New Deal = FAILURE, period.

Now that doesn't mean FDR was a total failure as president, that question involves much more then just the New Deal.

That being said . . . Jambo, now damnit, you left out what was perhaps the most important concession you made in that late night phone call.

In your last you wrote:

"Did the New Deal end the Great Depression? No. "
Ok, yes we agreed upon that.

"Did massive government spending help the private sector recover? No."
Again, we agreed.

"Was the New Deal a failure? No."
What in bloody hell? That is NOT what we agreed upon as an answer, and for a very simple reason. Those auspices of the WPA, that you rightly point out contributed to our WWII victory, do NOT represent an accurate definition of THE NEW DEAL. The New Deal wasn't just the WPA or TVA.

You can't simply minus the NRA, the AAA and basically every aspect of the New Deal outside of those aspects of the WPA, point to their contribution in our war effort and then declare "The New Deal was a success." You can say that aspects of the WPA had the very fortunate side effect (and that's exactly what they were, for fighting the Axis Powers was NOT why they were enacted) of contributing to our war effort, BUT THAT'S IT! In other words, if you strip away everything about the New Deal EXCEPT the TVA and some aspects of the WPA, you no longer have quote, "The New Deal." You have a fortunate side effect in terms of energy and bridges. Not to mention, the charter, for lack of a better word, of the New Deal was to wage a successful domestic economic war, not a foreign World War. Bottom line - it did not do what it was intended to do (end the Great Depression hardships). And those parts that did contribute to our war efforts do not represent the sum total of quote, "the New Deal." Look, I've heard you say to me over the phone, "90% of the New Deal was struck down in 1935", in your effort to contradict those who say the New Deal actually prolonged the Era of the Great Depression until the War. Well whatever that percentage actually is, the point is that what survives the 1935 rulings and contributed to our war effort can not on their own still be described as "The New Deal."

So, in closing on this response to your post - a limited number of programs, initiated under New Deal economic legislation, had the very fortunate side effect of aiding our war time efforts. And damnit, THAT is not semantics. I understand that Titus disagrees with our summation of New Deal effects on the US economy, but I think he would agree that IF your position is that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression, and did not enhance the private sector - in other words it was an economic flub - then you can't cherry pick the aspects of the WPA that helped us through WWII and declare "THE NEW DEAL SUCCEEDED." You can't on the one hand say the New Deal didn't extend the Great Depression because much of it (including the centerpiece, the NRA) was wiped out by the Supreme Court in 1935; then on the other hand say what survived IS THE NEW DEAL, and those aspects helping us in WWII justify it as a success. Try as you might here, 2 and 2 do NOT equal 5 . . . less you think that distinction semantic as well.

****

For Titus ... First, I wasn't aware that repealing prohibition was a New Deal legislative act. I mean come on man. That's a hell of a stretch if your intent is to defend the New Deal. Yes, the 32' Democrat campaign platform included repeal as a plank of the over all Party, but its repeal was an Amendment to the Constitution! It was ratified by the states, as all amendments are - this is NOT New Deal buddy ... come on.

Second: "Why doesn't this make sense to any one but me." For a very simple reason: you're arguing a point that we aren't debating. Jambo clearly asked and answered a question we have settled - DID THE NEW DEAL END THE GREAT DEPRESSION? That answer is a clear and unambivalent NO. Now first we must quickly discern something (again, for I have done this at nauseam). The two depressions that hit in the 30's DO NOT by themselves define the historical term "The Great Depression." Ok? The Great Depression includes those two depressions, at least 2 recessions (if I remember correctly from class), the turbulent stock market including high value wipe outs, and probably THE MOST significant in terms of effecting everyday persons living in that era - UNEMPLOYMENT. Allowing that as a proper definition of "THE GREAT DEPRESSION" requires us to answer a resounding "NO" to the question, "Did the New Deal end the Great Depression?"

Even in your Ross Perot-esque chart lecture there, your strongest advocacy line was:

"Now, was the New Deal totally responsible for this [GDP rise]... solely and exclusively? No, certainly not. Much of the recovery was a normal cyclical feature of any macroeconomic engine the size and scope of the US... but I don't think there is any question that it CONTRIBUTED."

Well, well. When we first engaged in the largest, oldest, and ongoing Bund debate - New Deal, your original contention was in no uncertain terms - "The New Deal ended the Great Depression before the war." Now, after years of barrage from me and the conversion of Jambo (at least on the economic effect), you are reduced to describing its' effect as, "contributive."

And let me add something I think key. FDR's 3rd stab at the Presidency was in real jeopardy. The only thing that pulled him through was the campaign promise (and a blatant lie) that he intended to keep US boys out of the European War. And just why was his candidacy in jeopardy? Follow me here - there was a very slow increase in the economy beginning in 1933, and another noticeable tick up after 1935. However, FDR and his economic cabinet (pre John Meynard Keynes) implemented some anti inflationary measures (I guess they thought the New Deal was working "too well") and severely curtailed non New Deal government spending by June of 37'. This commenced with the new Social Security taxes taking their first large scale bites out of paychecks (soc-sec being clearly New Deal legislation). Between the 2 by late Summer of 1937 the US saw the worst economic downturn since 1929. Within months this "Roosevelt recession" cost 2 million workers their jobs. That statistically wipes out 2/3rds of ALL federally created jobs in the number you cited, IN ONE SUMMER. And this occurs with both the surviving elements of the 1st New Deal and all of the 2nd New Deal legislation firmly in place!

Look, the point is that history has come to recognize that without WWII the hardships during the Great Depression era may have dragged on for an untold number of years into the future, most notably in unemployment numbers - in other words New Deal DID NOT end the Great Depression as intended, thus in my opinion (and that of many economists & I assume about 2 million people in August of 37') it failed. Again, I give credit to FDR for originally inspiring people, or restoring their faith if you will that "someone was doing something" (at least they felt that way at first). And the Fair Labor Standards Act, which set the maximum work weeks and set forth the strict child labor laws we all take for granted now. And Jambo is correct in pointing out that aspects of the WPA (NOT the New Deal, it is simply incorrect and overeaching to state it that way), aided our war time effort. But, the New Deal, as FDR put forth and history recorded, DID NOT end the Great Depression, WWII did - not as a book end, but literally in terms of the economic hardship that defines that era.

If you still feel compelled to grant FDR the status of "ending the Great Depression", then credit him for his vigorous and righteous response to Pearl Harbor, and our entry into the second World War without hesitation and with all the vigor and verb the conflict called for. On that, I would agree.

****
The "second oathe." These opening days of amateur hour are something the nation hasn't seen since Bill Clinton's infamous "gays in the military" fiasco in the first two weeks of his administration. The first press conference held by Obama's Press Secretary, Gibbs (no, he's not a BeeGee), got quite hostile over this issue. I was unaware, but the press core brought it up (and the Press Sec acknowledged) that in such an event - a second swearing in - independent press confirmation and recording (i.e. a picture snapped) is the tradition. No press were allowed in. The picture was snapped by a paid administrator . . . and that press core wasn't happy about it, to the point of sounding offended.

Add to that they are closing GITMO. Ok, I said to myself, I knew that would happen no matter who won, as McCain made the same campaign promise. But to declare its closing in 12 months, as a deadline, BEFORE you decide what to do with those detainees, or even what process you will establish to make that determination (outside of a commission to "study it") seems ridiculously out of sorts with reality. I appreciate that he intends to keep a campaign promise, but come on President Barry - you announce that it will close and simultaneously admit you have NO IDEA what you're going to do with them? What is that? That's not Messianic leadership, I assure you.

One last bit on our new president - he is keeping his BlackBerry (no pun intended), as was announced today. He will be the first US president to use email. That's right, Bush held private conversations over the phone because any written correspondence, with very narrow limitations on personal familial relationships, is subject to (I forget the act) future review and release to the public. That's fine, no criticism here, but what I found interesting was the Press Sec's noting that "a small inner circle" will have the email address. Ok, his wife and kids for sure, but who else, officially? The cabinet? The NSA? Who? I ask because there is a protocol for chain of command, even for the political offices. So imagine you're the Secretary of Defense, you want the president's ear, NOW, but the Chief of Staff is putting you off (pick a reason). Why bother with the Chief of Staff - the traditional gate keeper of the Oval Office. Just email your pal Barry, screw Rahm. Like I said, not a critique, just interesting to me is all.