I'll have to go slow here...

... and that isn't a slam on Ryan. I'm grossly hung over and sleep-deprived, with a 7-year-old chattering away next to me and the rest of the house sleeping peacefully. In other words, I'm not at my best right this minute.

First of all, to address the "Bund Fact" (I like that tag... very nice) concerning my link to Harding's tariff mistakes. I was NOT referring to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, I was referring to the Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922, which Harding championed and signed into law as a means to maintain revenue after his 1921 tax cuts to the top marginal rates (which isn't entirely fair... he did cut taxes across the board, but the biggest cuts went to the top 20% of earners, but I digress). The GOP as a whole was very tariff-happy in those days, and it is another good indicator that Reagan understood what WORKED from that period and what didn't in that he was a supporter of free trade over protectionist tariffs. Had you followed the provided link, you'd have seen exactly what I was referring to. So, Bund Fact established, yes?

You claim I have reversed or altered my argument, and I assert clearly and loudly that I have not. You base your claim on your assumptions that I am making my case a priori or without empirical evidence. I say that my argument is a posteriori, or based on the entirely empirical fact that all evidence supports my claim. My a posterirori is as follows:

My admitting that I can't cite the specific chapter and verse of American legal code which regulates the factors that have helped avoid a repeat of the "GD" (or any other depression) in the last 75 years doesn't mean anything other than I'm not an expert in macroeconomics. You, on the other hand, have often explained that the New Deal prolonged the misery and suffering of the depression, but cannot offer proof or empirical evidence because you cannot prove a negative. That is the classic definition of an a priori argument... you are making an absolute claim with absolutely no means to absolutely prove the point.

I do not make the case that New Deal "worked" because we avoided another depression, but it is a contributing factor in my claim that some aspects of New Deal did work, and were, in fact, necessary to provide a more economically secure future for the country. It is NOT NOW, nor has it ever been, my only piece of evidence to support this position. It is simply the one you focus on the most. In my many attempts to show you (just you, no one else) why I think the way I do, I am forced over and over again to make my case in the most unambiguous way I can. I admit that it is NOT a valid argument to make, but it is plain, simple and one that I would hope could be understood for what it is... an expedient short-cut used to avoid tedious detail in a very broad and usually quite general argument.

Your posit that greater and more intricate global economic ties has given us a more secure and broad support base for our national economic machine is perfectly valid, and is undoubtedly a large piece of the puzzle... but it doesn't explain why economic crisis in other parts of the world have also NOT caused us to cycle down. Japan has had four major depressions since 1955, and the UK has had two since the end of WWII... we have had none. All three use very similar free market models, but only OURS has been depression free.

I can't give you the absolute reasons because I don't know them... but not because they don't exist at all. Perhaps it is the strength of our monetary standard and the regulation of the Federal Reserve that has kept the dollar so strong while the Yen has stagnated at times. Perhaps it is the greater freedom our markets enjoy that has kept them ticking along while the London Exchanges have crashed under the weight of greater socialist regulation. I don't know, but both the strength of our monetary standard and the very limited regulation in our exchange markets can be DIRECTLY credited to the "New Deal" and the efforts of those men who worked to make sure we never saw another "GD".

Another point you make is that Hoover wasn't the "conservative" I made him out to be, so how could FDR be the success I make him out to be? Again, I ask why you are giving so much credit to FDR and so much blame to Hoover?

Yes, Hoover signed into law the tariffs and spending bills that brought us Smoot-Hawley and the Hoover Dam, but I am CONVINCED that Hoover hated the idea public works, and only signed the bill into law because 1) he was facing the prospect of reelection in 1932 and 2) he realized the scope of the disaster was going to call for SOME sort of intervention, if only to prevent the DEATHS of Americans who simply were unable to feed and shelter themselves through no fault of their own. Hoover worked for Harding, and they shared many similar beliefs (the benefit of tariffs for one), and while I admit that Hoover did actually advocate intervention in 1921, I think he felt that Harding had proved the error in that process and resisted it for the first 30 months of the "GD", hoping the non-interventionist policies would turn things around (which they did not). Obviously, Hoover didn't TELL me this, so I have no direct evidence that this is how his thoughts were running... but it is the most plausible answer to the question of WHY that I can imagine. That does not make my "guess" less valid or plausible... it only means it remains a theory rather than a fact.

Again, I don't DENY that FDR made mistakes and that not all of New Deal was good or necessary, but as you repeatedly point out in your arguments, it was the "reshaping of the American economy" brought about by the world war we were fighting that finally, once and for all, fixed all that had broken in 1929. Who paid for that reshaping? Who did the reshaping? Who mandated that remodelling of our infrastructure, means of manufacturing and production and distribution? Who dictated the manner in which it would be accomplished?

The Federal Government of the United States of America. Who financed that effort? The American tax payer (in one way or another).

If it is okay to see the Feds spend and regulate with unabashed abandon during times of war, why is it wrong for them to do so during the single worst economic disaster in American history? The prospect of Americans dying at the hands of German or Japanese soldiers in 1942 was more real than the threat of people starving or freezing to death in 1932? Do you see the point I am making? Please point out to me another economic disaster (peacetime or otherwise) of the same scope and scale as the "GD", and how alternative Federal handling of the issues resulted in more satisfactory results than we saw with the New Deal.

I'm not debating what was said in the SotU address you quoted... it is a telling insight into what FDR seems to have felt the role of government was in American society, and I do not agree that his vision is the best vision for America. I do think it was an extension of his plainly expressed belief in the "Four Freedoms" which he first presented in his 1941 SotU address. The last of these four freedoms are Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear. I have no problem expressing the firmest belief in these freedoms, but I don't think they are something the Federal government MUST provide to us. Instead it is the role of government to ensure that all of us have the same opportunity to secure these freedoms for ourselves, and that in times of crisis (be it war, disaster or domestic violence), the means to protect and defend these freedoms is provided and promoted by the government for the people.

I see the New Deal, as a whole and complete effort, as one example of how this was done and mistakes or failures that might have occurred during this effort can be explained and understood as the result of never having attempted it before. If you want to continue to argue the viability or legality of any specific program or policy, I will gladly continue this debate as such. However, I simply cannot bring myself to argue for or against the assumed intentions of a man that has been dead for 65 years, or the success or failure of the New Deal effort of the entire Federal government based on the "what if" scenarios Glenn Beck keeps coughing up on his radio and TV shows.

FDR was not a despot. Had he been, he could have made the "changes" to American government that he both openly admitted to wanting to make, and those that you think he intended or wished to make. When his policies and programs were shown to be unconstitutional, they were thrown out with the trash, just like our system was designed to do. FDR was elected (four times) to do a job he promised to do... relief, recovery and reform. I contend that he accomplished this promise to the best of his ability, with the good of the nation first in his mind, and NOT in an attempt to remake America into his personal ideal.

Hitler was a despot. Stalin was a despot. Mussolini, Franco, Codreanu, Tito, Tojo... all despots contemporary with FDR, and not ONE of them was willing to face the prospect of a free and democratic election or work in conjunction with a legislative, representative body the way FDR was at every step of the way during his tenure as CIC.

If labels like "despot" are going to be tossed around willy-nilly at the whim of caustic emotional reactions to policy that conflicts with how we feel today, then who among our "greatest" Presidents is safe from such labels? Lincoln? Jefferson? Madison? Jackson? Reagan?

I'd like you to stop pointing at my assumed "nostalgic" view of FDR when I have so plainly and painfully made the effort to be fair and objective when discussing such Presidents as Reagan or Bush, whom I have numerous "issues" with when it comes to policy and agenda. To continue to do so is unfair to me and makes you look petty.