To continue...

Got some sleep... feeling a little better and I didn't want to leave the post with the taste of "bitter sarcasm" lingering, as it was NOT my intention at all.

Ryan had a fair point I failed to address:  "Now - you keep picking the few programs that worked, like SEC & FDIC. I know why. Its quicker to name what worked. The argument for me was never whether direct relief (CCC or FEMA) has a direct benefit for those in need. The argument was whether such things aide in pulling a nation out of a Depression."


Between the WPA, CCC, and the CWA, which I presume you include in the list of programs that "didn't work", some 14 million people were employed for between one and three years at basically minimum wage manual labor jobs.  Did this cost the Federal government money?  Yes, but rather than give a check to an empty hand, these programs put men to work on projects and efforts that are still serving us today... from city and State parks, to roads and railroad bridges, rural power line extensions, tree rows to keep soil from blowing away.  Hungry, desperate people employed in meaningful labors that allowed the government to gain infrastructure support while those working take home earned income they can be proud of.  Were these programs simply "hand outs" of cash or coupons that the poor and indigent could redeem at the cost of the American taxpayer, then I'd agree with you 100% that the New Deal programs were a failure... but if assistance had to be given (and I believe it did), then putting people to work for a cause like public infrastructure (for one example) seems better than simply handing out money.  Which, by the way, is the paradigm today under Obama.


 "If you want to argue the merits of SEC & FDIC, thats fine. But those are not the sum total of New Deal."


Then neither is Social Security, right?  Because SS is failing now should not reflect on what it was intended to be under the FDR administrations, by your very own arguments.  However, I know this is an aside, so back to your point...


 "You seem to be saying - now this is important, dont just speed read through this - that the aide & works programs, price controls, intrusions via perversion of the commerce clause, oppressively high taxes & mammoth peace time deficit spending, all helped to see those hurting through the 30's until the war (thats my interpretation of "they all ended by 1943"). I'm not arguing whether they "helped" hungry people eat. It's fine to argue that New Deal helped see people through the Depression both directly & in terms of offering hope that at least someone was doing something to try & change things (which is what I assign as the source of both FDR & Obama's popularity at the ballot box). What I'm saying is that while New Deal helped see people through, through massive spending, it was a net loss for those same people (& the nation) because it prolonged the Depression era. "

This is an almost impossible point for me to argue... I can't defend a negative.  You have, to the best of my knowledge, continually advocated a "hands off" approach for the government to have taken in response to the depression beginning in 1929, which is almost exactly what Hoover did beginning in 1929.  However, the rate of bank failures grew each year until 1934, they did not fall.  The number of unemployed grew each year until 1933, when 4 million went to work for one calendar year for the CWA... no drop in unemployment was recorded by the private sector.  FDR's Three Rs (Relief, Recovery, and Reform) could have been only the ONE R... Relief for those most in need.  Feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, care for the sick and elderly... but let the rest of indigent America wait for the laissez-faire policies of the administration to kick-start the economic engines that had so abruptly shut down.  Doesn't that seem, even now, to be a "tough sell" to the voting public of the US of A?

More to my point is the fact that at least two "conservative" Presidents did exactly what you are saying is the worst thing to do in light of tough economic times... and that is deficit spend in a peace-time economy.  Ike did it from '53 until '56 and Reagan did it from '82 until '86.  The BIG difference here is that Reagan did it with a 28% top marginal tax bracket and increased the over-all revenue of the Fed by 17%, while Ike simply ran the budget into the red with the Interstate Highway effort while maintaining the 72% top marginal bracket.

Once again I come to the point I continually make... FDR did make mistakes (Yalta was a big one), and his BIGGEST by far was not listening to John Maynard Keyenes when it came to ending the cycles of boom-bust economics in the US.  Ike didn't listen either... in fact, no one did until Reagan got into office, and then the paradigm changed and we saw the real effects of lower taxes equals more revenue equals more economic growth.

Hating the thought of greater government intervention is perfectly understandable on your part, I don't argue that at all.  I'm only asking that a sense of rational objectivity be carried into the discussion about what intervention is warranted and what is not.  If we are looking at a purely "constitutional" expansion of Presidential powers by a sitting President from the established limits as defined by the Constitution to what existed after that President left office, I don't think FDR even makes the top five.  Washington was writing the handbook for the Presidency every morning he woke up.  Jefferson was changing his mind about Executive authority on an almost daily basis, as he himself admitted.  Madison threw out everything he held to be true and dear about the Oval Office prior to his election as soon as the shooting started in 1812.  Jackson defied the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and on no fewer than two occasions... and he is still on the $20 bill.  Lincoln was forced to become the "tyrant" the South so loudly accused him of being, setting precedent for executive power with each passing year of the Civil War.

FDR chose the path less traveled to answer the call of the people to end the depression and its effects... and I find it very hard to question the man for doing exactly what he was elected to do.  If it didn't work or was illegal, it was ended and thrown out.  If it did work and fulfilled its needed goals, it was ended and funds cut off by Congress.  If it continued to work and fulfill its goals year after year, then it was perpetuated... until such time as the nation and its Congress could determine that it no longer works or fulfills a need, at which time it can be changed, continued or ended.  THAT is the beauty of our system of government... and nothing that was put in place or remains in place from New Deal CAN NOT be changed or done away with whenever Congress feels it best to do so.