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.