Talk Radio: Bill Bennett Mike Gallagher Dennis Prager Michael Medved Hugh Hewitt

BREAKING NEWS

Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!

Townhall Daily Alert
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
White House & Capitol Report
Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
Daily Conservative Cartoon
Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

About that New Deal

Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 1:48 PM

Barack Obama is chomping at the bit to implement a modern day New Deal. This chart that the good folks over at the Heritage Foundation have created is helpful in showing the utter lack of impact FDR's grand plan had on unemployment rates.

(9) |

(0)

View in ascending order

View in descending order

Bob Munck writes:	Tuesday, January, 06, 2009 9:50 PM
Mark_0454 9:13 PM
"these numbers seem a bit high. 37% would be a bit more than one person in three." I noticed that too. My only thought is that the graph specifies "nonfarm workers" and we were still largely an agrarian nation prior to WWII. Of course, the Heritage Foundation could simply be wrong. Since Carpenter rarely has any actual thoughts of her own, it's likely that she got the idea that the chart shows the "utter lack of impact" of the New Deal from their text, which it obviously does not. They're wingnuts; math is hard for them.
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

bryce1 writes:	Tuesday, January, 06, 2009 9:50 PM
Bryce
I'm curious how you got your name. Mine was by default. I'm a surprise twin, Bryce was supposed to be the name of a second son down the line. You?
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

Mark_0454 writes:	Tuesday, January, 06, 2009 9:13 PM
seem high
these numbers seem a bit high. 37% would be a bit more than one person in three. in "The Forgotten Man." Amity Shlaes has the unemployment numbers for the month at the beginning of each chapter. The highest I could find was about 24% in 1933. According to the book it went down to about 13% and then back up to 17% in 1937. I wonder how these numbers were derived?
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

Bryce writes:	Tuesday, January, 06, 2009 4:30 PM
Again with the knee-jerk, Lola
If you'd actually pay attention for once, you'd see all the other posts commenting on how the graph makes it look like FDR's New Deals made a decent impact on unemployment. Oh wait, we can't trust anything from Heritage, since they're obviously making the GOP look good! But wait, FDR was a Democrat! How can this be? Reading is your friend, Miss Lola! I doubt your hate lenses are too thick to prevent you from doing that.
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

Bob Munck writes:	Tuesday, January, 06, 2009 4:14 PM
Crispian 3:27 PM
"your confusion may stem from confusing the impact of the New Deal and the impact of the war." That's why I specifically pointed out that unemployment had gone from 37% to 21% BEFORE we began to prepare for war and another 6-7% before we began to fight. And we didn't "prepare" all that much; it was widely believed that we would stay out of the war right up to 12/6/41.
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

Bryce writes:	Tuesday, January, 06, 2009 3:59 PM
I agree with Bob
Looking at it straight, although it looks like the war brought it down below the 20% line, the graph makes it look like another big chunk of unemployment was being taken care of by the New Deal.
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

Crispian writes:	Tuesday, January, 06, 2009 3:27 PM
Thanks for the resource
Mr. Munck your confusion may stem from confusing the impact of the New Deal and the impact of the war. And the phrase is unfortunately "champing at the bit," Amanda, rather than "chomping." Though I agree the correct form sounds dumb.
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

Bob Munck writes:	Tuesday, January, 06, 2009 2:41 PM
GOP Math
The chart shows unemployment going from 37% at the beginning of the New Deal to 21% when we began to prepare for war and then under 15% when we started fighting. Are you claiming that a reduction by 60% is an "utter lack of impact?" I'm confused by this; you're saying that the chart shows the exact opposite of what it actually shows. One could argue that there could be other causes for the huge drop, but the chart doesn't show any reason that one should believe that it wasn't primarily the New Deal.
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

Please take a few seconds to sign up, then you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, create your own blog and more! If you are already registered, click here.

Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

Townhall Blog, Breaking News & Commentary from the Townhall Crew

Archives of our Conservative, Republican, Political Blogs

Comments Comments

The Latest on Town HallThe Latest on Town Hall

Blog Roll Blog Roll