Focused like a laser...

First off, I'm NOT going to propose "New Deal II" when Jambo has already done it, twice. Most of what he wrote I agreed with (there were a few points I questioned, but we never fully investigated his ideas, either).

But, to stay focused, I will try and answer your questions as you presented them...

"... if your contending it (New Deal) works ONLY as a response to a "crisis", then why not implement one now? Are we not bleeding?"

There are multiple layers to this question, but I'll do my best... first by saying that Bush/Obama DID implement their version of "New Deal" by throwing $900 billion dollars at anyone that claimed to be "too big to fail". You are right, I was opposed to that (and still am) because it is tantamount to throwing good money after bad, in my opinion. At least FDR let the companies that couldn't make it work FAIL, rather than throw perfectly good taxpayer money into them first. FDR used the money he spent (or wanted spent) to put people to work for the government until such time as a private sector job became available... thus the work project programs like CCC and WPA. These were short-term jobs, with none of the work programs lasting past the end of WWII (to the best of my knowledge, none saw the winter of '43)... but these programs accomplished great things, for the employees and for the country. Grand Cooley, the BLM, TVA, Boulder Dam, Golden Gate, Empire State... all iconic images of America's "can do" mentality in a crisis, and all money spent by the Fed on these projects has been returned in spades.

More importantly, though... had the national rate of unemployment in 1932 been 14% (like Nevada's is now), I'd have not supported the vast majority of New Deal projects (if any). What made New Deal justified to even begin in my opinion was a 27% NATIONAL unemployment rate (which means that places like Detroit, Cleveland, Seattle, and Dallas all had local unemployment that rose as high as 35%+) AND a mortgage failure rate of more than 50%. With our current housing bust at a mortgage failure rate of less than 10%, I'd say it doesn't compare.

In short (laser-like focus), this IS NOT the Great Depression, and I'm not sure it is a great recession... although it is going to qualify as a "long recession" in a few, short months. Inflation was far higher in 1980, and the market lows were far lower in 1973 AND 1986. Unemployment still hasn't gotten as high as it was during Carter's recession... so I guess I'm asking if the comparison is fair. This is a down economy, yes... treat it as a down economy, not as a national crisis of the magnitude that we saw in Nov of 1929 by lowering taxes, freezing spending levels and giving anyone that CAN or WILL hire help an additional tax break.

"... if you're saying that the current crisis (in the top 2 since WWII) does not meet the threshold for justification of a New Deal style policy, then you tell me - where's the cut off line? When is "bad" bad enough for government to step in on the level of a New Deal? "

It is a national crisis when the very fabric of our nation is threatened by economic hardships that are spiraling out of control, as they were between 1929 and 1932... why is THAT hard to see? If you doubt that the nation was in a state of panic, why then did the "government" under Hoover (a conservative, mind you) see the need to place active, armed Army and Marine units in strategic positions throughout Washington DC in 1932? Why did we need machine gun emplacements on the Capitol Building? Why was the US Treasury under guard by armed troops 24 hours a day? Whom were these soldiers and marines going to shoot? Russians? Mexicans? Germans? They were going to defend the government from the likes of Cox's Army... 25,000 unemployed Americans (almost ALL of whom were from Pennsylvania exclusively) who were demanding that something... anything... be done to stop the crisis before wives and children started to starve to death.

We've had four years of stagnation and slow or no growth... between 1929 and 1932, fully 39% of all the wealth in this nation ceased to exist... that equals the almost instant devaluation of every single US Dollar from a $1 value to a $0.60 value... before the specter of inflation even factors in. This can't happen now because we are no longer chained to a gold standard in our currency (another New Deal success), so that when the "Tech Bubble" burst in 2000, and we saw 58% of the entire value of the NASDAQ index evaporate like water on a hot plate, the markets all fell drastically... but the value of the dollar stayed almost untouched. Add to this the FACT that employee/employer paid unemployment insurance was not something anyone had back then, and we begin to see just how bad it was before New Deal regulations came into play. The 7 million unemployed in this country right now (estimates, I know... but a lot of unemployed) can ALL draw 52 weeks of unemployment insurance that THEY and their employers have paid for... and that has now been extended to 99 weeks by Obama. Does anyone think that might have factored into why the Crash of '29 was so devastating, when we can know that unemployment wasn't going to get ANY better for at least the next 24 months? By 1932, one out of every two farm mortgages had FAILED, and one out of every five home mortgages had FAILED. Our current housing crisis has seen a HIGH in foreclosures of less than 10% nationally. No, Ryan, I don't think we are at that "crisis" level yet... but Obama and Pelosi are spending money like we've come and gone already... that bothers me a lot.

"I don't believe it rationale to say you're a New Dealer when it comes to the years 1933-1940, but NOT outside those years ... THEN you're a conservative. "

Okay, fair enough... but if you can say that about my position, then let me say this about yours:

"I don't believe it rational to say you're against the New Deal when it comes to the years 1933-1940, but you're in favor of all the same spending schemes and massive government programs when it comes to the years 1941-1945... THEN its justified and right to encourage Big Government, higher taxes, regulated markets, rationed goods and services, limits on freedoms and liberties, etc."

The funny thing here is that Jambo is 100% right about something he said last night... FDR was the exact same man in 1945 that he was in 1933, and if you think his policies and agendas were WRONG in 1933, but were exactly what we needed in 1942, then I'd say the inconsistency lies in YOUR position, and not mine.