stepping_up said:
Question for the conservatives.... what I've heard from this side is that none of the new deal spending did anything for getting us out of the depression, rather it was WWII. Do you guys/gals believe that?
I wouldn't say that it had no effect. I would say that FDR had a cult of personality that served him well, even after his death, during a time when this country was truly becoming homogenous. Film and radio served to bring the country to one place at the same time. Perception of the New Deal and the actual record aren't the same thing.
Looking at the charts of unemployment and GDP, it looks like everything bottomed in 1933 and began climibing from there (with a slight recession in '37) and eventually both GDP and employment reached the levels they were at pre-crash. From those two stats alone, one would assume the New Deal was a success. However, the country in 1938 was far worse off than it was in 1928. Deflation had set in and while the dollar was nominally worth more, fewer people had them, no one was spending them for fear of a future need, and companies saw no need to invest for growth. There was such a prolonged drought that overworked farm land literally blew away, causing famine and migration from the plains to California and Oregon.
Another pair of issues (two sides of the same coin really): so many things were being done, in so many different areas, and over such a long period of time, that it is very difficult to point to one program or action and show clear cause and effect. On the other hand, it is flat out impossible to say what would have occured if FDR and simply let market forces play themselves out because it was never tried.
Wait, don't say it... A favorite meme from Democrats is that Hoover tried doing nothing and it failed miserably, but the record is different than the popular belief. Hoover had been in office for 8 months when the stock market crashed, and he reacted by calling for more volunteerism (hmm...), more co-operation between govenment and business (uhh...), and of course he signed the Smoot-Hawley Act. According to Wikipedia, Hoover did the following in his
one term:
As President, he helped push tariff and farm subsidy bills through Congress. Hoover expanded civil service coverage of Federal positions, canceled private oil leases on government lands, and by instructing the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service to go after gangsters for tax evasion, he enabled the prosecution of gangster Al Capone. He appointed a commission which set aside 3 million acres of national parks and 2.3 million acres of national forests; advocated tax reduction for low-income Americans (not enacted); closed certain tax loopholes for the wealthy (wha?); doubled the number of veteran's hospital facilities; negotiated a treaty on St. Lawrence Seaway (which failed in the U.S. Senate); wrote a Children's Charter that advocated protection of every child regardless of race or gender; built the San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge; created an antitrust division in the Justice Department; required air mail carriers to adopt stricter safety measures and improve service; proposed federal loans for urban slum clearances (like ACORN?!?); organized the Federal Bureau of Prisons; reorganized the Bureau of Indian Affairs; instituted prison reform; proposed a federal Department of Education (not enacted); advocated fifty-dollar-per-month pensions for Americans over 65 (not enacted); chaired White House conferences on child health, protection, homebuilding and homeownership; began construction of the Boulder Dam (later renamed Hoover Dam); and signed the Norris-La Guardia Act that limited judicial intervention in labor disputes.
You know... after reading all that I'm not so sure Obama isn't the next Hoover. But I digress.
My point is that there is no doubt about what happened to the country's economy, standard of living, and national mood (baby boom?) during and after WWII, but how much of that can be laid at the feet of FDR's New Deal and how much was the result of the country's natural return to productivity is fodder for debate. Clearly, things like the TVA, FSA, and REA were stimulative. However, how do you measure the economic effect of the Social Security Act? What is certain is that up to the signing of the Lend/Lease Act, America was still mending itself... despite... all of the money that had been spent over the course of 12 years. Also as certain: for most people it would have been far worse, in the short term, if we hadn't spent the money.
I don't know if that resolves the debate, but I do hope that answers your question.
