"Juuuust, a bit outside"

... as Bob Uker used to say. You seem to have missed my point by just a bit.

First, a smaller point. You wrote: "Lest we forget, the people most directly effected by the New Deal are the people we refer to today as the "Greatest Generation". Is this a coincidence?"

The "greatest generation" is defined, as far as I know, by the adults of WWII, both home and abroad, although "abroad" certainly gets the lion share nod in my eyes. So during the New Deal 30's they would have been children by and large. I mean being 25 years of age was considered "one of the older guys" in the military during WWII, and if I remember correctly the average age of the enlisted man was 19. Even if we call it 20 that puts them between 10 and 18 during the New Deal's realization. So yes, the children of New Deal "beneficiaries" can be argued to be the "most effected", I GUESS, but then it is EXACTLY coincidence given they were children. Unless you contend that having your father work for the WPA somehow makes you more likely to storm a German pill box ... at any rate, I'll move on.

My point in my last was not that EVERY SINGLE action under the New Deal failed. Or that those bridges weren't sturdy, for goodness sakes. What I am arguing is that the various federal interventions into private business (and you could fill a library on what I mean by "intervention" during the New Deal) can be legitimately argued, or "observed" as you pointed out, to have hurt recovery, not aide it. Yet even with that argument not yet settled, here we are about to go much further then "overregulate", or "over intervene", but rather flat out nationalization of whole sectors of industry. Now I admit, I went further in twisting a knife into the New Deal then was needed to make that point, but kicking that ol' cow is a favorite past time of mine and when I come across new evidence from credible sources (or even "funny" quotes like the Armstrong line) I am more then enthusiastic to share it with Pliny the Elder and Younger ... he, he. Call them "band wagon" economists if you want, but they ARE credible sources, and HARDLY conservative lackies (I mean come on, Columbia?).

And it is NOT me, or Limbaugh or Hannitty or anyone on the right that put forth this notion that Obama is the "new" New Dealer, no sir. Barak H. Obama did that himself, Joe Biden echoed it, and Jay Carney (a highly partisan left leaning journalist), who is the editor of TIME MAGAZINE put Barry on the cover in Roosevelt garb, right down to the cigarette holder, asking on the cover "Will Obama deliver the New, New Deal?." I even put that cover in a post on the sight.

Now I understand, for those of us always suspicious (to put it lightly) of the New Deal, coming across such information as I listed in my last, from credible sources, causes us (me) to enthusiastically endorse it, or at least present it, whereas your gut instinct is to defend the New Deal era. I think there are many reasons for your defense not the least of which is an emotional tie. Consider what you wrote - you "know people personally" who worked for the WPA. You "own WPA tools in your garage." I understand that there is a certain nostalgic appeal for an era where thinking people could proudly call themselves Democrats ... as opposed to today. Also, yes, those bridges were "sturdy" and I can not argue that the 3.3 million working on them (and various other projects) were asleep on the job, or weren't happy to be working (I primarily put that lyric in to get a rise out of you & Jambo). And I am not arguing for complete Laizze Fairre or the abolishment of the SEC. What I CAN argue is the point you agreed with me on: "We can point fingers at such obvious handicaps to an economy as high taxes, tariffs and excise costs as contributors to the duration of the crisis [the Great Depression], and we would probably be correct in our observations..." And use those measurable and specific New Deal mistakes to extrapolate out how disastrous it would be for Obama and company to go much, much further when implementing his stated "New, New Deal."

And by the way, we can agree to disagree on whether the real New Deal was "socialistic" in nature (although I don't know how else to describe Social Security), but if you have a problem with the linking of Obama's plainly socialist agenda to FDR's New Deal, then don't take that beef up with the "right." Take it to Obama and his cronies in the media. THEY are the ones making those claims ... and I and my conservative cohorts are simply responding by saying hey, the New Deal wasn't all it's been cracked up to be, and your plans Mr. Obama, would be even worse.