The short version TRUTH about FDR and the Great Depression:

[Political Heretic]

1. FDRs immediately enacted policies (upon coming to office) - cut unemployment by double digits, and provided relief to countless people, however it did not on its own shake the economy out of depression. The Jobs portion of early plans worked extremely well, some plans for broader economic stimulus did not work.

2. FDRs second "new deal" including SSA 1935, combined with the stop of massive unemployment previously, worked. It worked. The economy stopped shrinking and recovery began.

3. WWII, insofar as it functioned as a massive job creation and government spending program - sped up a recovery that you can historically prove, with actual data, was already underway.

So:

1. FDR's policies stopped a worsening depression and began a recovery.
2. Government spending of WWII helped speed that recovery.

Done.

[MADem]

1. I don't really understand the GOP whining--what, do they wanna start WW3 to "prove" their point? NT

[hootinholler]

18. What do you think the PNAC was?

The biggest boom the US had seen was WWII, therefore WWIII will be good for bidniz.

-Hoot

[MADem]

19. PNAC was never looking for "World War." They just wanted to go grab a tinpot asshole's oil.

And they wanted a replacement for the old (as opposed to the new) Middle East Three Pillars strategy from back in the Shah days that was designed to counter Soviet dominance in the region and foster a pro-Western attitude.

To do that, and play the same sort of game, only with new players, they needed a friendly base of operation, a location where they could disrupt the activities and influence of troublemakers, snuggle up with the leading government officials, and get a good price on oil, to boot. Only this time, the base was Iraq and the troublemakers were pesky Shi'ites in Iran who were doing a little outreach work with their neighbors. The Russkies were an issue, too, but they weren't the main concern at the initial stages.

[jwirr]

2. I agree whole heartedly. One thing we never think about is that we

might actually been better off if the war had never happened and the economy had been allowed to grow slower. I say this because the war stimulated economic growth into some areas that today are big problems: the military industrial complex. If it had not been wartime we may have grown in more people oriented industries and we may not have gotten into these bubbles we now see. I am interested in what others think would have happened to our economy if we had not had to develop the weapons of war?

[zipplewrath]

12. WWII created whole new industries

So did WW I. The factories and technologies that came out of WW II got "civilianized" quickly. Much of our aircraft advancement happened at a much faster pace. The entire space program, in both countries, came out of WW II. The original electronic computers came out of there. Plus, the GI bill educated a whole generation of engineers, teachers, doctors, etc.

What you suggest, and is hard to evaluate, is that there is also an "economic bubble" effect from much of this. Periods of rapid economic expansion are considered to be "permanent" when they are quite the opposite. But really, considering the two bubbles we just watched grow and burst over the last 15 years or so, I don't think it takes a war to create those problems.

[yellowcanine]

3. If FDR's programs had been as ineffective as pubbies now say he would not have been reelected twice.

You can put down the fourth term to an ongoing war but the 2nd and 3rd terms would never have happened if FDR's programs were as useless as the neocons make out these days.

[Viking12]

4. In 1937 FDR tried to balance the budget; dramatically reduced speding and unemployment rose sharply.

That is a another line of evidence that shows the spending was having a positive effect. Perhaps, the Depression could have been ended before WWII had the 'experiment' of 1937 not been implemented.

[TahitiNut]

10. In 1937, FDR was influenced by Prescott Bush and cronies. (Enough said.)

:shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

5. That about covers it...

FDR: Republicans don't 'get' that the Depression was a political crisis as much as an economic one.
ER: Darling, do they really think we're better off without the SEC, FDIC, Social Security, etc.?
FDR: Indeed they do old girl!
ER: How unfortunate. I can't imagine being so divorced from reality.
FDR: It's a lovely fantasy world they've got going, isn't it?
ER: Well, what's the expression? Oh, yes, 'they need to learn to suck on it and like it!'
FDR: Ha! Who taught you that one, Old Girl?
ER: I can't tell you...move over, it's my car!

[elocs]

6. The greatest thing that FDR gave the nation was hope,

and without hope there is not much of a life.

[Beetwasher]

7. I Have Absolutely ZERO FUCKING Patience

For these assclowns trying to rewrite history by saying FDR's policies and the New Deal didn't work, but actually made things worse.

ZERO FUCKING PATIENCE. I hope I never meet one of these douchebags in person, because it will be unpleasant for them (nothing violent, but a real verbal ass kicking will ensue).

I have no tolerance for this bullshit, it really pisses me off how they think they can so brazenly rewrite fucking history and disregard facts. Man oh man this shit burns me up!

[Viking12]

8. They're the same people that deny global warming and evolution

They pretty much believe anything that supports their world view, no matter how fucking ridiculous.

[Greyhound]

13. You should've heard the heritage foundation twit on the Thom Hartmann show today.

It was maddening, she's present some lie, he'd shoot it down and she'd come back with another.
:grr:

[MADem]

21. I have to agree with you. You have to wonder how mendacious these asswipes are, really.

They do it deliberately, because they're sold on the "repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the truth" mantra.

Between these GOP jerks and that bozo bishop with his "No Holocaust" nonsense, I wonder how future generations will do at digging for the truth. On top of it all, we've got a nation of children who accept way too much at face value and don't know how to do research without Google. It's a toxic mix, and you can see how easy it is to lie to people and have them believe the bullshit.

FDR is a person to me, not a flickering figure out of history, but that's not the case with people who were born within the last twenty or thirty years--they see him as an ancient figure of old, someone that their grandparents talk about.

Show these kids a pic of him with his cigarette and holder, and half of them think he's Batman's "The Penguin" out of costume! It's .... scary.

[TahitiNut]

9. Inherent in every denialist's claim is an utter disregard for unemployment.

It's a stark reminder that the right wing LIKES unemployment. They don't regard it as one of the worst impacts of a failing economy. They regard it as a boondoggle for cheap-labor capitalism. The suffering and deprivation of the working poor just doesn't register on their radar. It's despicable.

[libnnc]

11. yep and how many times have I heard

"What, you think everyone is ENTITLED to a job?!?!?111"

Makes me batshit crazy. And most of those fools who think that way, have never been handed a pink slip before.

[Orsino]

14. The economy's a moving target.

The neocons and the neoconned have suddenly decided to admit that the economy is broken, after years of looking the other way. They will be doing their best to label this the Obama Recession.

I don't get much MSM, but are they ready yet to call it a Bush Recession? Is anyone on the TV doing this?

[melm00se]

15. depression era economic #s

year........% of labor force
1929............3.14
1930............8.67
1931............15.82
1932............23.52 <==== FDR elected
1933............24.75
1934............21.60
1935............19.97
1936............16.80
1937............14.18
1938............18.91
1939............17.05
1940............14.45
1941............9.66
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, D.C., 1960), p.70.


US GDP 1890 - 2000
http://courses.umass.edu/ppol697d/growth.pdf

[gkhouston]

16. Those employment stats in the 30's don't include as "employed" the people who

were working in the CCC and WPA and such. A guy was talking about that on Democracy Now this morning. I only caught a few minutes of the show, as I had a dental appointment, so I don't know who the guest was. Apparently, this distinction is in line with the current bullshit about the difference between "work" and "a job". I suspect most unemployed people don't care whether it's called "work" or "a job" as long as there's a paycheck involved.

on edit: The guest was James Galbraith and a rush transcript of today's show should be at this link: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/10/economist_james_galbraith_bailed_out_banks

[melm00se]

17. the issue with the data

at this point were 2 fold:

employment (or lack of employment) quantification wasn't really effectively tracked until the 1930 census when that question was added to the census questionnaire.

additionally, and to your point, there was "unemployed" - folks who truly, 100%, did not have a job and then there was the "underemployed" numbers which were folks who were either way overqualified for their positions (ie a banker digging ditches) or folks who were employed (significantly - not really defined) less than full time. the 2 numbers were both into the mid 20's at their peak.

this is what makes studying history an inexact science as much of the numbers pre-1930 and between 1931 and 1940 were inferred from other, surrounding data points and anecdotal evidence. this is what opens the door to wild variation in interpretation, similar to what we have today with the "published" unemployment rate (based upon jobless claims) and the "true" unemployment rate (which factors in not just jobless claims but also folks who have stopped actively looking for a job - or by another definition - removed themselves from the workforce).

as to stimulus benefit of deficit spending there becomes a point of diminishing returns. Certainly WWII spending drove the unemployment rate down to historical lows (<1% in 1945) but the cost (70% of the economy was government/war driven). This can currently be seen in Japan where the Japanese have been battling a 20+ year old economic downturn where they have borrowed more than 150% of there total annual economic output in an effort to stem the tide.

There is also so really intriguing data from Japan as to what specific areas of stimulus have better returns (and I am damned if I can find that article)

[TahitiNut]

20. Please remember that FDR didn't take office until March 4, 1933.

January inaugurations didn't start until later. So, it's even more irrelevant to note that FDR was elected in 1932.

[Political Heretic]

22. Right so as I said.... double digit drop in unemployment prior to WWII

Prior to our involvement I should say...

EDIT - sorry I re-read my OP and see that it can be read to imply that FDR's first actions prior to another round if policy activities cut unemployment by double digits at the front end of the depression. Not quite what I intended to say. But the effect of his Presidency was that the 25% unemployment rate he inherited upon taking office dropped by double digits prior to WWII and during his administration.