Once, I asked my ex wife why she was mad at me ...

... now THAT was a waste of time. This isn't.

I admit to the employment of hyperbole. Who amongst can not? But I did give specific programs, on what areas of the economy their deleterious effects were felt, and asked 2 straight forward, sincere questions. And since neither were addressed, in any measure, I'll clarify and ask again:

1.)"If the accumulative effect of all the programs and their inadequacies I mentioned above, and all the spending wasn't a restraining affect on natural business cycles then why weren't businesses able to sustain hiring, expanding?"

The point being that the most demonstrative statistic of a healthy economy (within a functioning, free society anyway) is employment. Would you not agree to that? I mean this factor is not like quoting Cuba's literacy rate, this really means something. I am contending a simple and (in my opinion) defensible posit - why did after 10 years the employment rate not stabilize? By 1940 unemployment climbed back to 19%. If the positive gains were real, and sustainable, why did employment not follow suit? I know its a lagging indicator, but 10 years?Unemployment was without a doubt the signature aspect of the Great Depression, which FDR's signature legislation did not adequately address. Is it not then reasonable for me to posit that big government, government interventionism, and centralized spending do not result in gainful employment? And if it doesn't, is it not then reasonable for me to judge "New Deal" as inadequate to the task of the Great Depression via its' biggest felt factor - unemployment?

2.) I haven't been able to reconcile this. You are by all accounts a "conservative" as of 09:59, March 14th, 2010, Pacific Time. You have espoused, endorsed and advocated economic/fiscal policy 180 degrees from the Roosevelt approach. In other words you, were you president, would set a course not just different, but near opposite to FDR's. Why? In other words if you truly believe that New Deal was ''sound", and you believe that what recovery we saw was "because" and not "despite" New Deal, why advocate a general course other than FDR's for economic recovery in times of economic hardship and crisis? I mean this sincerely. If you mean to say that FDR simply "answered the call of the crowd", like a gladiator administering the kill stroke in obedience to the whims of the chanting attendees, and thus you want to justify his actions as "understandable" when CiC, then ok, I get that defense of the man. But if you truly believe that the proper response to economic crisis is "cutting taxes, regulations and spending", then doesn't that mean you must also hold that the economy recovered in the areas you cited despite FDR's 180 degree opposite course?

In other words, you seem to espouse a train of thought that dictates an FDR style course is doomed to failure. You advocate one the opposite of the one he plotted. You have provided evidence that your course is right. I just find it curious that you believe small government, curtailed spending, low taxes, deregulation all work to spur on an economy except in the years 1930-1941. Then, and only then, the opposite worked? I tend to think either your proposed economic model works, or FDR's does. You seem to think either can, depending on the decade and mood of the country. Like I said, I find that irreconcilable.

** and just as a side note ... for Jambo (& Titus if he wants). Social Security was packaged, sold and dubbed as, "Pension Insurance." As I have noted, the Clark Amendment would have provided for a private alternative and that the federal government plan be optional. FDR rejected both. So please explain to me why compulsory health insurance isn't Constitutional, while compulsory pension insurance is. "Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness", is my retirement account, my after tax money, nowhere in there? Just a thought.