Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Education & ReferenceHomework Help · 1 decade ago

What were the positive and negative effects of the New Deal's use of the federal government?

What were the positive and negative effects of the New Deal's use of the federal government to end the depression? What role should the federal government play in providing food, shelter and medical attention for Americans?

3 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    The Land Utilization Program (LUP) was an effort by the New Deal federal government to adjust and manage land use in agricultural areas across the nation. Focusing especially on the Great Plains, where rural poverty and emergent dust storms seemed to illustrate the need for bureaucratic management, program administrators developed a narrative describing past misuse of the land. Homesteaders had come west, settled on land unsuited to crop farming, and by too vigorously plowing up land for cash wheat crops, damaged the land and driven themselves bankrupt. The Great Plains was only suited to grazing, and the federal government could manage land use for the good of society. This western North Dakota case study of the largest Land Utilization Project in the Great Plains describes the planning, implementation, and management of the project between 1934 and 1945.

    SOME POSITIVITY, SOME NEGATIVITY

    Here the federal government reversed homesteading by re-purchasing a million acres of farm land from hundreds of destitute farmers. It restructured the landscape as public grazing land, and allowed remaining livestock ranchers to lease the land for their cattle. But despite their rhetoric that they were buying out failed wheat farms and readjusting land use to a more suitable grazing use, nearly all of the land the government actually bought was already pasture land. Only about 7 percent of federal purchases were cropland, and some of that cropping was condoned and allowed to continue in order to grow winter feed for cattle. Despite its claims, the Land Utilization Program did not alter basic land use to any great extent in western North Dakota. Instead, it removed many very poor families, most of whom left the region, and made the land available instead to a handful of remaining middle class ranchers. The program continues today, as Little Missouri National Grassland, managed by the U.S. Forest Service.

    FOOD - SHELTER - MEDICINE

    In 1933, the Roosevelt administration accepted responsibility for relief, arguing that

    unemployment and poverty had become a national problem. As the federal government raised its

    share of total relief spending from 2 percent in 1932 to 79 percent by 1934, average per capita

    relief spending from all sources in the sample of 114 cities jumped to $30 in 1933 and then to $48

    in 1934, the first full year of the New Deal. The annual average benefit payments to a relief

    household during this early phase of the New Deal replaced between 31.2 and 33.3 percent of

    average annual manufacturing earnings.

    Between July 1933 and June 1935 the primary relief agency was the Federal Emergency

    Relief Administration (FERA). Federal FERA officials distributed funds to state governments

    through an opaque process in which officials seem to have paid attention to economic distress .

    Only two causes of death were reduced by greater relief spending

    These were : deaths from infectious and parasitic diseases and diarrheal deaths.

    Effects of relief spending were –0.58 and –0.38, respectively. Both diseases are considered by

    demographers to be acute diseases that are responsive to the better nutrition, access to medicine,

    and better housing that could result from more relief aid.

    Between July 1933 and June 1935 the primary relief agency was the Federal Emergency

    Relief Administration (FERA). Federal FERA officials distributed funds to state governments

    through an opaque process in which officials seem to have paid attention to economic distress .

    The state’s entreaties to FERA administrators, the state’s own efforts to fund relief, and

    likelihood of funds influenced Roosevelt’s re-election.

    State governments then distributed the

    funds internally to local governments. Once established, the FERA offered both direct relief and

    work relief. Direct relief included programs that had no specific work requirements and

    assistance was provided in cash or in-kind, including subsistence items, such as food, and/or shelter .

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    With every day pass, our country is getting into more and more trouble. The inflation, unemployment and falling value of dollar are the main concern for our Government but authorities are just sleeping, they don’t want to face the fact. Media is also involve in it, they are force to stop showing the real economic situation to the people. I start getting more concern about my future as well as my family after watching the response of our Government for the people that affected by hurricane Katrina.

    According to recent studies made by World Bank, the coming crisis will be far worse than initially predicted. So if you're already preparing for the crisis (or haven't started yet) make sure you watch this video at http://www.familysurvival.tv and discover the 4 BIG issues you'll have to deal with when the crisis hits, and how to solve them fast (before the disaster strikes your town!) without spending $1,000s on overrated items and useless survival books.

  • 4 years ago

    The negatives were 8 years of the Great Depression. Followed by almost 80 years of the welfare state and entitlement mentality. I can't think of any positives. Oh, yeah, it was also a complete violation of the 10th Amendment.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.