But this post calls the BLS stats "the numbers preferred by the leftist proponents of big government." Since there's no evidence that BLS stats at the time counted those in government work programs as "employed," why use the markedly higher census numbers? And why are some folks at Heritage pretending the BLS and census numbers are the same thing?

I am a carpenter. I create opportunity for myself and must change with the economy or money others have available to spend on my craft. I must offer a benefit beyond what they can receive elsewhere.

And I must live on less than I earn so that I can save money. I will swim, because I now can live on 3% of my wealth forever. It was not hard.

And MBBS: As a USAF officer, the opportunity to serve my country was an honor. Yet It was a job that was only paid for by productive private sector jobs that payed taxes. It was a drain on the system. Period.

I am right about more than you.

gdp to 10% GDP. We are now over 20% GDP gov't spending.

In 1948 there were 27% of workers employed by Federal, State and Local gov't. We now have over 43% of workers employed by gov't.

Percentage-wise how high should the gov't spending and employment go? You my friend are a fool to have been fooled by Keynsian BS. The money spent or borrowed must come from somewhere. Where? Look at Edward Heath's England and that Keynsian experiment gone bad. Look at Zimbabwe today, 230 million % inflation. Look instead to Elizabeth I and her treatment of not raising taxes, and providing a haven for the a great economy to grow.

Money only comes from the private sector. It is not unlimited when the pubic sector ends up being bigger and consuming the golden goose. Yes, you are a fool.

At 50.1% the gov't worker- types will simply vote themselves the economy that will crush real wealth production. You are indeed a fool.

I thought it was up to the business to sink or swim. I have to. I remember the great dep. as it is called, but believe me it was not great to be in it and if we don't stop this spending we will be worse off than the thirties, because lots of folks had farms to raise food on and most of the land is gone today.

Now, it is hard to say could drop in unemployment been quicker. However, I believe during that period was large migration of population from rural areas to towns. Finding new employment for those people certainly took some time.

There is genuine unity of purpose and widespread willingness to share real sacrifice precisely because of the generally perceived validity and immediacy of the threat, and the recognition that everyone is sacrificing. So taxation levels that normally would be a deterrent to work and investment, lose that effect. Everyone is willing to contribute what they can.

The change was produced not by what the government spent but by the willingness of everyone to contribute however they could, without concern for the impediments put in their way by FDR.

In the current environment, and the Great Depression, anyone with real productive abilities knows that the big government spending policies mean that at some point those who are productive have to turn the majority of their effort over to the government (whether through taxation or debasement of the currency), so the government can give that to someone else – oh, and so the politicians and bureaucrats involved can sustain their own lavish lifestyle and reckless policies.

Consequently there is no unity of purpose, no willingness to sacrifice since there is no shared sacrifice. Rather it is to be the productive who sacrifice in order to benefit the bludgers. No thanks.

Depressions do not end until there is a substantial rise in production – not a rise in spending or a rise in employment, per se. It is production that makes the difference.

This Obama depression will not end until there is either a massive war (we hope not) or a change in government to one that lowers the burden on producers from both taxation and regulation.