Fundamental errors in logic.

1.) Jambo's "same man theory."

First off, I think it's arguable that FDR was NOT the same man in 1945 as he was in 1933. Less you think he was just as apt to round up Japanese-Americans into internment camps in 1933 as he was in 1943. Pearl Harbor & the ensuing war changed FDR the same way September 11th, 2001 changed George W. Bush and his presidency. But even if one accepts they were "exactly the same man", I am still flabbergasted at such a devolved line of reasoning coming from the two Plinys. So let me get this straight Titus - given you supported George W. Bush's 2001 invasion of Afghanistan (& the deficit spending to execute it), then you must support the 2008 bail outs, right? I mean he was the "same guy", right? Hell, he even waged that war with deficit spending simultaneous to the bail outs - you support one, you support the other, right? Come on guys, give this one up. It's nonsensical in the extreme. I can most certainly advocate WWII policy (most of it anyway) as a matter of making war and still oppose New Deal as a function of an economic recovery policy, with zero conflict in reasoning. It's apples and Cadillacs.

2.) I'm a New Dealer during the 1930's ... BUT AT NO OTHER TIME ... then I'm a conservative.

This is basically Titus's position - that it was justified, necessary, and more importantly it worked ... but lets never do it again. Forget for a moment "justification" arguments, I'm talking nuts and bolt effectiveness, success. Why would you not want to repeat an agenda that was "successful?" If it was a sound/succesful economic agenda, why not advocate it under other economic hardships? Explain something to me: 27% unemployment = New Deal good. 14% unemployment = New Deal bad. WTF?? Let's try again. 50% mortgage foreclosure = New Deal good. 10% mortgage foreclosure = New Deal bad. Nope, still don't get it.

If New Deal "works", it "works." If it can beat back the staggering numbers of the Great Depression, if it can "handle" battling back 27% unemployment, then SURELY logic dictates that fixing 14% would be a walk in the park for New Deal. Yet you say no to New Deal at 14% unemployment. How is that sound reasoning? Why must we wait until the machine gun nests are firmly in place & troops at the Treasury before we implement it? Why must we wait until a full quarter of all able bodied men are unemployed? 14% is pretty painful, lets head that 27% rate off at the pass by implementing the "successful" New Deal agenda now, get this thing under control ... if New Deal "worked", why not?

Of course you see my point - you either believe New Deal "works" (worked) as a sound economic theory (& thus have no problem advocating its implementation during other economic crisis, including this one) or you do not. You are either a New Dealer or you are not (& you certainly aren't a New Dealer and a Conservative, not in my definition of the term). If it's good at 27% unemployment, then it should be GREAT at 14% unemployment, yet you oppose it now. So what's the number Titus? When must conservatives drop their opposition, in essence cease to be "conservative", and acquiesce to a New Deal style agenda? At 17% unemployment? 19? 22.5%? What's "just right" for New Deal to be justified and work Goldie Locks?

Until you address these 2 fundamental errors in logic I am supremely confident that I have won this round. There is a flaw in your reasoning. I have found it. I await either concession or the math that fixes the flaw.