This pretty much says it all.

This letter is from the wisest grandpa that I have ever  heard. Wish I knew who he was so I could write HIM a letter of congratulations.
 
Guess you heard that 68% of "the youth vote"  went to Obama. My granddaughter called this morning to tell me she was one of them. I replied with this e-mail:
 
 
The election of Obama comes down to this. Your  grandmother and I, your mother and other productive wage-earning taxpayers will have their taxes increased and  that means less income. Less income means we will have to cut back on basic purchases, gifts and handouts. That  includes firing the Hispanic lady who cleans our house twice a month. She just lost her job. We can't afford her  anymore.
 
What is the economic effect of Obama's election on  you personally? Over the years, your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in food, housing, cash,  clothing, gifts, etc., etc. By your vote, you have chosen another family over ours for help. So in the future, if you  need assistance with your rent, money for gas, tires for your car, someone to bring you lunch, etc....call  202-456-1111. That' s the telephone number for the Office of the President of the United States. I'm sure Mr.  Obama will be happy to send a check from his personal or business accounts or leave cash in an envelope taped to his  front door.
It's like this. Those who vote for the president  should consider what the impact of an election will be on the nation as a whole and not just be concerned with what  they can get for themselves (welfare, etc.). What Obama voters don't seem to realize is that the  government's money comes from taxes collected from  taxpaying families. Raising taxes on productive people means  they will have less money to spend on their families.
 
Congratulations on your choice. For future reference, you  might attempt to add up all you've received from us, your mom, Mike's parents and others and compare it to  what you expect to get over the next four years from Mr.Obama.
 
To congratulate Mr. Obama and to make sure you're on  the list for handouts, write to:

 The White House
 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
 Washington , DC 20500
 
 Love you Lauren, but call the number listed above when
 you need help.

Rather than allowing the economy to recover on it's own, the New Deal took significantly extra $$ out of the economy in order to pay for all the programs that put people "back to work"and to fund the new Social Security. In effect the US Government became the largest employer and had to raise it's revenue from all of the remaining businesses who were productive and still surviving. This caused them to grow slower or to shrink (thus adding to the unemployed and the new rolls of the government employees). This continued for over 8 years until WW2 started and the US War Department started placing orders for equipment and the factories started running 2nd and 3rd shifts to fill them. During the war, as women entered the workforce to fill the void of drafted men and to "do their part", the income rose in the country and so therefore the taxes collected also rose. After the war there were all these factories that could produce stuff that needed employees to run.

It is arguable (but not provable) that the US would have recovered faster and been in a much better position economically if the New Deal had never happened. We would have been stronger and better able to produce the necessary war materials and may have shortened WW2 by as much as a year or two.

Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!

Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012

The New Deal didn't end the Depression.  This "New New Deal" of Obama's won't end this recession.

Isn't he the one going around repeating the insanity thing about doing the same thing?  So, what, it will work this time because it's HIM doing it?

And when it fails, his fans will say well, at least he tried, he tried really hard!  That's what matters.

If the goal was only to put some people to work for the government doing something useful, and in the process, beginning the creation of a government dependency mentality and a permanent Democratic base - then, yeah, it worked just fine.

On the surface it should be obvious any government spending whether financed by taxes or borrowing is a diversion of resources from the private sector.  Hence all government spending is a reallocation of private sector resources.  

But we are not talking about common sense but political gamesmanship and arrogance.   The question before us is  whether you believe government bureaucrats are more competent at investing money to create products and therefore jobs in the process OR create jobs with products as incidental to the process.  If it is a matter of just employing people, government is the answer since all one needs to do in the words of Keynes is to pay people to dig holes and then fill them up again.  IF on the other hand the money invested is to create wealth which as a byproduct creates jobs, then private enterprise is the answer.  The government is a short term answer at the expense of the long term welfare of the country.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  You must choose: Depression or Recession.  Recessions are inevitable, depressions are a short term choice.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Sorry guys, but I think you are asking the wrong question. The more pointed question should be... "Will the Newest Deal work"?

If somebody can show me that communism is a better way than freedom, then I might consider the newest deal a good idea.

Not My President

 Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/  

     Will the great Messiah wave his arms over one gold ingot, and 80 ingots appear?

     The entire working class structure is completely different in 2008, than say 1932. The CCC camps were created to keep people busy and perform a service that was good and usefull at the time. They actually put structures together without nails, if they didn't have them, it's not anything like today.

     People get laid off and loose their jobs, they have un-employment benefits, not so in 1932, you had to suck it up and figure out a way to get by. Unions will have a big say on what goes on with building infrastructure, and if Obama has this idea he's going to take any block of people needing work, put them to work in construction, and that's going to slove employment problems, the Unions will have a big wake up call for him unless.......you have an unlimited supply of money, and if there is one out there, we have been lied to.

       President Ike started the Interstate Hiway system back in the 50's, and it took many, many years to keep that going, and it's really an ongoing process that's still being done. To put stock in a guy that has never held down a real job, and he talks about this idea of re-doing the infrastructure like he's got it all planned out, I guess we'll find out since he has the keys to the bank.

The CHAT is on

Same Bat-channel!  ;-)

"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media."  -- Lowell Ponte

I cant say because I didnt live then, but my parents and relatives did.  They never talked about the depression much.  In fact, what little I know about it I learned from my own research.  We didnt hear much about it in school.  I dont know if the New Deal helped or hurt - there are people in both camps.  I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

But it seemed people either deified FDR or totally hated him.  My father was in the later camp.  He said the depression wasnt too bad for his family because they lived in the country and grew their own food.  My aunt thought FDR was some sort of living god.  I do remember one lady saying she remembers men walking US 1 to DC lookiing for work.  They were carrying their shoes so they wouldnt be worn out before they got there.  Btw - we're about 50 miles from DC.

    In Re: Mrbee241

     You say your parents didn't talk much about the Depression, but you make some good points on what you do know about it.

      I was born at the end of the Great Depression, and when I was old enough to start remembering what was happening, we were in WWII. Everybody was involved with that, but at the same time, the Depression had left such an impression where I lived, people talked about it on a daily basis, and even long after WWII. There was this little cardboad town called "Hooverville" down on the tide flats, people eked out a life the best way they could. No matter how bad things look today, they can't even compare with that scenerio. Whenever we whined about anything,we were always told how good we had it, and reminded how tuff things had been, and I personally think that helped to make me a survivor later in life.

     Your point about FDR is right on. People either loved him or hated him. I tend to believe it directly depended on your personal situation, like it always does in life. The big question about, whether Pearl Harbor should of happened, will always be one of those things that swings both ways.

Though just a boy-- I can tell you that the people- the working people that is--for the most part adored FDR.

Do not shoot the messenger--I am reporting as I remember and what I saw and heard.

His forming of the CCC and the WPA were perceived to be great accomplishments. No one talks about this much,. but as I recall, the military grew. Pay was insignificant, but 3 meals a day and a warm place to sleep were welcomed by many young Americans. I am my uncle's namesake- -- good old Uncle Bill- He was in the army when I was born.  

The left was numerous and, to the best of my youthful memories, everyone in my neighborhood was a Democrat and an FDR fan. Unions were perceived to be the working man's friend. I was almost named Franklin Delano (another debt I owe uncle Bill who reminded Mom I was to be named after him.) My Dad was a dyed in the wool Dem and union member until he died.

There is no question in my mind, again using long ago memories, that the war in Europe created a large number of jobs and really lifted the economy. Then we got into the war. My brother worked in a shipyard,so did a couple of my uncles.  Everyone made a darn good income. At 10, I delivered milk before school. At 11, I worked delivering ice and range oil.

The question--

"is it important for America to re-analyze what did or didn't work back then?"

An answer--Only if you hope to have any chance of success. And it may not work at all, even if you do.

Also TVA, WPA: CCC:

WPA's building program included the construction of 116,000 buildings, 78,000 bridges, and 651,000 mi (1,047,000 km) of road and the improvement of 800 airports. Also a part of WPA's diversified activities were the Federal Art Project, the Federal Writers' Project, and the Federal Theatre Project. Close to 10,000 drawings, paintings, and sculptured works were produced through WPA, and many public buildings (especially post offices) were decorated with murals. The experiments in theatrical productions were highly praised and introduced many fresh ideas. Musical performances under the project averaged 4,000 a month. The most notable product of writers in WPA was a valuable series of state and regional guidebooks. WPA also conducted an education program and supervised the activities of the National Youth Administration . At its peak WPA had about 3.5 million persons on its payrolls. Altogether WPA employed a total of 8.5 million persons, and total federal appropriations for the program amounted to almost $11 billion. There was sharp criticism of the WPA in a Senate committee report in 1939; the same year the WPA appropriation was cut, several projects were abolished, and others were curtailed. A strike of thousands of WPA workers to prevent a cut in wages on building projects was unsuccessful. Steadily increasing employment in the private sector, much speeded just before and during World War II, caused further drastic cuts in WPA appropriations and payrolls. In June, 1943, the agency officially went out of existence.

The only issue i amgetting at here is that if youwere one of those who was able to feed his family and keep it together, all the economics policies in the world meant nothing to you.

CCC:

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), established in 1933 by the U.S. Congress as a measure of the New Deal program. The CCC provided work and vocational training for unemployed single young men through conserving and developing the country's natural resources. At its peak in 1935, the organization had more than 500,000 members in over 2,600 camps. These were usually operated by the War Dept., but the men were not subject to military control. In 1939 the CCC was made part of the Federal Security Agency. Beginning in 1940, greater emphasis was placed on projects aiding national defense. Against President Franklin D. Roosevelt's request, Congress abolished the CCC in 1942.

I close with a repeat--do not shoot the messenger--just giving you a possible different perspective on the way things were.

"And that was before Stockholm Syndrome was a recognized phenomenon."

I'm not quite sure what you meant, but in light of the Syndrome--the folks then certainly were in a sense like that. Additionally, over the years, they had far less access to the amount of news we see in a day, which imho exacerbated the problem and had what I guess today we will call "Obama syndrome". That is, granting saintlike attributes to BHO as they did to FDR.

(And possibly heading sheeplike to socialism).

 I sawA news/opinion show tonight on a "conservative" show that provided a softening attitude toward Obama and his program.