That's better...

Missed you, my man!

All kidding aside, this doesn't have to be a "New Deal" beef... really.  I'm okay with your holding the views you do.  You think I'm wrong, and I think you are wrong.  Nothing new there, right?

I'll touch on a few small points, then I'll let it go... I think the list is more productive than the fight over New Deal.

Why do I defend New Deal and rip Obama?  Why is the former a success and the latter a failure?  Why not a New New Deal to defeat the Great Recession?

First of all, I'm of the opinion that 90% of everything in the New Deal of 1932 was designed to end within 8 years, and anything that lasted longer than that could only do so by Congressional approval.  By '41 nothing was left of the ABC programs that were always intended to be "temporary" fixes to bigger issues.  Nothing.

Secondly, there were fundamental, paradigm-changing portions of New Deal... Social Security first and foremost on the list.  You say it was socialized retirement, but I say it was exactly what the name implies... a Federal insurance program to supplement elderly American's income in case of a fiscal crisis the likes of which had occurred every 14 years (like clockwork) since 1790.  Even when I was a kid, SSI was NOT seen as the ONLY means to survive into retirement... both my grandfathers had pensions and savings in addition to whatever benefits SSI was bringing in at the end of the month, and it was always my understanding that I would have the same.  Were this NOT the case, then why were companies and industries like the Great Northern Railroad or Grain Belt Brewing Company offering retirement packages even though everyone by 1950 was paying into SSI?  Why wouldn't they just give them the watch and the handshake and say "Well Done!" after 35 years of dedicated service?

In short, you see SSI for what the liberal, leftists in this nation have made it out to be TODAY, while I defend what it was in 1933... insurance against disasters like the Great Depression.

Lastly, why not a NEW New Deal?  Because what needed to be changed in 1929 to prevent another depression is still working just fine.  How can I say that?  Since 1929... no new depressions.  Only 5 real recessions (and all of those due to Democratic policies), one of which was in 1938 as you pointed out.  But another was in 1982... during the Reagan years... and I don't blame Reagan for that, do I?  Taxes had already been lowered to levels never before seen in the 20th Century... yet we had a recession in 1982.  Not in 1979, but in 1982... so doesn't that mean that not EVERY single bump-in-the-road that gets labeled a recession is the result of liberal, progressive, Democratic (call it what you will) policies?

FDR was a radically different sort of President than any that had come before him... but he isn't the only one that can say that, and that isn't always a bad thing.  Lincoln broke some molds, too... as did Reagan.  Both expanded the scope of government, both watch government grow in size and cost, and both did so to see the country through a terrible crisis.  Both of them are seen as "great" on our lists, because they did what had to be done to see their vision through.  No other President in history was re-elected as many times as FDR, so he must have been doing something right by someone other than F. Ryan... and I don't see how that can't count for something when ranking them in a historical list.