[Drew Katsikas]

I think most historians believe it was the war. The race to build arms and manufacturing military units put many of the unemployed into a job, and many of the rest were drafted. However, there is no mistaking the importance of the New Deal programs.

OAO, do you really believe that leaving the depression alone would have been a better idea than FDR's political experiementation? Do you realize that had any other country fallen victim to such a depression, that they would have quickly became a dictator state? Examples: Italy and Germany. Extremley impoverished nations that gave power to a dictator. They gave up freedom for food. Too an extent, that's what the US did, but FDR, while clearly exceeding presedential limits, was not so much a dictator. If anything, FDR was a slightly conservative political leader for his time. He did not make Mussolini-esque programs, like giving incentives to have children, and selling asking citizens to sell their wedding rings to the state. Instead he created jobs that did superfluous construction , and other things that the people wanted. This is why Hoover failed to have any popular support. They didn't want to wait out the problem for years in poverty. They wanted something to be done. Even though FDR's plans had many errors, the amount of progress made surely canceled any of that. He led the country out of war and depression, into one of our most prosperous and revered ages. Too bring up shady numbers and "facts" from the fucking Cato institue against FDR is absurd. THe only thing I agree with that the article stated was the folly in the Dems support neo-New Deal programs. I don't believe the country needs such programs at this time, but during the depression and the war, these programs were essential, and very succesful, and to try feebly to pick them apart to fuel your juvenile libertarian agenda, is... well, juvenile.