On my concession...

Without stealing too much of Ryan's thunder... I conceded the point because I was unable to articulate or demonstrate what I still think worked and what didn't in New Deal.  We are not witnessing a Loyolan conversion here, or a conservative epiphany given from above... this is my admitting that I simply cannot define what worked versus what didn't to my satisfaction.  As much as Ryan is unable to believe that anything designed or approved by FDR or any other progressive could possibly have merit, I am unable to believe that the undeniable fact that something changed between 1929 and 1945 to prevent another depression from occurring is simply a coincidence or some obscure, minuscule detail in a huge global formula that had nothing to do with US policy.

Again, I say, this debate can end whenever you wish... I have conceded the point entirely.  I cannot show you that, beyond a reasonable doubt, New Deal fixed what was wrong with the economic engines that had allowed a boom-bust cycle to plague the US economy for more than a century.  I cannot prove a negative and say that the Great Depression era wouldn't have lasted as long without New Deal.  I have made my case, more than once, and if that hasn't made my position clear then there is no point in my continuing to make it, is there?

Since you have brought up some further points, however, I will respond... not to try and make my points clearer, since that has never worked in this debate, but instead to ask you to clarify yours so I can better understand what you are saying.  Nothing angry, petty or bitter... I'm simply asking for clarification on statements you made that I think are ambiguous at best, and contrary to previous positions at worst.

I won't cut and paste... too time consuming going through hundreds of past posts... so what I am giving is a summation of my understanding of your position here:

The Atlantic Charter between FDR and Churchill in '41 paved the way for the Bretton Woods Conference, which made the US dollar the standard for the global economic engine and ushered in the better part of a hundred years of relative prosperity for the US, and which is considered the first moment in US political history where "free trade" between nations was rationally considered to be standard policy... that Charter was a mistake?  The Atlantic Charter is an acceptable example of government intervention in the market place that can be used as an example of American policies that detract from the stated goals and ideals of our founding documents?  Bretton Woods and the accords which stem from it are going to cost the US and the world more in the long run than they have benefited us?

The ability of the US Federal Reserve to pump money into the economy without maintaining an equivalent supply of gold freed the Treasury to adjust monetary supply to counter market inconsistencies, and it is this ability and freedom that I think is a direct and measurable portion of the "success" that came from just the sort of government intervention that you decry.  Following successful standards established over the last 80 years, inflation has been avoided in all but the most careless and casual cases of government spending (Nixon/Ford/Carter comes to mind where it did rear its head... but at a very recoverable rate, I'd say)... and current concerns over high government spending still haven't defeated what history has shown to be a very functional model.

Your extrapolated example of how the troubles in the EU could effect the US in the long (LONG) term are valid, I don't argue... but they are also just as real and just as inherent in a system where complete and unfettered free trade exists.  Having any significant portion of our trading partners suffer an economic meltdown the likes of which Greece, Italy, Spain and Mexico have had in just the very recent past is bound to have ripple effects across the global market.  If you don't think that is true, then simply look at what a rumor of higher oil prices does to the cost of gas here in the US on any given day of the week.

Another example:  The US Navy's intervention against ocean-going drug trafficking from South America costs the US taxpayer nearly $700 million a month... a very significant cost, you'll agree... and its measurable and specific benefits are not always immediately apparent, but it is working.  Ten years ago, 70% of all cocaine traffic into the US was via surface-going ocean vessels.  That number is now down to less than 30%, and it is falling.  The unintended result of this is that the traffic in cocaine to the US is being forced to go overland through Central America and Mexico, and it is crippling those national economies and directly effecting the lives and safety of people living in close proximity to the Mexican-American border.  Our stated goal was to limit (ultimately to end) overseas drug trafficking into the US... but in fact we are simply forcing it to find alternative means into the country and causing new problems to present where they didn't exist before.  Should we follow the principles defined by your stated view of "less government is better government", what would be the solution?  End the interdiction?  Expand the interdiction to overland routes through the Isthmus of Panama?  Or simply deregulate the drug laws, so that the problem is ended entirely?

The long and the short of my question is this:  When is enough enough?  You point to all the failures of New Deal, or of Wilson's "progressive" failures, and the damage both did to the "constitutionality" of the US, of how they both looked to ignore or change the stated and ratified Constitution of the United States... yet, fundamentally,  very little has changed.  The checks and balances put in place by the founder's have worked in each and every case, and continue to work now.  Prohibition was about the best example of the failure inherent in the idea that morality can be regulated and enforced by government, and it wasn't carried out by Executive orders or Presidential authority run amok.  It was accomplished via the mandated process of Constitutional amendment, and could only be repealed by Constitutional amendment.  The country, by the very founder's design, ignored the inherently immoral basis for slavery in America, hoping against hope that the "problem" would work itself out of its own accord sometime in the future.  The "problem" was solved by the costliest and bloodiest war the United States ever fought, a war that is still felt in the national psyche t this day.  Was that a mistake on the founder's part?  Was that a "flaw" in the Constitution?

Here is where I have to admit that I am very impressed and moved by what you wrote.  The founders were motivated by the process, rather than the results.  The means to end slavery, for the founders, was put in place within the Constitution... but I am convinced that they recognized that the country as a whole wasn't ready for the institution to end via forced intervention.  They could have allowed the question to end the effort in nation building that brought the US to fruition, with nothing more than a sweep of the pen and a show of hands (the anti-slavery portion of the Convention was bigger than the pro by 17 members)... but the results would have been contrary to the effort.  Better to allow a flawed USA than to have no USA at all, in other words.

That being the case, the Civil War ended the scourge of slavery... but forever changed the face of the Republic and the manner in which it was governed, while Reconstruction furthered the divide and set back Lincoln's vision of a healed and united USA.  Prohibition was put in place to answer a perceived flaw in society, but created more problems than it ever solved.  New Deal was a response to a crisis that, to Ryan, solved nothing and prolonged the agony of depression/recession.

The means to stop New Deal, Prohibition, Reconstruction, slavery... all have been in place since 1787.  Just as each and every facet of New Deal that exists today has run the gauntlet of constitutional approval, and thus is seen as "legal", if nothing else... each and every facet of New Deal can be repealed or removed.  Your contention that FDR, Wilson and Obama all wanted to "end" or "change" the US at a fundamental level is difficult to prove, at best, since A) two are dead and B) none would ever have openly admitted as much and hoped to remain in office.  That all three have made mistakes... no one here is arguing that point at all.

FDR, then, is a good example of the "system" working.  He did what no one else had done, and what passed the Constitutional test remains, what didn't is gone and (nearly) forgotten... all because the People of the United States of America stated their readiness to "change" the status quo by electing him and supporting his policies.  He broke no more Constitutional rules than the greatest of his predecessors did while they were in office (Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln)... he simply followed a different ideology, if Ryan is to be understood.  Perhaps he did focus on results rather than the process... it is as good an analyses of his Presidency as any I have heard.  I simply don't see him "fundamentally" changing government or the manner in which government functions in this nation.  I don't deny that he might have tried... but so did other Presidents that sit far higher on the Tops list than FDR does.