I can't post? I'm the bad guy here?

Dude, I fully realized that you were discussing the "report card" aspect of FDR's Presidency... but you were the one that said the failure of the New Deal was the reasoning behind FDR not making the grade as a top-5 CIC. That, to me, means you have to... once again... defend your position that the New Deal failed in its "promise" to end the Depression Era that began with the Crash of 1929.

You can rant and rave all you want, but when you write things like "Near the close of the decade the program as a whole had NOT met its stated goals. The era of recessions and unemployment, of dollar, property and stock values, and new business start ups had NOT returned to pre bust levels, READ: the "malaise" CONTINUED UNTIL WWII. ", then I feel it my duty as a fellow Bund member to point out the error of your statement.

In Feb 2009, I feel I more than adequately demonstrated that every single index of economic growth and prosperity in the US (EXCEPT UNEMPLOYMENT) had returned to or exceeded pre-1929 levels across the board by 1939. I even employed graphs for the ease of understanding, which I will also place here:





The above graph even shows that the '37 recession ONLY brought the GDP index down to 1929 levels... and that we were back to the 1929 levels as early as the summer of 1936. That MORE than meets your "before the end of the decade" requirement, doesn't it?

The same is true for the value of the dollar, the number of business and bank failures or closings per year, loans and credit both taken and available to the public and commercial sectors, automobile sales (yes, 1936 saw more cars sold than 1928... THAT'S a good indicator... my source is HERE.)

Again, I say... the only INDEX that did not meet or exceed 1929 levels was unemployment, and one out of a baker's dozen indexes does not a failure make in my book. Perhaps it does in your book, which is fine... but don't bust my chops later when I use that same measuring stick for any criteria you might offer up in regards to your top 5... sound fair?

Lay out the criteria for EVERYONE to follow, and we'll follow them... but don't bust a nut trying to argue a point that has been made again and again and again, okay? Unless you have some other evidence to present that contradicts what has already been made... then, by all means, present it.