plan didnt help anything, least of all solving the depression. If anything his brand of socialism (that's exactly what it is) created long term problems and actually prolonged the depression. But I'm guessing that 3rd and 4th generation welfare families are a success story. I'm guessing that poeple who work just long enough to go back on unemployment aera a success story. Go ahead talk to those people.

I have spoken to my grandparents and parents who lived through the depression and they hate that sonofabith FDR for introducing socialism into this country and for proposing progrmas that created more problems than they solved.

All those things you mentioned gave government more control over our lives. Thats a fact. I just don't understand why you think that government has solved any problem when in truth it only creates bigger problems.

FDR created the worst type of entitlement mentality. And it hasn't stopped growing. More and more people rely on the government for their well being. That's a fact. That's also economic enslavement.

as shown by your rhetorical willingness to throw this baby out with the bathwater because of some occasional abuses, which are not the norm

The same can be said of creating more regulations on businesses.

From:

But I'm guessing that 3rd and 4th generation welfare families are a success story. I'm guessing that poeple who work just long enough to go back on unemployment aera a success story. Go ahead talk to those people.

And I'm guessing you actually believe that this is some kind of widespread problem, rather than aberrations in the system and/or hyperbolic exaggeration.

(Of course all those people on unemployment are having the time of their lives!)

All those things you mentioned gave government more control over our lives. Thats a fact.

The 40-hour work week, child-labor laws, unemployment insurance, Social Security, other worker protections and social safety nets, the development of national infrastructure, and things that helped create the modern middle class like the GI Bill and FHA loans... these represent some kind of fascism to you? If so, I beg you to get the GOP to (openly) run on that platform in every possible election.

That's also economic enslavement.

Slavery looks like this (http://answersinhistory.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/slavery.gif). Not this (http://vbonnaire.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/wpa11.jpg).

Finally, I'll end by noting that you've now twice ignored this...

[PS- And don't give me that 'personal responsibility' canard (we all do our best). Give that lecture to these guys (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/meltdown_secrets).]

...which only continues to prove the point (http://community.livejournal.com/politicartoons/1141046.html?thread=21894710#t21894710) I've been making here for weeks accurate.

From:

Which is why we should never have any kind of bailouts, we need to get rid of all forms of welfare, and we need to stop the ponzi scheme called Social Security.

And I'm guessing you actually believe that this is some kind of widespread problem, rather than aberrations in the system and/or hyperbolic exaggeration.

They are neither aberrations or hyperbolic exaggeration. It's the truth you can't stand to face.

Slavery looks like this. Not this.

Government owning the means of production and stealing our wages is enslavment. Government handing out money means they get to control those they pay. That's slavery.

I want less government in my life, not more. I don't want government socialism like you do. I want freedom to succeed or fail, not government control on what I can or cannot do.

From:

lafinjack.livejournal.com

I want less government in my life, not more. I don't want government socialism like you do. I want freedom to succeed or fail, not government control on what I can or cannot do.

Then why are you voting Republican?

From: