"Between FDR's inauguration and 1936, production doubled. Unemployment fell from 25 percent to under 10 percent in that period. Incidentally, according to James Galbraith's recent testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, the charge that the New Deal did not increase employment massively rests on a truly absurd maneuver: the conservative critics don't count federal relief (Civil Works Administration, Work Projects Administration, and Public Works Administration) employment. As Galbraith pointed out, this is like counting a construction worker building a military airplane under a government contract with a private company as employed, while categorizing a worker building the Lincoln Tunnel and paid directly by the federal government as unemployed."
This article is a great beginning-overview of the New Deal and what worked, what didn't, and why. The reasons why are exactly the opposite of the reasons given by the laissez-faire capitalists known as the libertarians. Under funding and discrimination are the main reasons that aspects of the New Deal didn't work nearly as well as they would have otherwise.
I too have mentioned that information from James Galbraith before. He's not the only one to have made it a bit more prominent either. However, the facts he cites are drowned out by Glenn-Beck airheads and those who actually know the truth (such as Rupert Murdoch) but wish to keep it suppressed because, otherwise, the people might get ideas – right ideas about cooperating together on the level rather than being cutthroat, dog-eat-dog hyper-capitalists.
In addition, it must be understood that WWII was Military Keynesianism. Keynesianism worked very well. The only mistake was that it was employ for war when employing it long before war would have even precluded the war.
Two other notable aspects not mentioned in the linked article are that 1) much of the hiring was done by private contractors when it should often have been done directly by the government to speed it up and 2) the private sector fought tooth and nail against government run skilled-labor training. The military provided high-skills training that worked only too well. Now if that level of publicly funded training were supplied to everyone to the extent each is able to absorb the training and employ it, there wouldn't be the unemployment we have now and there wouldn't be the economic depression either.
Lastly, I've heard over and over how people should not become dependent upon the government. Interestingly enough, this often comes from people who have been in military service or who have otherwise taken goods and services supplied communally or collectively if you will. The idea of the rugged individualists has its place, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with interdependence in other settings. From a Christian perspective, the first Christians very much depended upon each other and rightly so. Never mind those twisted arguments suggesting that those Christians only did it because of the particular circumstances and would not have otherwise. They did it because given and sharing all is inherent in Jesus's words and deeds. Everyone who was given to accept those words and deeds was welcome to join Jesus's followers.Â Â Â Â
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)