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!}.