Further thoughts...

FDR wasn't perfect. FDR made mistakes. FDR over-stepped his authority.

All these things are true, and all of them were stopped or corrected by the system of government we currently have. When FDR signed an un-Constitutional bill into law (NRA, for example), the Supreme Court shot it down. When FDR tried to amend the Constitution to stack the Court, he was laughed out of consideration, even by his most ardent supporters.

What did New Deal put into place that can't be removed through legislative process even today? Nothing. Don't like Social Security? Reform or repeal it... nothing is stopping "conservatives" from submitting legislation that can change or eliminate SSI tomorrow, if they can show a viable alternative or convince America (specifically, the Congress) that it is wrong. What was true in 1953 (when the first GOP President was elected since Hoover) is still true today... don't like New Deal? Change it or get rid of it in exactly the same manner that it was brought into being.

So what did FDR bring to the "table" that can't be removed whenever the nation decides it's had enough? Precedent? The shadowy, ghost-like thought that once a freedom or liberty is surrendered, even briefly, it is never recovered?

"Tax and Spend" New Deal Presidents were the "norm" after FDR... each and every one following in the footsteps of Franklin, right up until Jan, 1981, when Ron Reagan came into the Oval Office. That is a LOT of precedence to beat, but Reagan did it. He changed the paradigm, lowered taxes while increasing spending (in an environment that, like now, was NO WHERE NEAR as bad as 1933) and delivered on his promise to stimulate the economy while lowering taxes. Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. have all followed (sort of) the Reagan paradigm, with varied success.

I have continuously repeated that I do not support "tax and spend" policies as a matter of course. Having the Fed simply spend money without rhyme or reason does nothing to stimulate a down economy... with ample proof being found in the Pelosi/Reid Congress beginning in 2006. Earmarking millions (or billions) of dollars in spending so that beatnik poetry bars in Haight Ashbury can get Federal funding is not MY idea of "pumping needed funds back into the economy". I do support "Pay as you Go" programs, though... and for the simple reason that if the program is worth the effort to make it the Law of the Land, then it is worth the effort to find the funding to pay for it BEFORE it is signed into law. This "Pay as you Go" facet of conservative policy (a product of the Conservative Revolution of '94) worked, and gave Clinton/Gore their one and only claim to fame while in the White House... a balanced budget inside of four years.

So, where is the "unchangeable evil" that New Deal brought to America? Is it in the "nanny state" mindset that Levin constantly talks about? Perhaps it is... but the "nanny state" only exists as long as the "nanny laws" remain on the books, and any one of those laws can come off with the passage of one single piece of legislation by a "conservative" Congress. Constant promises by politicians that "government can fix what is wrong" wasn't started by FDR... but it has been continued by every President since, that is for sure... with George W. Bush sitting very near the top of that list. Not happy with the state of your kid's education? Here's "No Child Left Behind"! Worried that another 9/11 might occur? Here's "Homeland Security"! Scared that your retirement savings are at risk? Here's the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008"! Lest anyone forget... he was the first to say "Too big to fail".

I'm still amazed that you would defend Andrew Jackson and his policies and agendas as President, but utterly condemn FDR... especially given the FACT that Glenn Beck is the most outspoken critic of Jackson that I have heard on the radio or TV in my entire life. I know Beck hates progressives like FDR... but Beck seems to consider Jackson a progressive, too (not sure how he came to that conclusion, but it was said yesterday on his radio show) and regularly condemns Jackson for the same issues that Jambo and I did just a few months back here on the Bund. THERE was a President that was doing irreparable damage to the nation, yet you defend his position as a "great" President worthy of a prominent spot on our currency. What about the legacy of Jackson's Presidency, and its effect on the rest of American history? How much better would America have been had HE followed the decision of the Supreme Court (in both 1831 and 1832) rather than promote and support the "illegal" Indian Removal Act of 1830?

What about Thomas Jefferson's "illegal" and "unprecedented" move to double the size of the United States by promising France $15 million, delivering $3 million in gold as a down payment, and then funding the purchase through foreign bond houses... all with no Congressional consent prior to the transaction? There was no "enumerated" power defined in the Constitution to allow Jefferson that sort of authority... why are you not critical of his assumption of power and his setting of dangerous precedents? He was even a Democrat?

I don't understand the "hatred" of FDR... so maybe if that is explained, by you in clear and certain language, we can work from there to FINALLY resolve this issue. However, NOTHING to date has brought us any closer to resolution. You see conflict in my broad definition of "smaller government" and my support of intervention by the government during the worst financial crisis in our history, and I see conflict in your disdain for "big government" in anything but circumstances surrounding a "declared war" against an established enemy.

Rather than explaining to me WHAT FDR did that was so bad, you rip my opinions or presented facts as arbitrary or biased. What does that gain either of us? Show me what damage was done, and why that damage cannot be fixed at any point, now or in the future? Show me what DIDN'T work, rather than simply repeating that "nothing worked"... because history shows us that SOMETHING worked. We beat the depression, we've never repeated the depression, and the programs and policies that I say brought us out of the depression helped us win a world war and took us to unprecedented heights in economic and commercial development in the decade following WWII. How can that be defined as complete failure?