The 51st state?

What is it about the current leadership of the Democrat Party (particularly: Obama, Reid & Pelosi) that allows for such an overflow of hubris? Contrary to the designs of men such as Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson,

Harry Reid has announced (forgive the break in the sentence - I simply could not fathom putting his name along side theirs) that because "we are the only country in the world that does not allow their capitol a vote" they are going to pass legislation giving a congressional seat to represent the District of Columbia. First, not "every country" in the world even has a representative vote dear Mr. Reid. Second, have you know idea why the founders designed it that way? It is not a state, not a region, but a "district" precisely because of Lord Actin's ominous warning: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The founders wanted no one state to have the advantage of the national capitol laying within its' borders, nor did they recognize a congressional seat from the district because power can and does function on proximity. Imagine a congressman or woman whose very district covers 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Along with every office, condo, apartment, and 2nd home of every member of the congress, of both houses, not to mention of each and every beltway reporter. In addition, they have access to every facet of power 365 days a year. The new congressman would have instant disproportionate weight and celebrity. And the only reason the Democrat leadership wants the new congressional seat established is because they know D.C. is a Mecca of liberal ideology, thus they would be granting themselves a new safe Democrat held seat in perpetuity. Obama would be the first president in history to vote in the mid term elections, as president (adding to his ever growing list of "firsts").

I'll give em' this - when they go for a power grab, they REALLY go. From banks, to the US Census Bureau being ran through the White House (instead of Commerce, for political redistricting), to the new "Durbin Amendment" from "little Dick Durbin" (as he is known to talk radio fans), which is the Fairness Doctrine by another name, to this new budget and universal health care, they truly are trying to fundamentally reshape America into their version of what it "should" be: a socialist Utopia . . . a fundamentalist pipe dream which has brought forth one government after another, and tossed them into the trash heap of history.

God help us.

Ah ha . . . some agreement!

Bobby Jindal . . . I couldn't agree more that he, at 37 years old, an accomplished (that's putting it lightly) conservative, pragmatist with stone ones when it comes to facing down sate vs federal government rights, IS the future of the Grand Ol' Party, if the Republicans have an ounce of sense left. I heard the derisions of his response as well, the same radio interview (I assume), and as Jambo will note I have been tracking his career since he first ran for governor at age 32. Unfortunately I don't feel we can count on the GOP machine to have that ounce of common sense (in this new budget Republicans have 40% of the ear marks - there goes your high moral ground on spending), so Bobby will need to pull an Obama - take the Party over from the current "powers that be" with the grass roots, and barn storm into the GOP nomination for 2012, being pushed there by his ability to excite the rank and file, just as our current president did in the Democrat Party (no one thought some upstart could oust the Clinton machine, including me). I too Titus, find it curious that the 2 candidates MOST outside the beltway, MOST conservative (compared to DC Republicans), possessing the MOST ability to ignite the grass roots of the GOP: Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin, find the least of support from beltway Republicans and other falmiliar GOP faces. But I'll tell you right now Governor Jindal, if you're listening - I will knock on doors for you. In the immortal words of that great poet, Larry the Cable Guy: "Get er' done!"

****
PMC's - that was a fine question badboy. I agree with what seems to be the Bund consensus, they are legitimate. As to what pushes them from legitimacy to illegitimacy? I think the answer is before us, we just dislike saying it out loud. It leaves a bad taste in our mouth as Americans. If they are fighting for us, our allies or any of the interests thereof, they are legitimate. If they are fighting in opposition to any of those, they are illegitimate. Is that hypocritical - ABSOLUTELY! National self interests often tend to be hypocritical, but national self interest is the manner in which our government MUST conduct itself. Why? Because I truly believe historically we hold the higher moral ground (not to mention I live here). Our version of liberty is far from perfect but it IS the most perfect man has ever witnessed, in my opinion. I'm reminded of a Churchill quote: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other one." This is true. And this is not to say you all disagree with me here, I'm just making an argument in general. Yes, it would be great if our government could operate internationally free of hypocrisy at every turn, but that isn't the way the world works. We are all big boys and girls and should realize that everybody singing along, holding hands, playing by the same rules is not the way strategic geopolitics works. So, if you fight for us or our allies you are "good", or legitimate. If not, you are "bad." In the same way we disallow our citizens to do business with rouge states, but we do business with those that do (China, Russia), is this hypocritical? Of course. But it is in our strategic best interests, and those interests can not, and must not, be constrained by a Pollyanna definition of hypocrisy, but rather a strategic, real world assessment of how best to preserve our democracy and that of our allies. This is not to say we abandon moral clarity (if Blackwater screws up, they pay the price) but rather unrealistic constraints on what could be definitionally considered "hypocritical."

****
Now, as to why I clicked on today . . . The president submitted his budget. And among this monstrosity (which almost triples Bush's last) is $634 billion for universal health care. Is it just me OR DO WE NOT HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE? He is collecting taxes, putting them in what is described as a "lock box" for a program that does not yet exist. We have had no debate, no legislative votes, no law, no program to mandate this, yet he is raising revenue for it. How is this even legal? This is de facto law by decree! What's next? Illicit arms sales through Israel to Iran in order to raise revenue for a personal, narrow cause? See, I can have a sense of humor about Reagan ... hallowed be his name, peace be upon him. This is beyond "back door", it is jammed in sideways. Uggh . . going to be a long 4 years. Bobby - PLEASE don't have any skeletons in your closest. We need you guy . . . ASAP.

Good post!

Sierra Leone. Liberia. Angola. Papua New Guinea. Afghanistan. Iraq. Nepal. Each of these nations has seen "private military companies" like Exec Outcomes, Sandline and Aegis operate relatively successfully in the last 15 years.

Your question about whether or not they are a legitimate recognized military force, or are they simply "enemy combatants" who happen to be fighting on our side in most of the places listed above is a damn good one. Had you asked me 5 or more years ago, I'd have said flat-out that they were not legitimate... they were mercenaries for hire with no one to answer to when they made "mistakes".

But, the line between "hired thug" and "professional soldier" blurs a bit now, if the only requirement for the latter is fighting for an established government. Every one of the governments listed above were officially recognized by the US as sovereign elected governments, and how they choose to develop and shape their individual defense and security forces is totally up to them. How many of these governments did not have the means (or the time) to recruit, train, equip and field regular standing forces for the defense of a government that the US recognizes as "legit"? A shockingly good example of the kind of brutality that these forces face can be found in the book A Long Way Gone, by Ishmael Beah. 12 years old and forced to fight for the government forces of Sierra Leone, the story is a heartbreaking tale of tragedy and brutality that shows just how quickly things can get impossibly complicated for small, poor but legitimate governments with almost no means of production but substantial amounts of cash (Sierra Leone retains as much as 54% of the profits from the nationalized diamond mines in country).

I think the real question is, perhaps it is okay for such PMCs to hire themselves off to nations such as Sierra Leone or Liberia or Iraq... but what happens if they are hired by the Sudanesse? Or Syria? Or Myanmar? Were the forces of Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Somalia in the early 90's thugs and murderers, or where they hired mercenaries fighting for the "wrong side"? I'm not talking about the drug-addicted children he had running around the streets of Mogadishu with rifles as tall as they were... I'm talking about the two- or three-dozen Eastern European, Soviet-trained professionals he had employed as his personal bodyguards and advisers. How does any rational human being NOT conclude that it was the efforts of THESE men that helped Aidid beat the Somali government, the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, and the United States Army so badly that ALL THREE had to leave the country... and not the efforts of the drug-sodden, displaced farmers and herders that made up the bulk of his forces?

Here's another example: Let's say that Obama would call for the full and complete withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq in the next four months. By July, not ONE US military personnel would be supporting the Iraqi Defense Force. Iraq then chooses to retain the services of a PMC to ensure that their military and security training is adequate to keep up with Iranian, Syrian and al Queida insurgent forces entering the country with the express purpose of destabilizing the government in favor of a radical extremist regime. Would the Iraqis be wrong for doing this? Would the people hired be "criminal thugs"? Should those men be recognized as legitimate military forces operating under the authority of the Iraqi government?

I say YES, they would be legit... a necessity, in fact.

Most call them Mercenaries, I call them professional soldiers

I was pondering an earlier post when we were discussing Blackwater and I thought I would chime in here and ask the question. Are they illegal combatants or are they professional soldiers that happen to be for hire to legitimate governments for security purposes? (I left that wide open on purpose)

If you go back in recent history you will find a series of civil wars in Africa where legitimate private military companies have been able to accomplish for the government what they couldn't do for themselves. ( I know already..I will give specific examples) I'm doing this so Ryan will stop giving me crap for not posting anything of any substance.

The year was 1995 and the civil war was in Sierra Leon. Executive Outcome was a company based out of South Africa comprised of former South African Defense Force Commandos and Special Forces types. The legitimate government was on the verge of being overthrown by a group called the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). The military was corrupt and incapable of protecting the government or its citizens from the RUF so they contracted with Executive Outcomes to do the job. Executive Outcomes provided the personnel and Sierra Leon's government provided the arms necessary for them to do the job. With 300 men, 1 Mi-24 Hind, 2 MI-8 Hips and a BMP-2 APC they forced a negotiated peace in less than a year and brought stability to the country. Unfortunately this story does not have a happy ending. You'll never guess what happened...the UN got involved. Led by the US the UN security council pounced and 300 private military personnel were replaced by 30,000 UN Blue Helmets and the country fell into disarray once again. This is once again where truth is stranger than fiction, it really happened.

Should these organizations be labeled as a bad thing or should we welcome the expertise that these personnel posess to help end bloodshed when noone else can? Would have been nice to have something like Executive Outcome in Rowanda.

Let's talk about failures...

Ryan wants to talk about something we can all AGREE on, so let me outline in clear and concise terms what I feel is the FAILING of the new "stimulus bill"...

For "stimulus" to work on a national level, any "relief" the government may try to offer should only provide for the most basic of needs (food, water, and shelter where it doesn't exist at all... as in the height of the such disasters as Katrina, Hugo, Camile, the Great Depression, or the 1906 San Francisco earthquake)... otherwise, it should focus solely on "recovery".

For the government to effect recovery, it needs to find a way to provide the economy with an outlet for its products and labor. In other words, it needs to become a CONSUMER, not a PROVIDER. Deficit spending in the immediate sense of the words to maintain the economic cycle when the free market isn't able to do it is a GOOD THING.

For example: If US automakers can't manage to pay their costs because they aren't selling cars, and they take $33 billion dollars in funds to see them through, then the Feds should give them the money. They should THEN make the purchase of every NEW car made by that manufacturer 100% deductible from the buyers next year's taxes... because it was the TAX PAYER that bailed out the automaker... via the Feds. The buyer gets his new car, the bank gets its loan and interest earnings, the automaker moves another vehicle off the factory floor, and the government watches the $33 billion deficit evaporate in only 14 months, while still knowing they saved American jobs and businesses in the process.

THAT is Keynesian economics at work, my friends... and it would work, but not even the GOP would back such a plan. WHY?

What about jobs, you ask? Let's say that the Federal government falls back on the tried and true "public works" program. Perhaps they look to cities and rural areas that won't support a bond issue for new or improved school buildings because the economy won't allow the population to pay the increased property taxes. They hire the needed construction personnel and build or improve the schools, putting about 100,000 people to work, and contracting ONLY the architects and highly-skilled positions out. Everyone else is entry level... perhaps young and out-of-work, or just out of school, or laid off from some other sector... and works the job KNOWING it will only last between 18 and 36 months. These people now have an applicable and marketable skill that can see them into a promising career, the community/city/region has a new or improved school, and the Feds have provided labor, planning and financing to keep taxes low until such time as they can be raised to payback the Feds through reasonable tax increases... probably paid by the very people that BUILT the schools.

What we have today in our new "stimulus" bill is a long list of the unfullfilled wishes of the Democratic Party for the last 12 years, all rolled into one BIG spending package. That is the key phrase, for me: SPENDING. Even as a Democrat, I KNOW that spending doesn't equal RELIEF or RECOVERY... no matter WHAT Ryan might say. We could spend another TRILLION dollars, and it wouldn't do a damn thing to the economy, if the money was spent on non-recoverable or non-reusable items and programs. Adding an additional $1 billion to the US Census budget does not stimulate the economy, because there is nothing to show for the money spent once the census is completed. $1 billion spend on roads, or schools, or power plants, or railroads, or manufacturing and production outlets is stimulus, because the results provide the means to pay for themselves given only time and a fair market.

Is anyone going to fight with me over this?

Our next President

As unwilling as I am at this particular moment to agree with anything Ryan might say, I can't but second his opinion of Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA).

If this man isn't the next President of the United States, then the GOP really is a dead party and should simply dry up and blow away. He was derided by members of his own party for not being "good enough" in his response to Obama's speech... but he wasn't in front of the entire Congress, getting standing ovations and applause at every pause in his speech. Obama had days to have his presentation polished and refined, he had 30 minutes.

He is hated by the Left because he is "ultra-conservative"... but that isn't true either. I have heard him speak twice in the last 24 hours, and in the second (a radio interview) he repeatedly said that his is in FAVOR of a stimulus package, and understands the need for increased government spending. What he opposes is increased Federal CONTROL of issues that individual STATES should maintain. This man understands the importance of Keynesian economics in a way that even Reagan can't claim. Temporary increases in Federal spending in areas where national infrastructure gains from the money is a GOOD THING, and when that spending is brought to an end, the private sector picks up where the Feds left off, making profits/jobs/expansion/development the realm of the mainsteam economy once again. He understands the importance of lowering taxes to maximize private-sector investment and participation... and the need of paying off debts incurred by the government when the economy is stronger by slowing growth through either spending cuts or reasonable tax increases.

This man is born and raised in Louisianna, and knows all too well the failings of the Long administration during the 30's... he has demonstrated this by offering MORE tax cuts in his short tenure as Governor than have been made in the last TWO administrations combined. LA is the ONLY State in the Union to have seen jobs GROW in the last 12 months... and all that coming from a budget that shaved $840 million dollars in pork off its pages. The man has even had the audacity to REFUSE (on behalf of his State) nearly $200 million in Federal stimulus dollars because it would create permanent changes in LA budgetary laws... but will lose Federal funding in less than four years, thus creating a new burden on the LA tax payer. This year's Mardi Gras was the safest on record (even with a public shooting at a parade) and the crowds in New Orleans were the biggest since the storm.

His message is simple, straight-forward and proven to work... yet his own Party won't even get behind him when he makes an opposition speech! What is going on here???

This is the state of the "conservative movement" in America today... divided and confused, and ready to sell its collective soul to maintain some semblance of power.

The end of the New Deal debate...

You are 100% correct, the New Deal failed utterly... and I'm tired of rehashing the same points over and over again, simply to make a point you cannot or will not see.

This topic is anathema, and will not be discussed again.

I can't afford any more blood . . .

. . . to profusely pour from my eyes as I read your posts on New Deal. Look, I cited the business failure source at the time of my post - IT IS THERE, you can view it for yourself when I originally cited the figure, I'm not going back 20 posts and look it up and link to it here. But suffice it to say, you continue to act as if the unemployment numbers existed in a vacuum. As if the economy was "all better" except for this odd, unexplained anomaly. When in fact that number was a product of the poor economy, especially from 37 to 39.' Now you can argue that those stock wipe outs, the unemployment, the 50% business failure rate, low consumer sales of big ticket items (such as cars) were all due to Republicans in congress forcing a balanced budget down FDR's throat. But the bottom line is the New Deal was insufficient to handle what everyone would agree is a necessary or at least "good" thing - a balanced federal budget. Hell, the sharp downturn that occurred late in the decade is historically referred to as "THE FDR RECESSION", not the "Republicans for a balanced budget recession." This was FDR's, and New Deal was in full force (what survived the courts) at the time - that recession belongs to New Deal and Roosevelt.

The bottom line is after years to sink or swim the economy went back in the toilet (assuming you'd even call 1936 a recovery demacrcation) from 37-39', most notably BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY represented in unemployment. In the end that steady rise in GDP I acknowledged was NOT sufficient to rate the New Deal as causing an economic recovery. Not for me. It failed to recover the US economy. Let me repeat - the New Deal FAILED to recover the US economy, and the reemergence of the disaster that was the 37-39' US economy more then demonstrates that. Your cited gains were insufficient, in my and many an economist/historian (I've cited in the past, up to and including FDR's own Treasury Sec)opinion, to claim that New Deal successfully recovered the US economy. Thus it did not succeed in its stated aims. And anything that did not succeed, has but one adjective left to describe it.

Speaking of insufficient:
"I agree that the New Deal did not achieve all of its stated goals and promises, and that some of its programs were abject failures." For the love of all that is holy. I know you concede that. As I concede not every drop of New Deal was a bust. The question is, as it has always been, were the portions that did succeed enough to rate the overall experiment called New Deal, an economic success? Did its improvements overshadow its failures? And MOST IMPORTANTLY did it "recover" the US economy? And I can't imagine ANY economic recovery plan that sees unemployment at 1 in 5 Americans, or sees sharp recessions, or stock value disintegration continue on after its full implementation, and that plan STILL be deemed an " economic success." But you do. You can see ALL OF THAT and still, with a straight face, claim: "it worked." Ok. Fine. The "funny thing" to me is that you assign any improvements in the 30's economy to New Deal success, while any negative indicators or events (unemployment, the FDR recession) are somehow unattached to New Deal, caused and occurring in a vacuum or by Republicans. THAT is a "funny thing" to me.

*sigh*

Again, if you can see the events from 1937 to 1939 as I have layed them out, and still claim the economy a "recovered" one, and that New Deal succeeded, then we have wholly different definitions of what a healthy, recovered economy looks like.

BOTTOM LINE: The improvements I acknowledged are painfully insufficient to rate New Deal as succeeding in my eyes. And the shortcomings I presented are clearly not enough to call it a failure in your eyes . . . so the stale mate stands at that. I also now consider the matter closed . . . for now (I still reserve the right to pull that dead, bloated, rotting, stinking horse carcass out some time in the future, and pump a few more shells into it ... hehe)

****
Moving on . . . lets discuss an economic agenda we all agree is a failure, from start to finish - I watched Obama's joint address in its entirety last night, and let me give you a brief synopsis of the way it came off: "I have not yet begun to spend." I always considered his exclamation that the stimulus bill and the extension of the SCHIPS program was a "down payment on his promises" as a clever (sorta) figurative term. Now I think he may have meant that quite literally. He described 3 areas - energy; health care; and education, as what his next initiatives will focus on. All while promising more money for failing banks, and action where they do not act - I sense a nationalization plan in the works there, but that's me. You can watch it online if you choose, but you'll get the picture if you just imagine the Charlie Brown teacher repeating "whamp whamp, whamp, whamp, whamp", except insert the word SPEND. Cleverly enough he tried to couch all the spending as some sort of traditional, even conservative, moral imperative. Oy vey.

One humorous note: he mentioned that "the nation that invented the automobile can not turn its back on that industry." Uh huh. Hey Barry, just a small point . . . we didn't event the automobile. That would be a gentlemen named Karl Benz, as in Mercedes Benz who created the combustible engine. He, and the company that bares his name, hail from Germany. You know Germany Barry - its the last war you and your cohorts consider legitimate, remember? At any rate, Henry Ford invented the mass production line that made cars like his Model T affordable to many average Americans, but we didn't "invent" the automobile. And Mr. President, you might do well to remember something our Mr. Ford did originate, a quote: "You can't build a reputation on what you're going to do."

Just food for thought there, my buddy ol' pal, my commander-in-chief, you sly rascal you {deep breath ... in through the mouth, out through the nose ... steady lad ... STEADY!}.

The funny thing is...

This "understanding" sounds a lot like what I was saying two weeks ago.

I agree that the New Deal did not achieve all of its stated goals and promises, and that some of its programs were abject failures, and you have now shown that you recognize that recovery was measurable and steady, with only one 9-month "bump in the road" when the government tried to force a balanced budget before the economy was ready to take the tax increase that would have required.

I haven't seen my question about your "50% business failure" figure addressed, and since I have shown that both business and financial lending closures slowed to less than 2% of their pre-New Deal numbers, I maintain that the ONLY indicator of a weak/slow economy by the spring of '39 was unemployment... and that further investigation of those unemployment figures remains a must if you are going to base the majority of your case on what I have determined are "questionable" numbers of comparison.

None the less, we can consider the case closed... again... at least until such time as it rises it's ugly head out of the murky waters in some future debate.

I've got news for you, Copernicus called . .

. . . and he says the earth does NOT revolve around you. So put away your foolish, sinful Irish pride and arrogance (now there's the pot calling the kettle black), and listen up.

I've been thinking of a way to drive this point home to you so we can resolve this dispute absent a stale mate . . . which is where it stands as of my last, in my opinion.

Lets assume that the various GDP flow charts, etc, you cited are accurate. Let us also assume my unemployment and business failure numbers etc, as of 1939 (or post New Deal implementation if you will), are also accurate. I contend that no economic recovery plan is complete (read: successful) without a pre disaster recovery in employment, business success rates, stock wipe outs, and a reasonable fear from another sharp recession in the near future, eliminated (not a guarantee mind you, that's impossible. Just a "we are out of the weeds" consensus). All of these downturns occurred between 1937-1939 specifically, but not exclusively, my point being post New Deal they were still occurring. You contend that no economic recovery plan can be judged a failure with steady, persistent improvements in GDP, and so on. So assuming we stipulate one another's numbers, how are we to define success?

Let me put it another way. Is it reasonable for one to look upon the post New Deal implementation numbers I cited and come to the conclusion that the final tally on New Deal effectiveness on the economy was insufficient to be judged "successful?" If you agree this is a reasonable conclusion (whether it is your conclusion or not) then I must stipulate that for one to look at GDP those 75 out of 84 months, and conclude it was causing improvements, is also reasonable. If so, then the improvements you describe and the failure I describe are not mutually exclusive. They can coexist . . . unless one of us is prepared to call the other a liar, numbers misrepresented and the sort.

So could we not agree that New Deal policy caused improvements along the way but in the end was insufficient to realize what we would recognize as (historically or even in contemporary terms) an economic recovery? I mean describing unemployment and the other numbers I cited as "the last vestiges of the Depression era" as you did, that WWII happen to correct is a little understated don't you think? Seriously, those numbers I cited are huge in terms of judging an economic recovery. I doubt no matter what comes of Obama's recovery plan that if unemployment is high, the stock market is volatile, and 50% of overall businesses are failing that it will be afforded the description of "successful." Do you? Obviously the advent of WWII has precluded us from finding out what the economy of the 40's would have looked like with only New Deal to impact it, but my simple contention is that no economic recovery plan, regardless of any noted, regular improvements in GDP along the way, can be labeled "successful" if unemployment in the end is still hovering around 1 in 5 Americans; a sharp recession occurs late in the decade; businesses are failing at an alarming rate; and the stock market is seen as highly volatile. Is that so unreasonable of me?

Do you see my point? You are arguing a net IMPROVEMENT each year with your numbers and citations and specific program successes, whereas I am arguing those improvements are insufficient to label the FINAL TALLY "successful." One can improve his lot from A to B, but if the goal was X (or get back to X after a disaster), he has improved, but not succeeded. I am willing to concede that New Deal's deficit spending/public works/certain alphabet soup programs were not a net loss for GDP those months you noted - meaning they were able to produce PROVABLE improvements in the economy, IF you will concede that those improvements did not amount to enough of a recovery by decades end to label the entire affair "successful." Improvements, yes. But enough to call its' over all effect on the economy "successful", no. You see what I mean? I'm making an honest attempt at clarification and perhaps closure here.

Can you live with this sort of compromised separation of terms, coexisting? An agreement that because of your cited improvements it is not accurate to label the entire thing a bust, while at the same time conceding that those improvements were not sufficient enough to label the New Deal's overall effect on the economy,"successful?"

If not then our differences on what defines "success" are irreconcilable, and we are left at a stale mate indefinitely I suppose.

I do not accept that premise of conclusion ...

... and I do not resign.

First:
falderall (adj) - balderdash; foolishness; false talk.
(*forgive the previous misspellings, our spell checker on the Bund is somewhat less then efficient)

****
The comment I referred to when I noted it seemed as if you were advocating deficit spending, no matter what on, was the following:
"If we spent $180 billion in 1945 to defeat Germany, Japan AND the very last vestiges of the Depression and that WORKED... why would spending $60 billion in 1935 have been the WRONG thing to do?"
That appears to me as if one type of spending is as good as the next, as long as spending is occurring. As if one justifies the other. If that is not your contention then perhaps you should clean up your sentence structure. And I'm not trying to be cute or shitty here - that is what that sentence says to me.

To the rest, and your demand I opt for one of the three conclusions -

I merely stated that I feel I am right on this issue, that history (via various historians/economists) have begun to vindicate that position (versus the tired old dogma that it worked), that my numbers (quoted repeatedly) circa 1937-1939 (after New Deal had its chance to sink or swim), speak for themselves and that I am confident that any onlooker (read: objective reader not attached to us) would agree with me more times then not. I care not whether you agree with my definition of success or failure but that I clearly, concisely and accurately stated my case as to why New Deal was a net failure, and I am completely confident that I did just that. That's not being petty, that is the facts as I have found them. So if you force my hand into using one of those choices to most accurately describe my argument, then I feel WIN is appropriate . . . given the above prose; that I have not resigned; and I feel no defeat has been put to me.

Furthermore . . . I cited and elaborated on my numbers and points of arguments more then once, so I'm not sure why you would suggest I "pony up."

The bottom line, again, is that if you can live with the numbers I cited existing all the way to the war AND STILL call New Deal a success, then fine - we clearly have differing definitions of success. Obviously I think to overlook the disaster that still existed and reemerged 37'-39' as in unemployment, another sharp recession, stock value wipes, business failures, and opting instead to focus on GDP as you have done, is wrong headed and does not justify describing or defining New Deal a net "success."

So for you, for the record, for everyone - if you can call any economic recovery plan a success EVEN WITH unemployment and the items I cited above being in the disastrous territory that they were, after full New Deal implementation with years to work, then your definition of "success" is . . .well . . falderall.

So in my opinion, unless that dispute in definition is resolved every other portion of this debate is rendered mute. If you do not agree with that diagnosis of our stale mate, then you may feel free to resign at any time, for this is my unyielding position.

What the hell is "Faulderale"?

Now you ARE just being petty... damn it, man! I said "... I give that credit to the manner in which the US government went about winning it... deficit spending WHEN NEEDED." Note that I did not say "deficit spending for spending's sake." I even had it capitalized, for the Christ's sake... as I have always advocated.

If I were to take the position that you see me taking... the one where I advocate spending mountains of cash on imaginary causes that produce NOTHING while growing in cost on an annual basis... wouldn't I be SUPPORTING the "stimulus bill"? Have you ever heard me say that I think even one IOTA of that bill is worth the ink it's printed with?

Please... as in any classic struggle of intellect and wit, from forensics to chess, there are THREE ways to end a match: WIN, LOOSE, and RESIGN. To resign is not to loose, and does not mean you admit defeat... only that to continue results in no clear conclusion. As in any classic match, I have offered you the opportunity to resign, to "take the draw"...

So take it or pony up... but don't blame me for being unfair or untoward, because I am not.

Faulderale . . . and other observations.

The deficit spending during WWII was hardly the sole cause of it ending the 30's era of economic hardships, and you know it. To say that deficit spending is good, regardless of application, is nonsensical in the extreme. The manufacturing base created during the war that was converted to consumer goods post war; the virtually forced savings; the GI Bill post war - come on huh? If your contention is that deficit spending for the sole sake of spending is always a net positive (and that was your point in comparing 1942-45 spending to spending in 1935 i.e. "how could the latter be bad and the former be good") then you should be a staunch advocate of Obama's current spending bill. A sophomoric observation at best, stick to the GDP, that's much stronger.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that YOU could find one more point of disagreement within our New Deal debate. And so you know, it's not that I "don't want to play anymore", it is simply this: once we have established that the two of us vary on our definitions of "success", then the entire debate is rendered mute. I don't think that any economic recovery plan can be deemed a success when after its full implementation the nation sees still staggering unemployment, rampant business failures, etc. You believe that no economic recovery plan can be judged a failure when the GDP rises 75 out of 84 months. And that's where it ends. Until we come to a mutually acceptable definition of "economic success" everything else is semantics. So, I leave the now muted debate at this: I can live with the assessment of any on looker to our site, as to who's definition is more apt, and their judgment of New Deal failure or success that is its product.

****
Speaking of economic failures (hehe, you'll forgive one last dig), the president will address a joint session of congress tonight, as I'm sure you are all aware. He will attempt to sell his barrage of "change" occurring in his first 30 days. I fear the worst is yet to come. Each of us know the 789 billion dollar bill will not improve the US economy. We also know he is in dangerous economic territory with his housing bill - artificially attempting to create a bottom in the market. In addition the health care debate starts next week, and just for good measure the feds are going to initiate "stress tests" on financial institutions which is seen as a first step towards nationalizing the private banking sector. One hardly requires Delphic insight to see what will follow in the wake of such absolute economic amateurism and buffoonery.

I don't want to sound like an economic pessimist, but if you find yourself in an open field, at dawn, with God's creation spread out ahead of you, absorbing in his work through the naked eye and you happen to spot four specks out in the distance, dust in their trail, fear not - the four horsemen approach.

Oh, my goodness...

Jeez, Ryan... put your hackles away. If you don't want to play anymore, then we won't play.

You insisted that I provide substantiated evidence that New Deal policies directly contributed to the recovery in manners and means that outweighed any possible eclipse (or over-shadowing) from policies that we all agree failed (example: NRA)... and I did so. In that presentation, I did not question your facts, figures or numbers (although I did say I had trouble finding where you got some of your facts from), only your general conclusion that the New Deal was an inherent failure from start to finish. I had even found evidence that the one un-resolved indicator of recession/depression in the entire equation (unemployment) was far less the problematic symptom of the economic era than we have BOTH been led to believe.

I have tried to show that, while we have very nearly come to blows over the question of whether or not World War II ended the "Great Depression"... I have never questioned that the ultimate solution to the economic woes of the 1930's was the massive, unprecedented spending that WWII forced the US government to follow in order to secure victory. From '42 to '45, we doubled the national debt each and every year, which helped us to win the war AND end (once and for all) the last of the economic problems remaining from the 30's. Where we differ is that, while you give that credit to the WAR itself, I give that credit to the manner in which the US government went about winning it... deficit spending WHEN NEEDED. If we spent $180 billion in 1945 to defeat Germany, Japan AND the very last vestiges of the Depression and the WORKED... why would spending $60 billion in 1935 have been the WRONG thing to do? If the country needs it... then deficit spending is either GOOD or BAD, regardless of whether or not there is a war being fought.

I have been back over what I wrote, and can't find where I "dismissed" your evidence or research... but I did refute some of it directly, which you failed to counter. How am I to take that EXCEPT as an understood concession of defeat? Yes, I did accuse you of "refusing to make your case"... and that was undoubtedly a fairly sweeping example of hyperbole on my part. For that, I apologize. We all know sarcasm doesn't translate well into the written word.

All that aside, let it go and we won't bring it up again. You refuse to see my point, and I can't find anything in what you, me or anyone else has shown to justify yours... no matter how hard I try. The evidence of improvement is there for all to see, and it begins and ends with the New Deal policies of government spending in excess of receipts in areas that support development of and improvements to national infrastructure. No one, including you, has shown me an alternative explanation that is simpler or more obvious than this one... no matter how often I ask.

So, questions regarding New Deal Success/Failure... still unresolved by Bund consensus.

HAHAHA...he said multi syllabic

I seem to get some sort of pleasure from those sorts of comments and I'm not sure if that's good or bad.



I guess I have to explain to you in my short, 2 paragraph way my position here at the bund. First you need to know that I know my limitations and short comings. With that in mind I don't try and involve myself in conversations I know little about nor have the time to research to bring myself up to speed. I do alot of learning on these subjects reading your posts but as I said before I do get some sort of sick pleasure from being able to push your buttons. It's too bad we haven't met in person yet because I'm sure if we had you would just ignore my BS commentary.



Now at some point when the posts start to turn towards things I know about such as Military Aviation, Homeland Security, Military and Emergency Medicine, Tactical Medicine, firearms and their use, personal protection or some similar area I will be more than happy to chime in with my responses. Mind you I'm not long winded and don't expect to have to read my posts for 30 minutes just so you can understand something that would only take 2 minutes of reading. I'm not a big fan of "fluff" so you won't have to read 15 words to understand something I could write in 5. I'm glad your college educations is paying off but my educations has come from places other than a classroom, last I checked they call it "life", so you go right ahead and impress us with your gargantuan vocabulary and long winded speeches and I'll be right here reading them getting schooled myself.

Sincerely

Badboy

I don't have time . . .

. . . for this.

First, cry behind my computer? And Titus schooling me badboy? Uh huh, I see. So let me ask you - how's the view from the sidelines every time the other 3 of us get more then 2 inches deep into a real intellectual debate? I realize we tend to use compound sentences and multi syllable words, but anytime you want to participate in the infinite details of something as massively complex and time consuming as the New Deal, rather then engage in drive by Chihuahua-like barking via the occasional 2 paragraph post, be my guest.

Secondly, I feel no need to continue on with New Deal debate. Not because I "know" I'm right and there is no need to hear the opposing view, but rather because of one of Titus's statements prior to the Bernacke post, and a comment Jambo made today. Allow me to explain . . .

See - I've accepted Titus's GDP numbers, etc. I even explained how the scenario seems as if New Deal debate comes down to an individual's definition of economic "success." And even though I cited provable numbers; cited my own researched testimony; and quoted mainstream historians, Titus declared, after all of that, that I "patently refused to prove my case", and suggested that the core of my argument was nothing more then my declaring Kensyian Economics to be "liberal tripe" (a phrase I don't even use, I might add). That tells me something very valuable. He has concluded that no reasonable person can evaluate the numbers from 33' to 39' and come to the conclusion that New Deal was a net failure. Even though I can recognize due to GDP numbers and individual program success such as the TVA, that a reasonable person can conclude it to be a success, he will under no circumstances afford my New Deal opposition that same latitude. So, as there is no room in Titus's mind for my argument to be considered "reasonable" I choose not to waste my time with an issue he is as immovable on as Catholicism. His "belief" in New Deal has been established in much the same fashion as one embraces a religion (in my opinion), thus rationality within that confine can come to be redefined, to fit the boundaries of that belief. And as I would never attempt to convert he to Mormonism, I consider the entire premise of a New Deal debate with him, mute.

To Jambo's comment. It dovetails with my assessment of the Titus New Deal mindset (read: immovable and unaccepting of the contrary point of view as even having the potential to be "reasonable"). I text Jambo today, urging him to view the new live Glenn Beck program on FOX starting at 2pm West Coast time, and he obliges. Soon after he texts me to say: "no wonder you fight New Deal, listening to these to water headed morons . . ." (they had just labeled New Deal a net failure as a side commentary on Obama's spending bill). Now, while I am not exactly sure what "water headed" is, I got his basic point. In addition, he noted that he accepts both New Deal's success and failures rather then assuming "no good can come from a Dem president." This clearly suggests that, much like Titus, he assumes my entire argument to be ideological, partisan, and worse - ripped off from a TV talking head.

*sigh*

He has also, apparently, not accepted my numbers; quotations; and historical sources, and decided to fit my entire, multi faceted argument into a neat little box and label the outside: "PARTISAN." Again, the very thought of a reasonable person reaching the conclusion I have on New Deal is given no weight whatsoever.

After all of my posts, with a myriad of real numbers, sources, testimony etc, he, at this late date, STILL considers my argument TV talking head ripped off-partisan-revisionist-irrational slander. He (along with Titus) has decided that for anyone to even offer up the conclusion that New Deal was a net failure is to immediately enter into an irrationality equivalent to Holocaust denying or 9/11 conspiracies. Don't get me wrong, I needn't the 2 of you to agree with me, but to ignore all my researched posts - quite literally as if they never existed - and chalk up my opposition to partisan banter is to suspend reality, and a gross slight to my person (badboy I haven't the time fully to explain, but basically that means they insulted me).

That's all fine. But I pity this mind set. It closes off the possibility of a real debate - as most religious (political) dogma, once embraced, do (see: global warming devotees).

As I said . . . I don't have time for that.

Well?

I can only assume that Ryan has been busy with his personal hygiene issues (haircuts, tanning, make-up and fashion expressions) and that is the reason why he hasn't commented on my initial submission of evidence that the New Deal worked more than it failed.

So, until such time as Ryan is ready to take up that debate again, let's discuss something that has been on my mind a lot lately... Afghanistan.

Frankly, even though I questioned the "how and when" of our invasion of Iraq, I was never really concerned with the prospects of our ability to WIN in Iraq. For the 25+ years before our invasion, Iraq was a basically secular society forced to integrate (to some degree) as a "national whole" through the strength of its dictatorial government. The people living there now consider themselves Iraqi (with the possible exception of the Kurds, but that isn't a foregone conclusion either) and understand the concept of "Iraq" well enough to manage a national government without someone like Saddam looming over them.

However, there is no REAL historical basis for an integrated and homogeneous Afghanistan, and that leads me to question our strategy and strategic goals in Afghanistan. Consider this:

In the nine years that the Soviets were there, they cycled through more than 600,000 well-trained and well-supplied troops. At the height of their occupation, they had four reinforced combat divisions based within Afghanistan, and another four based along the bordering Soviet republics. These troops faced a force of insurgents that could (at best) hope to put 10k men into the field at any ONE time, but never with a solid degree of command and control within their ranks. In fact, it is now estimated that of all the insurgents that fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, there was a 55% chance that no three of them spoke the same language at any one time.

The Soviet goal was to prop-up and support the communist regime in Kabul against radical Islamic elements within the country that had the free support of both the US and Europe AND Iran and Pakistan. The communists had as much as declared war on Islam as they had on the insurgents, and thus had compounded their problem by a complete order of magnitude.

OUR stated goal is to end the insurgency and to help build and support a democratic representative government that can, in time, work to eliminate the crime and corruption of the nation through its own organs of administration and control.

My question... is OUR goal any more realistic and achievable than the Soviet's goal was anywhere between 1980 and 1989? This is a nation where the ONLY examples of a strong central government stem from "colonial" powers exercising control within Afghanistan from outside of it... and this is not something we want to emulate, I think.

As Baddboy recently pointed out, the new "surge" in Afghanistan is on, with Obama's blessing. Who here thinks that Obama's policies will show improvement in the country, even given the entire span of his first term? Can he now (if he deems it prudent) change our conditions for victory, and orchestrate a withdrawl before his next run? Are an additional 30,000 US troops enough to tip the balance of power and control in that nation in favor of Coalition forces... understanding that even with the "surge" the Coalition is STILL less than half of the in-country troop strength that the Soviets had in 1988 (115,000)?

Hmmph...

Half a bottle of Powers whiskey and every last drop of stout for me and Mick, and the girls did half-a-dozen bottles of wine... Super John ran with the hard cider. It's 6 AM and the 6-year-old is up and won't be quiet, so now I'm up too.

Not going to be a pretty day.

Today...

Today, I am painting the very nearly 100-year-old stairwell in the "Casa del Foster, marko dos", and as Jambo, Ryan and anyone else that remembers the homestead from last May can tell you... this is no easy chore. Plaster and lathe walls that are as cracked as Pelosi's concept of "responsible government", carved bannisters with enough lead paint on them to shield a small family from an Iranian dirty bomb, and treads so worn that they are nearly twice as thick at the ends as they are in the middle.

Sometime before 5 PM, I will have to venture into town and score supplies for our first big soiree of the new year... and the theme? Wine tasting! That's right, Lieteau-fans... Elizabeth has scored nearly a dozen bottles of various wines, from about 4 different countries, and we are planning a cheese and cracker selection, dips, and pizza for the children. For Mick, "Super John" and myself? A fine selection of several (three) previously unattainable Irish whiskey labels (Paddy's, Redbreast, and Powers) and the remainder of my porter and stout stock. So, for those waiting with baited breath for the remainder of my New Deal arguments, they may take longer than I thought to get to the Bund.

So, hang-over permitting, I'll have more for the Bund tomorrow. For now, I have more paint to lay and Liz is texturing the ceiling... so I better go!

Hehe... "my side"...

I really don't want Ryan to "take my side"... honestly. I just need him to understand where I am coming from. I really feel that the evidence supports what I am saying MORE than it supports what he is saying, but if he can show me that this isn't true, then perhaps "my side" is the wrong one.

I have admitted to being wrong in the past, as hard as that may be to believe.

What I find particularly frustrating about this specific topic is that someone (ahem) keeps changing the parameters of the debate. If I remember correctly, the debated started out with his statement that the New Deal failed utterly... then that it mostly failed... then that it was 51% failure over 49% success... and now we are down to opinion versus opinion, and no concrete determination can be made!

This irks me because history isn't an abstract science... at least not in the pure sense of the term. It is as dynamic and detail-ridden as any other topic of study you care to name, but in the end... it either IS or ISN'T, and in regards to a period of only the most recent past, an actual determination should be able to be made one way or the other even by the likes of us. Either the New Deal was GOOD for America, or it was BAD for America.

To put this in perspective for anyone that cares to read, let's use a similar argument that we had several years ago (this is an EXAMPLE... I am not starting this again!)...

Ryan contended that not only did the New Deal NOT solve any problems in the Great Depression, it made them worse to the point where the only thing that saved the US economy at all was WWII. His argument said that WWII was good for the US economy, while I said it wasn't... that NO war is good for an economy.

After hours, days and weeks of debate, the discussion boiled down to the point where we all agreed that what ended the "era" of the Great Depression was the MASSIVE deficit spending and TOTAL economic control by the Federal government in it's effort to win the war. This erased the last vestiges of unemployment, a falling and weak commodities market, rampant inflation/deflation cycles in the value of the dollar and weak consumer confidence by FORCING America to save money while at the same time providing the means for the biggest manufacturing BOOM the country had seen since the Industrial Revolution. With rationing, fixed commodity pricing, and 88% of the means of production geared totally to the war effort... the problem was fixed for us by (drum roll, please) government intervention on a scale hitherto unknown in the US... and not seen since, either. The MEANS we used to win WWII was what got us out of the "Great Depression" once and for all, but not the war itself.

The point I'm making is that history isn't "fuzzy"... if the facts are there, then solid determinations can be made: Did the New Deal, or even some part of it, help America recover from the depression-cycle that had begun in 1929?

I say YES, it did.

I'm gonna have to start calling Ryan "McProbius"

Every time you two start going at it in the fashion that is going on now I can't help but laugh to the point where I almost fall out of my chair. Titus always manages to school Ryan in such a fashion that I can picture him sitting behind his computer with his head in his hands crying "Why won't he just take my side...just once".

I just wanted to point out that the Afghan surge is finally starting, not sure what happened to make it happen but 3000 troops immediately and 17k more to follow. Not quite the 30k initially requested but a great start.

My demonstration... Part I

Here is the first portion of my demonstration, as requested, of a direct and measurable link between New Deal policies and the recovery of the US economy from the symptoms of the Great Depression.

My first topic will be the initial fiscal policies enacted by Roosevelt immediately following his inauguration as President (say, his first 100 days). I will cite the author of the piece and then relate how it pertains to my argument that the New Deal did have programs and policies that benefited the economy more than it hindered it... as requested by Ryan.

Exhibit 1A: A speech given by Mr. Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Banks, at the H. Parker Willis Lecture in Economic Policy, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia March 2, 2004:

"The finding that leaving the gold standard was the key to recovery from the Great Depression was certainly confirmed by the U.S. experience. One of the first actions of President Roosevelt was to eliminate the constraint on U.S. monetary policy created by the gold standard, first by allowing the dollar to float and then by resetting its value at a significantly lower level. The new President also addressed another major source of monetary contraction, the ongoing banking crisis. Within days of his inauguration, Roosevelt declared a "bank holiday," shutting down all the banks in the country. Banks were allowed to reopen only when certified to be in sound financial condition. Roosevelt pursued other measures to stabilize the banking system as well, such as the creation of a deposit insurance program. With the gold standard constraint removed and the banking system stabilized, the money supply and the price level began to rise. Between Roosevelt's coming to power in 1933 and the recession of 1937-38, the economy grew strongly."

Exhibit 1B: Dr. Randall Parker of East Carolina University and former Reagan Economic Advisory Council member, wrote the following in 2002 (highlights are inserted by me):

"Once again we return to the financial system for answers. The abandonment of the gold standard, the impact this had on the money supply, and the deliverance from the economic effects of deflation would have to be singled out as the most important contributor to the recovery. Romer (1993) stresses that Eichengreen and Sachs (1985) have it right; recovery did not come before the decision to abandon the old gold parity was made operational. Once this became reality, devaluation of the currency permitted expansion in the money supply and inflation which, rather than promoting a policy of beggar-thy-neighbor, allowed countries to escape the deflationary vortex of economic decline. As discussed in connection with the gold standard hypothesis, the simultaneity of leaving the gold standard and recovery is a robust empirical result that reflects more than simple temporal coincidence.

"Romer (1993) reports an increase in the monetary base in the United States of 52 percent between April 1933 and April 1937. The M1 money supply virtually matched this increase in the monetary base, with 49 percent growth over the same period. The sources of this increase were two-fold. First, aside from the immediate monetary expansion permitted by devaluation, as Romer (1993) explains, monetary expansion continued into 1934 and beyond as gold flowed to the United States from Europe due to the increasing political unrest and heightened probability of hostilities that began the progression to World War II. Second, the increase in the money supply matched the increase in the monetary base and the Treasury chose not to sterilize the gold inflows. This is evidence that the monetary expansion resulted from policy decisions and not endogenous changes in the money multiplier. The new regime was freed from the constraints of the gold standard and the policy makers were intent on taking actions of a different nature than what had been done between 1929 and 1933."

Here are two contemporary "conservative" points of view clearly showing measurable and specific examples of New Deal fiscal policy that DIRECTLY resulted in economic improvement within weeks of the inauguration of FDR and the implementation of his New Deal. I have given the "sound-byte" of the arguments, but the proof can be seen for anyone who questions by following the links provided. Had FDR not taken us off the gold standard, the recovery could not have happened, and had FDR not instructed the Federal Reserve to "devalue" the dollar by printing more money, the same could be assumed.

Exhibit 2A: Unemployment.

A funny thing here... as I was perusing the BLS website last night, I happened upon THIS article about the WPA. The long and the short of it is simply this: During its lifetime from 1935 to 1943, more than 8 million people were employed with the WPA, and at its largest, it's rosters contained the names of 3.4 million Americans... but not ONE of those names ever came off the UNEMPLOYED lists! NOT ONE! In fact, because Republicans didn't want any aspect of the New Deal to be shown in a positive light during the 1930's, they made sure that NO American that was employed with a "Federally-funded" relief program was shown as "employed" at all.

What this means to you and I is that, unless you can show me that you are basing your unemployment numbers off of "adjusted" figures that DO account for the more than 8 million Americans that worked within the CCC, WPA, TVA, BLM, NIRA and ERA umbrellas (and I know I wasn't!)... we are going to have to do a WHOLE LOT of recalculating of what the ACTUAL unemployment rate at anytime between 1933 and 1943 really was.

An average male working for the WPA in 1936 was making $1,512/year... while the national average in the private sector was only $1,368/year. Yet, this guy is counted as UNEMPLOYED by the Federal government TO THIS DAY because he was working for a "relief" program funded by the Feds. How can this NOT mean that a whole new light is shed on arguments made by those that simply look at figures and say "See? The New Deal didn't work!"??? In any given year between 1933 and 1939, as many as 3.9 million people have to be taken off the unemployed lists because they were actually making MORE than those that had jobs in the private sector!

It is now my CONCERTED opinion that THIS is a huge mitigating circumstance as to WHY unemployment remained so high throughout the decade... because in actual point of fact, far more people were making a decent living (compared to the private "employed" sector) than had ever previously been thought. Would YOU quit a relief-program job that paid a full 10% MORE than the national average, just so you could work for GM, or IBM, some other private company that might lay you off the next time the market hick-ups?

Recess: ... because I have to get back to work now.

You can get cranky all you want...

I didn't swear or call you names... I employed sarcasm, which was determined to be something I invented here, remember? Please, keep your panties from bunching up and cutting off blood to the brain.

I'd LOVE to hear Jambo chime in here soon and tell me if I'm really THAT hard to understand when I write something. How can you deny that history is on the side of New Deal policies? The facts do not lie! GDP, salaries, sales, a decline in bank closings, a stronger dollar... and even unemployment ALL improved over the course of the New Deal era. Only unemployment stayed below the 1929 mark by the end of the decade, but it HAD inproved from its highest mark in '32-33. Anything proposed as a better alternative route to New Deal policies enters into the realm of "what if" and can't be verified, anyway, right?

Now, you can spend your time showing me whatever concrete historical evidence that you can find that any and/or all New Deal policies failed if you choose. I am going to finish my effort to show concrete evidence from modern "conservative" sources that SOME aspects of the New Deal worked and helped the nation to recover from the single greatest failing of the US economy in history.

I'm pissing you off?

Look, I tried to keep this gentlemanly, but if you want to take it to the gutter, fine!

I "patently refuse to prove my point", and "history proves my case for me" ???
What madness is this? I have spent pain staking hours on research, quoted rates, numbers, percentages, and varied sectors of the economy at nauseam. Along with quoting accredited historians of record. But you get to ignore ALL THAT and exclaim that I "patently refuse to prove my case"? Furthermore you have the arrogance to flippantly state: "history proves my case for me." Oh well hell, why didn't you say so? Why all the fuss on my part? I'll just say yesum and nosum, and keep in my place next time because almighty master Titus has declared WHAT HISTORY IS AND ISN'T!

Is that the rules of engagement now? Pretend like I wrote nothing, cited no numbers, quoted no people of record (including FDR's own SoT I might add)?

Fine . . . then let me adpot a preemptive policy of my own. Everything you are about to research, write, eaborate on and state - it's all you patently refusing to prove your case. And history proves MY POINT for me.

Shame on you sir.

Are you TRYING to piss me off?

I guess, if I were really going to be honest, that I always thought my case was proven by HISTORY. I have shown, time and time again, by your own admission even, that the economy DID recover between the years 1933 and 1939. The "Republican" answer was shown in the four years before 1933, and I have shown the results of those efforts, too. History has proven my point for me.

But, I'm going to... once again... do all in my power to grant your wish: I will show the correlation between New Deal policies and the up-turn in the economy. I'm not doing this to prove myself RIGHT, though... I'm doing it to demonstrate once and for all that I can, indeed, make the case where you not only can't make yours... you patently refuse to do so.

So, stay tuned friends... my evening plans have been adjusted and I am on a mission. It will undoubtedly cost me much mileage with my wife and family... but that is a small price to pay for an opportunity to see Ryan choke on his inability to refute what history has already proven to be true.

"Good night Seattle, we love you!"

The GDP trend ticked up, with interruption, ok. Yet you have not shown me which program or series of programs that is directly related to. Your burden here has always been much heavier then mine. I simply pull the disastrous numbers and say, hey, it didn't work, or these numbers would have been corrected by 1939. When you point to any bright spots in the economy it is incumbent upon you to show me just how a New Deal policy (ies) caused that bright spot. Because that's what we are arguing - the effectiveness (success or lack thereof) of the New Deal. Not what good happened necessarily, but rather how that is attributed to New Deal policies. Unless you can demonstrate a correlation it is just as reasonable to consider the GDP went up despite New Deal, rather then because of it - hell, after 29' it scarcely had any other direction to head in no matter what policy was implemented.

I'd like to see that post. And if you can't produce it, you have no foundation to your claim of success.

In any event, as I stated before, other just as vital trends continued toward ruin from 37 - 39: unemployment, stock value, business failure for example, well after New Deal had years of opportunity to work its' pathetic magic. Thus it was demonstrably unsuccessful while real and stable recovery was enjoyed only as a result of WWII.

As I said, I can't call your opinion "wrong", by definition opinions aren't right or wrong. But as the above suggests, I find your conclusion ill conceived.

And with that I'll close the matter supremely confident in my belief that any objective reader will see the wisdom in my anti New Deal prose . . .

Pathetic...

The trend was UP... from 1933 to 1939. That means SUCCESS, at least enough to counter the continued downward trend that we saw prior to '33.

So, if it gets you to stop whining... the New Deal was more successful than it was unsuccessful. Otherwise the numbers wouldn't show an UPWARD trend, it would have continued with a DOWNWARD trend.

Whew... happy now?

Son of a BLEEP!

What is wrong with you? That was a rehash of crap we laid out previously.

First off, I'm not here, nor was I ever, to argue that Hoover had a better approach in 28.' Or that COMPLETE laissez faire is the answer. I don't know why you keep inserting that, it has no place in this discussion, I'm not required at all to demonstrate it worked better for the purposes of this long, ongoing debate. We are talking New Deal - success or failure, and I was arguing that New Deal did not deliver, that at the end of the day (or decade) it was a failure. I even, in an attempt at bipartisanship, amended that statement to a "majority failure", versus "complete failure" to allow for successes such as the TVA and FDIC. The one thing I asked you in that post, which you did not answer (go figure) was how do you define success in this case? Given the numbers I cited as late as 39', can a pro New Dealer, such as yourself, still legitimately claim it a majority success? I contend an emphatic "no."

Look, the numbers are what they are - we did our homework on the pros and cons. I say if one must be picked, between success or failure, I judge it a majority, or overall, failure. That is my opinion based on my own threshold for what defines economic "success", and I feel confident that my research legitimizes that claim as a reasonable conclusion to draw.

Now you, Titus G. Newdealer, what is your opinion on whether it should be judged a majority success or failure? Clearly there were individual improvements to point to, such as the GDP you cited, as there were individual failures, such as the unemployment I cited. The question I put to you (now twice) is which one out ways the other, in your opinion? I'll even give you a third option - do the failures nullify the successes (or vice versa) to the point of a net wash?

My opinion, to oversimplify for the purposes of brevity, is that one can not look at the figures I cited in 39' and claim that the decade of New Dealing "worked." The gains you cite were either too minimal or nullified (perhaps "overshadowed" is a more apt adjective) by other failures to render an overall description of New Deal as quote, "successful."

Now, for a third time, what is your opinion on the matter?

"If you cut me, do I not faint?"

I figured I'd keep the misquotes going. My apologies to fans of The Merchant of Venice (as I am one).

By the way, did anyone notice that Obama signed that huge spending bill, "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" (also known as the D.O.A Act of 2009), a bill that will probably be the biggest act of his first term, all alone? Usually a major piece of legislation like that is signed with all the principles and coauthors flanking the pen gripped hand of the president, whether in the Rose Garden or elsewhere. Hmmm, just a bit curious to me is all. I can't decide if he wants all the credit, or legislators want none.

While I await Titus' response I caught the housing presser in full. Obama held a big one today, he intends to tackle the housing crisis, implementing new rules 2 weeks from now in his grand new plan to secure "the American dream." Just one more step towards guaranteeing results, versus pursuits. This act requires no new law, and he is perfectly within his right as TARP put all the funds into the Treasury Secretary, and these new "rules" affect any lending house that accesses them. Don't get me wrong, I'm just stating he is acting lawfully (read: in no need of further congressional action), it's still a heaping, steaming pile of hog wash doused excrement, squeezed, grunted and pushed out the bowels of a liberal lower intestine.

The long and short of it is he is going to throw $275,000,000,000 (that's billion with a "b") at "troubled home owners", to shore up their being upside down. The way it works is your lender reduces your debt owed down to the current value of the home, and perhaps your interest rate, you sign that new lease, and then the federal government pays the difference. What the F#!%)*!? It's almost laughable. We, as in tax payers, are going to simply buy up all the toxic portion of some 9 million homes (the amount owed which exceeds the current value in this depressed market), with no return, no nothing. Just poof - gone. That breaks down to about 30g's a household. Also, also, get this - say your lender doesn't want to do business with the fed - you can go to court and request that a judge modify your home loan to a "reasonable rate", namely the current depressed value. This has always been available in business real estate, in order for all parties to at least recoup some losses, but never on primary residences, so that people wouldn't "risk" their home the same way they might an investment, get it? No longer. Damnit - I'm gonna buy a house in 2 weeks and then go to court and say, "yaaa ... your honor, ummm, toke rate is down a tad ... I think 150k is fair, not the 200k I signed for ... everybody cool with that?"

This is in addition to a cadre of new rules and regulations meant to stomp on the throats of all those damned dirty predatory lending houses (thought I was going to say "apes" huh?).

Oh, and that ol' stalwart, that beacon of productivity, that glaring example of economic efficiency, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are getting a huge infusion of cash as well.

This is great! Ha! Yes! Finally a risk free society! No consequence, no problems! It's a wonderful life ... teacher says every time a bell rings an angel gets his house payed off .... o' happy day.

My response:

I can't address the issue of "failing businesses" because the closest number I can find to what you are showing me with that "50% failure" figure is where, by 1940, 51.2% of all NEW businesses had failed within their first year of operation beginning in 1929. Otherwise, I can't find anything that proves or disproves your numbers.

That aside, I WILL address unemployment... again. Yes, by the end of 1939 we STILL had an unemployment rate of more than 17% and it had been as high as 19% at the end of the Roosevelt recession in 1938. No question, that is TOO high of a percentage to justify anyone saying the times weren't tough all over ("...brother, can you spare a dime?"). But it is STILL lower than the rate was in 1933! That percentage was 24.9%! Fully one quarter of the entire nation's workforce was unemployed. (my figures come from HERE)

My point? The New Deal didn't eliminate unemployment... but the numbers FELL, slow and steady, but they fell. At NO point in the New Deal Administrations do we see unemployment as HIGH as it was when FDR took office, and the only RISE in unemployment comes at the end of the '37 recession.

AGAIN, something worked. Did it work fast enough? Probably not. Is there a possibility that one "fix" was interfering with another? Certainly. Can arguments be made that things could have moved faster if alternative policies were employed? Yes indeed... but no certainty can be gained by making those arguments because SOMETHING WORKED. GDP rose and unemployment fell. Annual salaries went up and with them, annual retail and wholesale receipts. Nothing to compare with what came after the war... but who would have expected THAT in 1932? The very means to build the things we would be building 16 years later didn't exist.

As for banks, I can show you HERE that between 1929 and 1933, 15,000+ banks in this country simply FAILED. From March of '33 to the end of WWII (FDR's total terms), less than 200 failed. Is this a result the New Deal program known as FDIC? Is this a result of New Deal legislation regulating how banks market their loans? Is this the result of SEC regulations about where and when a bank can invest its resources? If ANY of your answers are YES, then we have another example of New Deal success, don't we?

Now, if you are going to take the Constitutionalist's view and cry out against Federal intervention in areas it has no right intervening, then we'll have to have another debate about which is more important to the American society as a whole... failed banks and lost securities or complete "hands off" policies by the Feds as provided in the Constitution. Either way, it isn't the topic here.

The topic here is: What DID work to alleviate the problems of the depression and what DIDN'T work. I can't show complete success, as I have stated time and time again... but I can show improvement and growth where there was none before. That tells me something worked, and that something was implemented during the New Deal.

I'm waiting for YOU to show me where laissez faire worked (or was working) prior to the New Deal. Where is your evidence that less government intervention and more free-market mentality did a better job than Roosevelt?

And one more thing...

The quote is "Once more into the breach, dear friends..."

Big Billy Shakespeare and Henry V are both rolling in their respective graves right now.

How good are those WPA tools?

Ok, last stab.

If we are BOTH accepting one another's assertions as researched and provable "fact" (I also grant you that), then we are left with our subjective, individual standards as to what defines "success" or "failure."

Follow me here, and maybe we can both sleep without waking up at 4a.m., restless, ready to pounce and expand on our argument (for one night anyway). I think NOW we are getting at the heart of modern day debate over New Deal. I point to the still high unemployment (in 1939 I'm talking); the rate of business failure; etc, etc that was still persistent well after New Deal implementation (the most controversial in modern New Deal debate being deficit spending on government ran programs, not Lend Lease), and yet you are able to point to 75 out of 84 months of a rise in GDP. Ok. So what defines success?

If you are comfortable with that GDP number qualifying the New Deal a success, then fine. I can not call that "wrong", it is your opinion of what success means. As for me I can not. If I'm looking at the 1930's (to oversimplify our more complex arguments for a moment) and I see well after New Deal implementation that unemployment still hovered at 1 out of every 5 men. That 50% of all businesses were still failing; that we experienced another sharp recession (the Roosevelt recession, regardless of congressional budget demands, he signed off on it so he owns it), I can not, in my judgment, describe FDR's economic policies as a success. My threshold isn't necessarily higher, but different, then just the GDP number. And for a very specific reason. The business failure rate and unemployment was making everyday life in America a struggle, as you well know (making this current "crisis" look like the proverbial cake walk). I couldn't imagine being a husband and father, walking around in 1939, given the numbers I cited, and thinking to myself - boy New Deal rocks (I have hind sight, granted, so they wouldn't have my future to compare it to as I do, I'm just trying to illustrate a point).

So look, I don't think you want to label New Deal as a quote, "unqualified success" (you can't accept my numbers as you have and still do that); but neither can you accept my labeling the ENTIRE thing an "unqualified failure." That's reasonable, fine. But if that is reasonable, can we then at least agree on this point: given the various hardships I have cited, persisting on until WWII, is it fair to label New Deal "more failure then success?" Think about this for a minute before you answer - this depends on your honest assessment on what defines "success" for New Deal. If you can't call it an unqualified success, and I amend my statement (given your GDP numbers) to exclude the description "unqualified failure", then we are left with deciding rough percentages - was it 60/40 failure to success? 70/30? Or would you describe it the other way around? I realize judging the entire scope and breadth of something as complex and massive as the New Deal is fulderale but lets just go with what we do know and have researched about the New Deal. Given all the information both I and you have presented, I have to judge it more failure then success. I insist that those hardships persisting until WWII (most notably but not exclusively, unemployment) give me cause to legitimately make that claim.

Again, putting a solid number on it (like 70/30 etc) is probably foolish to even attempt off the top of our head, and be accurate. But I feel safe in at least asserting it was more failure then success. Is that an acceptable description to you? "More failure then success."

If not, fine. That simply means we have irreconcilable differences in what we define as "success", thus our debate moves on from New Deal, and into a proper definition for an administration's economic "success" threshold.

I await your answer . . . but ponder what I've said, if you will.

Furthermore...

Making the "requirement" for success the achievement of all the stated and understood goals of all the programs makes the debate mute. That would be exactly the same effect as my saying that because George H. W. Bush ran on a promise of "No New Taxes" (I read his lips), HIS Administration's efforts and policies were also complete failures.

The New Deal is understood to mean the policies and programs of BOTH FDR's pre-war Administrations in toto, because everything these Administrations did was geared to improve the American condition across the board. This is true of ANY Administration's goals, isn't it? We may not agree with Obama and his Cabinet, but I'm pretty confident that they are doing something they THINK will help the country (as ignorant as I know this to be, it doesn't change the facts).

So, you may not think that the repeal of the Volstead Act was "New Deal", but that doesn't change the facts. You may not think that the removal of the gold standard was New Deal, but it was. Just as much as the NRA, the WPA, the CCC, or any other "alphabet soup" program was New Deal.

Something changed in the summer of 1933, because this country saw GROWTH in the GDP for the first time in more than 4 years... growth that continued with only ONE 9-month interruption for the next 7 years. Please, stop showing me where the country was still hurting! I KNOW that times remained tough and that there was a huge degree of economic uncertainty and fear throughout the nation... but SOMETHING changed! The evidence is clear and unequivocal.

If it wasn't caused by some aspect of New Deal policies (i.e. Keynesian economics), then what was it?

This is how it ends?

You asserting your conviction without addressing my questions?

Nothing I asked needs you to quote Cabinet Members or cite numbers and figures... just tell me WHY the GDP showed such an over-all UPWARD trend (faster and higher than prior to the crash) for 75 out of 84 months during the entire "era" you so laboriously described. What propelled the economy to heights never before reached in such a short amount of time... even if some aspects of society failed to adjust or recover completely?

I have not dismissed ANYTHING you have said... not a word. All facts and figures that you have brought to this table have been taken for exactly what they are: fact. For example, I do not doubt that 50% of new businesses failed between 37 and 39... just as I know that Morgantheau abandoned FDR's policies when he saw that they were not following the Keynesian mandates of budgetary restraint when the GDP and the markets recover. I haven't denied ANY aspect of the trials and tribulations that were experienced during the 1930s, and I certainly haven't used my argument to say that the New Deal SOLVED every problem brought on by the depression. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So, my question stands: If not some aspect of the New Deal, then what? What accounts for the recovery I have clearly shown to have occurred PRIOR to the US's involvement in WWII (or even before the Lend-Lease contracts kicked in... another New Deal program that both directly contributed to HELPING the economy of the US and assisted in the defense of Great Britain)?

If SOME policy of FDR's worked, then how do we label the entire pre-war administration's efforts as a "failure"? I KNOW you agree with me on the impact that the Italian campaign had on the war effort, but we all agree that mistakes were made. Should we label FDR's war policies a failure because we NEVER fully liberated Italy before the end of the war (as the policy he supported stated we would)?

It is my contention that Keynesian theory WORKS, when applied with reasonable expectations and an understanding that debts incurred do, eventually, have to be paid back (regardless of where those debts come from... peace time or war time). FDR knew this. Ike knew this. Nixon knew this. Reagan knew this. Clinton knew this.

Why does Ryan NOT know this?

Once more unto the brink . . . dear friend!

I must demonstrate that "every aspect of the New Deal failed" before you'll believe me? That's quite a high standard. That's equivalent to my demanding you demonstrate that every aspect of it succeeded before I cease to label it a failure. Widely used and applied by academics the term: "The Great Depression" has come to represent that entire era of unprecedented economic hardships. You can cherry pick 3 years of the decade and use the economic term "depression", and claim that's the "classic" definition of "THE" Great Depression if you'd like, and you'd be right in that at one time that did represent the definition of "The Great Depression" in total. No longer however. The entire ERA is what "The Great Depression" has come to represent. The "era" is now an implied preface, thus the "era" is represented when invoking the words, "The Great Depression" in modern speak and has become a used, known, and cited term by historians to refer to that entire decade of economic hardship. A hardship the New Deal did not correct (even your much admired History Channel asserts this). The bottom line is that era was not "fixed" by the New Deal; the woes, both deep and stinging, went on well after New Deal was implemented. My posts have demonstrated that, and Roosevelt's own Treasury Secretary admitted it during congressional testimony. It is irrefutable.

I'm not arguing your chart or recitation of the 31 - 34 numbers, I'm addressing that era, via the term accepted to describe and represent it: THE GREAT DEPRESSION. And not based on the single aspect like car sales - AGAIN A BLATANT OVER SIMPLIFICATION OF A MUCH BROADER ARGUMENT (SHEESH!!!!) - but the over all loss in countless numbers, sectors and statistics I've repeatedly cited that emerged and reemerged even after the New Deal was implemented, including 50% 0f all businesses failing (between 37 and 39), combined with still staggering unemployment (the largest dagger in the legacy of New Deal). Given these, also irrefutable assertions, one can rather easily and clearly demonstrate that the era of economic hardships known and referred to by historians as THE GREAT DEPRESSION (you can even qualify it by the preface "the era of" if you like) was NOT solved by the New Deal, YET that was New Deal's purpose, its claim, its promise, its charter, its mandate - to end the nation's economic woes. It did not deliver. It failed in that attempt. Understand that truth - IT FAILED. And unfortunately for 50 million people, it took WWII before we would see its end.

FDR was fantastic as a war time CIC, but miserable as an economic steward. That is my contention backed up with facts, numbers, testimony and analysis. But as nothing I can say will convince you, no matter how specifically I define the failures and the inability of New Deal to solve the economic woes plaguing that decade, I will resign myself to the hope that those onlookers stumbling across our site will find some value in our gentlemanly disagreement.

And realize of course ... that I am right.

Let's go point-by-point...

This doesn't have to get nasty or ugly... but let's end it now, once and for all.

You said:

"We don't name our depressions like hurricanes, the GREAT DEPRESSION refers to the era initiated by the 1929 crash and ended as a consrquence of WWII."

I don't name them at all... but many are named, and I am using the name 90% of all historians AND economists use to describe the "depression" that started on Oct 29, 1929 and ENDED in the first fiscal quarter of 1934. THAT is the DEPRESSION! You can talk about the ERA all you want, but the GREAT DEPRESSION was between these two specific time frames AND NO WHERE ELSE. It is called the "Great Depression" NOT because the ERA lasted more than a decade (in fact, the "Long Depression" lasted for 24 years... from 1873 until 1897) but because it was the single greatest loss of wealth in US history. In less than 11 weeks, 40% of ALL the wealth in the United States had evaporated completely. That means 4 out of every 10 dollars a person had in the bank or invested in the market or sunk into their homes and farms had dried up and blown away. This trend continued without interruption until the end of 1933.

The other "depression" you keep talking about is the "Roosevelt Recession" of 1937, which everything I have read (unless you have something new to show me) says was caused by CONGRESS insisting that the budget get balanced, thus forcing new and higher taxes, which choked the market and sent the economy back into 9 months of free fall.

Between these two cycles, we see that the economy has recouped ALL its losses (except in unemployment) in less than 3 years, and the economy continued to GROW an additional 12% ABOVE this mark before the "Roosevelt Recession" hits in '37. From the summer of 1938 until 1940, the economy continues to grow at a pace never seen before then in history... adding an additional 24% to its size and scope in 1938... in less than 2 years!

I have no more graphic example of this than the graph below:




Even this graph shows that the '37 recession never took us below the recovered levels of 1929! The recovery and GROWTH of the national economy is plainly visible here, and it is more pronounced than what can be seen before the '29 crash. Yes there was uncertainty and fear... who could imagine otherwise? I just can't see how you can look at this and not SEE that the depression (four or more consecutive fiscal quarters of negative growth) ENDED in 1934.

So, stop ranting about ERAS... I'm talking about DEPRESSIONS. Specifically, the GREAT DEPRESSION.

You said:

"The New Deal DID NOT end the economic hardships that define the Great Depression. By 1937, when the second depression hit, New Deal policies had been given ample time to work or not, they simply did not. The work created was temporary and had limited economic stimulus effect."

What can you possibly define as LIMITED? In 3 years, we were back to pre-crash levels, after 4 years of economic free-fall. Take in the rest of the entire decade, and you see (you can actually SEE) unprecedented economic growth with only 9 months of recession over a span of 84 months... how is that "limited economic stimulus effect"? SOMETHING was working then that wasn't working in the 50 months prior to the New Deal... so what was it? Laissez faire economics? The gold standard? Unregulated commodity market speculation? What Hoover initiative or policy that wasn't a forerunner to the New Deal (and YES, much of the New Deal was Hoover's, NOT FDR's) was working this delayed magic more than four years after the crash?

You said:

"The standard has always been did New Deal during the 30's reestablish pre 1929 levels or post WWII levels? It did not, and that's what the New Dealers promised..."

I have shown you that every economic indicator of national prosperity WAS higher by 1937 AND 1939 than it was in 1929, and the GDP figures in the graph above stand as my evidence. I can't show why the numbers didn't surpass "post WWII" numbers... but I guess that is because WWII hadn't happened yet! How in the hell was a "New Dealer" in 1933 supposed to know what the economy would look like in 1946? What an asinine thing to say... sheesh.

Anyway, you have the GDP figures to show the economy was bigger and growing faster than it was in 1929 by as early as 1936, and it had surpassed that again by 1939. Per capita income was higher every year but ONE (1937) and the DOW-Jones Industrial average grew at a rate of 9% to 17% every year but ONE (1937). The only indicator that stayed higher than it was in '29 was unemployment... the only one. No one measures an economy by how many cars are sold, how many patents are applied for, or how many businesses fail, unless those numbers are included in a broader index. Yes, there was uncertainty and many people weren't spending money the way they did prior to the crash... but the banking industry had completely revamped how credit was given, and I for one am not going to discount that as a possible cause for your "examples" of failure.

So, you can dismiss me with your "Good day sir" all you want... I have laid out my response to your posts (numerous, I know) with as clear and concise of a post as I can.

I am not discounting that for people who remained out of work throughout the 30s, nothing the New Deal did probably made much of a difference for them. Times remained hard because the WORST was so fresh in everyone's memory. But, the facts do not lie! Those that had jobs were making more per year on average, and the economy was GROWING at a pace greater than it ever had previously.

SOMETHING worked that hadn't worked before. We had a new Administration that implemented a New Deal... and until you can show me that every aspect of the New Deal failed to impact the economy in positive manner, I am going to assert through the PROOF of history that the New Deal helped America recover from the Great Depression.

Good night to you, sir.

My eye balls are officially shooting blood now ...

Look, HOW MANY TIMES must I distinguish between a discussion on the "era" known as the Great Depression and the individual depressions that occurred? They are different you know? We don't name our depressions like hurricanes, the GREAT DEPRESSION refers to the era initiated by the 1929 crash and ended as a consrquence of WWII. You continually, and quite cleverly, try to discuss the individual depression's ending (and restaring) in the 1930's as if that means the Great Depression was ended before WWII. This is not the case.

The New Deal DID NOT end the economic hardships that define the Great Depression. By 1937, when the second depression hit, New Deal policies had been given ample time to work or not, they simply did not. The work created was temporary and had limited economic stimulus effect. The government forays into the private sector instead of providing stimulating effects acted to retard hiring; the Dow continued to take hits; the tax rates and tariffs were stifling; and we are still stuck with Social Security. Do you know where and when the term "boondoggle" initiated? It's a phrase still used to describe bloated, wasteful government spending. That phrase emerged in the 1930's - I'm sure that's a coincidence. And by Jambo's own admission only about 10 to 15% of major New Deal policy survived the Supreme Court rulings as unConstitutional - ON THAT ALONE how can you claim "The New Deal" helped the economy or ended the Great Depression, when the majority of it was struck down and ceased to be implemented? That's madness. And what did remain, by FDR's own administration's admission, DID NOT WORK. New dealer and Treasury Secretary Henry Morgentheau noted in congressional testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee in 1939, referring to FDR's economic policies:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest and if I am wrong ... someone else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after 8 years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And enormous debt to boot."


This gentleman was intimately familiar with Wall Street, 1930's economics, and was a New Dealer himself! He was not just a Treasury Secretary, but an author of New Deal, one FDR's closest friends and the man you had to go through to get a hearing on any new economic policy for 10 years!

But there's more ... you keep complaining that all anti-New Dealers lay claim to is unemployment, and given you clearly haven't read in full my lengthy posts on other failing aspects I'll try and present more succinct, clear evidence here according to some research I've done. Lets for a moment focus on the later years of the 30's, so as to allow ample time for New Deal attempts at fixing the economy to have a fair "economic hearing." According to the Historical Statistics of The United States, compiled by the US Census Bureau (that hot bed of conservative, revisionist activism) the stock market which initially rallied somewhat had a collapse in the late 30's (again, after full New Deal implementation). The value of all stocks dropped in half from 1937 to 1939. Car sales plummeted 1/3 in those same years and were lower by 1939 then in any of the last 7 years of the 1920's. Business failures jumped 50% from 1937 to 1939. Patent applications were lower in 1939 then in any year in the entire decade of the 1920's. Real estate foreclosures, which did decrease steadily in the 1930's were still higher in 1939 then in any year during the decade and a half following WWII. Not to mention the national debt, which Secretary Morgentheau referenced, grew more from 1932 to 1939 then in the previous 150 years of US history, combined. The spending for 7 wars and 5 recessions from 1776 to 1931 was less then FDR's first 2 terms. And yes, unemployment in 1939 still hovered around 20%.

The standard has always been did New Deal during the 30's reestablish pre 1929 levels or post WWII levels? It did not, and that's what the New Dealers promised, ADDING that their measures would not only restore economic prosperity, but prevent future collapses. They failed on all counts. I'm not saying that no relief was ever felt by individuals employed by the WPA, etc. What I am saying is that the New Deal was intended, nay PROMISED, to end the GREAT DEPRESSION, and it did not, arguably prolonging it when it came to taxes, tariffs and ill fated government forays into the private sector.

I didn't make up these statistics, I'm not forging or forcing words out of Morgentheau's mouth during congressional testimony. These are the facts. The reality is New Deal equals economic failure, period.

Of course, 3 weeks from now Titrus will recall this post and quip that my writings of 2/17 consisted of nothing more then me exclaiming the words, "liberal tripe", and reciting the word "unemployment" 200 times, then he'll undoubtedly urge I link to it if I want to prove him wrong.

When it comes to New Deal, the record is clear ... and I'm quite done repeating myself only to have it boiled down and misrepresented as a catch phrase or one word.

Good day to you sir.