For the love of all that is Holy!

What kind of maniac are you? Why would you go and invoke the name of New Deal? Do you have ANY IDEA how long my to-do list is for today?

Let me just say this before I describe how you misread (or didn't read) my post, and I'll be as succinct as I can: correlation does not reveal causation. We haven't had a depression since New Deal? Well neither have we had a world war since the New Deal, is that also a result of the WPA? And while I question (greatly) the stat that we suffered a depression every 7 to 9 years of our existence from 1776 until blessed with the golden calf of New Deal, were I to accept that posit for the sake of argument we must surely then conclude that the Founders were flawed in their national inception and not until Mr. Roosevelt appeared was the full fruit of their labor realized, otherwise they would have done better then to set up a system that saw depressions twice a generation ... I hope the sarcasm is dripping through the bag at this point, as intended.

The bottom line is simply this: We are NEVER going to agree on the scourge that was New Deal. You argue micro - "the second half of the last quarter of 1935 saw a marked improvement in home sales", while I argue the macro - 1.) a "healthy" economy, a "recovered" economy is NOT one that goes into free fall the moment the government teet is pulled from its' mouth, which is EXACTLY what happened in the 37'-38' Roosevelt recession. 2.) Furthermore a "healthy" or "recovered" economy is not one that enjoys double digit unemployment. And BOTH #'s 1 and 2 happened/existed well after full implementation of New Deal. 3.) The most damaging of all, the precedent set by New Deal was that big government was the solution for big crisis. Which allowed Johnson to say that big government was the solution for small crisis. Which beget Obama who declares that big government is the solution for ALL crisis. FDR forever took the genie out of the bottle of private expectations for public assistance/intervention. AND let me add this - it is immoral. New Deal was IMMORAL. It forever robbed millions of people of their independence, such as social security did. Meant to be an "insurance" (that's what it was titled, SSI, the "I" for insurance) against an individual outliving his privately established retirement, it has become for far too many the ONLY means of retirement they rely upon. And the attitude that they'll SOLELY live off of the program starts WELL before their retirement, even at the start of their work life. Because that's the unintended consequence of big government. It never stays within the bounds you set for it. It is immoral in its' imposition on the individual. It cripples the otherwise self reliant and burdens those whom still manage to maintain it. And while we're at it. I still can't reconcile how you can be so vehemently opposed to Obama yet support FDR. FDR makes Barry look like a piker in terms of redefining the role of government in the individual's life. You have turned into a fiscal conservative, a 2nd Amendment advocate, low taxes, less government regulation, condemn Obama's agenda as a fool's errand, even dangerous, you find The Great Society anything but, and YET, and YET you hold this special bubble in time in which everything you oppose on principle WORKED in practice??? It is maddening in the extreme. We all know top down, centralized planning, government interventionism DOES NOT WORK. We all KNOW it stymies productivity, private expansion and creativity in the marketplace. And since we all accept that as a truism I can only conclude that its' wild practice circa the 1930's served only to PROLONG the scope and severity of the troubles within the Great Depression era. How you can know, in mind and body, this to be true yet defend New Deal is beyond mystifying.

The 3 points I established above are inarguable, undeniable, and self evident. And points you have to date not adequately refuted. For the life of me nothing explains your radical defense of New Deal OTHER THAN TO SAY you have an emotional, nostalgic even, attachment to the era and the policy that involves something that was etched in your brain in your youth, or the act of holding WPA tools, or both.

And about FDR, personally, regarding report cards, or "best 5" status, etc. I believe, after careful study and review, that Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw the Constitution of the United States as an obstacle to his ends, not a means, as it should be. At every turn he attempted to stretch, get around, usurp, or flat out ignore both its' plain meaning and implied intent. Given that the President of the United States swears his allegiance to that Constitution and is bound to, "protect, uphold and defend" that Constitution, I must conclude FDR to be anything but a "great" president.

Now your inclination here will be to point by point refute me, don't bother. To buy into New Deal as a "success" one must contend that A.) a "healthy economy" IS in fact one that needs the government teet to limp by. That B.) a "healthy or recovered economy" IS capable with double digit unemployment. And that C.) New Deal did not set the standard for unprecedented government interventionism/growth for whose shoulders every big government advocate has since stood upon. And D.) that government's intrusiveness IS a moral act, despite the horror show it has wrought from bankrupt retirement programs to ghettos. Unless you are going to state that each of these is your position THEN YOU MUST by definition regard New Deal as a resounding failure. And since you will neither state these as your position, nor concede New Deal as a failure, we simply have reached an impasse in the discussion. I don't know how to more plainly state my quarrel.

****
Now as to my last post ... first off - I thought you were a baby boomer!!! Kidding of course (mostly). You went on a rant about fiscal policy. Of course the baby boomers did not "invent" big government. Nor were they the sole participants in the sub prime mortgage market, or OTC's. But neither did I state that! The following is the sum total of my reflections on the baby boomers in that post:

I don't know exactly when America purged itself of our Founders and by extension the principles that made this nation into the world's breadbasket (at 5% of the earth's population no less), but I'd wager it was about the time we started referring to opening prayers as a "moment of silence." We have seen in recent years the baby boomers, whom moved juvenile rebellion from the realm of a temporary youthful right of passage into a life long pursuit, come to run this nation and its' various apparatus. Counter culture is now the dominant culture. No history taught until 6th grade, ethnic "everything" studies that empower and regale every culture, minority and abnormality in behaviour except traditional American values, demoralizing films of our military, morally relative adherence as the new gospel, and so on and so forth. There is no doubt that the Woodstock ilk grew older and went into film, journalism, elected office, law school and academia and have thus succeeded in representing a minority view as a majority attitude.

Where in there did I lay the housing bubble on the feet of the baby boomers? First off, I used the phrase "Woodstock" to note that I was excluding Vietnam Vets and Civil Rights advocates. And yes, even then it is a generalization that doesn't hold up under a case by case scrutiny of every member of their generation ... sheeesh. It was a generalization for effect and brevity. But even then you did not address my accusation - the cultural decline of our society. The moral relativism, the rejection of God in the public square, abortion (all though not by name), all the social issues were my focus in the peice, and be it that or Obama-socialism I was noting people should take heart, for we are countering the counter revolution of the "hippie" baby boomers.

Let me sum up my feelings towards the "Woodstock ilk" and their impact on America this way: they were the first and only generation I know of to spat upon our soldiers returning from war. The first and only generation to see our guys as the bad guys. I think that says all there is to be said about the "love-in" attendees. And that was the sentiment I was attempting to relay.