Saint Roosevelt

"Biased concerns?" "Biased concerns", Titus? That is how you describe all the facts, figures, citations, and sources I presented, they boil down to "a few biased concerns?" And I suppose your defenses are some how "unbiased", huh? And now your point, about unemployment (perhaps the most glaring example of New Deal failures), is that without those 3.3 million people employed by the government the US unemployment rate would have been even higher? That's ridiculous as a point of defense. Of course without those programs unemployment would have been higher, that's undeniable. The point is even WITH the full implementation of those programs and all of New Deal, unemployment still remained at a staggering 1/5th of the US workforce. Sometimes I think you come to this site to argue with Mike Church, instead of F. Ryan.

Look, I can go on all day about how unemployment was not solved by the New Deal. How without WWII the New Deal would have been more clearly shown as an abject failure. And maybe I am right. But that's the point - WWII did come on the heels of full New Deal implementation, so I can't prove my theory. I can point to unemployment as a failure and Jambo will point to the TVA. I can point to the inherent flaw of a Social Security program, and Titus, you will point to public works we still use today. The value of individual aspects within the New Deal can be debated as success or failures until the second coming. What I want to do in closing this argument is 2 things:

1.) Acknowledge that the New Deal did in fact inspire hope that "someone" was doing "something." That can not be over stated. Even the most conservative of professors in South MS I came across were quick to acknowledge badboy's point. Also, FDR's actions during WWII epitomizes admirable executive leadership - I just felt it necessary to include that amidst this discussion.

2.) Briefly explain why the New Deal left America worse off for the experience. Whichever form debate over it takes, one thing is undeniable. The New Deal forever changed the role of government in the individual American's life. And it redefined, probably forever, the expectations of government during times of economic crisis. FDR's ability to make (the percentage that did get through) the New Deal law/policy, enabled all his successor's to expand, bloat, and grow government in a way that would otherwise been impossible without the New Deal precedent. It also changed the individual's expectations of government on behalf of her citizens to the point that government is now not only seen as "a" solution, but "the" solution to every crisis. And, in my opinion, has surpassed even that threshold of "crisis" and entered into a US where even the slightest inconvenience requires a government solution. THAT is the greatest failure of the New Deal - it set America on a course for an ever growing, controlling, power increasing, wasteful federal government. Now you can say that is the fault of FDR's successor's, fine, whatever makes you feel as if "Saint Roosevelt's" good name is left intact. But the point is the New Deal enabled all that was to follow in the federal government's social programs pipeline. Whether or not New Deal was socialist in nature can be debated, but what I think is obvious to the objective eye is that it put America on a trajectory of incremental socialism that it remains on to this day.

And in my opinion, THAT is a legacy of failure.