Like an MC Escher painting ...

... this discussion is. You can get lost in it and not realize you've been at it for hours..

I'm going to make just a few points.

1.)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?

Clearly had you read my last without prior consumption of copious amounts of Guinness you would have noted that I never made the claim, "FDR was a despot." In fact I went painfully out of my way to put forth the interrogative without saying such. Reread the last few paragraphs of my last post if you doubt this (preferably with a clear head, ahem). I simply asked if FDR was the "closest" we ever got to seeing despotism in the US presidency, especially had he lived for years more. Lincoln's actions were a good example, but I am willing to make all kinds of exemptions (historically especially) during times of war. Lincoln's actions, were you to compare them to FDR at all, were more akin to the Japanese internment camps of the 40's, not New Deal.

At any rate, my point for asking is not in a vacuum and this was not some ideological, Glenn Beck informed monologue (by the way, do I accuse you guys of parroting a talking head when your points or ideology happen to sync up or parallel? I'll stop claiming you're simply nostalgic for the WPA as soon as you stop doing that buddy). FDR sought what none of his 30 predecessors sought. He believed what none of his 30 predecessors believed. He refused to honor the example set by George Washington - 2 terms and turn power over. And don't give me "crisis." Washington turned over power when they were begging him, literally, to stay, thinking he the only man possible to Shepard our new yet fledgling nation. It was thought, not in theory, but true fear, that the Republic would not survive were he to step down. Since then no matter the crisis or popularity, every single two term president (obviously, not assassinated) stepped down ... until FDR. So between FDR's clear antagonist view towards the constitution's "inadequacies" (read: it didn't include HIS view of inherent rights, the arrogance is staggering) AND the fact that he was the only THIRD TERM, and the only FOUR TERM president (whom was stopped from seeking a 5th term only by his own poor health) means I don't think it's "willy nilly" to ask, AND I STRESS ASK, if he was as close as this Republic ever saw to a despot? Jumping to Hitler and Stalin is rhetorical bomb throwing. I remember Jambo asking if a certain (her name escapes me) author claiming Bush met "the 10 criteria" for despotism had a point, and you didn't bat an eye. Sheeeesh.

2.) 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?

Yes. And here's my answer. The Constitution specifically provides "limited and enumerated powers" to the federal government, among them are national defense. In other words the need for government interventionism during times of war is clearly within the scope of of these powers - federal deficit spending in times of economic hardship is not.

And please, with the "official declaration of war", I never stated that, it's a silly point, we all know when we are "at war" whether congress has the spine to declare it or not.

You can say (as you did) that The Great Depression "was every bit as much" a threat, or a problem to the American people as WWII, but you'd be wrong (and I'm curious if after finishing The Pacific if Jambo agrees with you). You just are, Titus. Both in the direct comparisons (which I found surprising and smacked of a mind well hung over - sorry, but drought was not as lethal as the Japanese Imperial Fleet and their aims) and wrong in the "clear" responsibility of the government to interdict during times of economic hardship. One is clearly a power reserved to the federal government while the other is debatable (at best, in my opinion).

You will undoubtedly counter with "promote the general welfare and ensure domestic tranquility." At which point you and I are entering into an argument as old as the Republic herself. And I am completely comfortable with simply leaving it at diverging personal philosophies on what that phrase means and what government's responsibility to the citizenry during times of economic crisis is (although if you feel New Deal justified under the premise of government's inherent responsibility to intercede during economic crisis, on the level of war making, then I'm less likely to listen to you bitch about the bail outs).

I will note this however: the federal government's interdiction & deficit spending in order to properly wage war is not something that is in question. That's not something any of us within this nation question or squabble over. The justification of the wars themselves are fought over to be sure, but whose responsibility it is to wage them is not at issue, even by Obama accolades. Whereas your assertion that the feds have every bit the duty to intercede (in New Deal fashion or otherwise) as a response to economic crisis is very much in question. It is hottly debated, as it is here. Of the two posits, mine is not the one with room for ambiguity.

Which leads me finally to this ...

I have looked at your cyclical chart. I have read your posts. Investigated New Deal policy and the economic indicators of the time period. If I remember correctly from that chart only one of all the downturns lasted as long, (in fact longer) as the Great Depression. And as you can not identify what about New Deal staved off future depressions, or if it was New Deal at all, then I find it reasonable to posit that were an opposite course plotted we would have recovered quicker. And you're right, I'm arguing a negative. I will hasten to add though that we all here seem to be of the mindset that lower taxes and less government interdiction are the fastest, clearest, most obvious path to boom times, and out of national economic hardship. So I can only assume this was as true in 1930 as it was in 1962 (Kennedy cuts); 1983 (Reagan); and 2000 (Bush cuts). I just don't see justification for the opposite working "this one time", as if the 30's were some special bubble in time that required activist public solutions to save the private sector (no more then I saw it necessary or justified under the Bush/Obama bailouts). I do think that FDR, as with Bush (and perhaps Obama), truly wanted to lessen people's pain. And as such decided upon a "pain killer course." They applied their version of a topical analgesic to the economy in hopes that it would soften the blow, ease the fall, and tied people over until a real, full (read: not artificial/government propped) recovery could be had. I'm not questioning their motives. I'm simply saying such a course is doomed to hinder such a recovery rather then speed it along. Rather then take a horrific 2 to 3 years they are opting (meaning to or not) for a very bad 10. In these cycles I submit we should take our lumps, and rip the bandaid off. Rather then have government give us a Loritab at each centimeter's pull of the strip. I submit this both on principle regarding the proper role of government in the individuals life, and in real world, practical results - it just works better. And even while agreeing with me on principle, you still contend that New Deal was not just an attempt at a pain killer, that it was in fact sound, effective economic policy towards aiding our national recovery. That high taxes and government interdiction in this one special moment in economic suspended animation did not slow the private recovery, but aided it (rather then seeing New Deal for what it was - an earnest but misguided attempt at "pain relief" whose inherent nature is prohibitive to a free market recovery). That it "somehow", some way prevented a depression for the next 75 years. Holding those 2 positions simultaneously (agreeing on basic economic principle with me yet championing New Deal as sound economic recovery policy) is simply untenable in my opinion.