You are missing my basic question...

While ignoring all my "asides."

You do not have to endorse reinstating the exact programs from the 30's. My simple question, with 13 million Americans out of work today (&its closer to 19 million when using the government's own "U6" number), is why do you not advocate a similar approach now? There are millions of hungry mouths to feed now. Millions of out of work young men & needed infrastructure repairs now. There are holes in the banking, SSI, and energy industries now (presumably in need of government intervention/oversight). So where is your advocation of New Deal 2.0? A revamped version to fit the current crisis? Why not expand government oversight, programs, & works in a way akin to dealing with the Great Recession? That's not "lame." Thats an honest question.

I want to get to another honest question, but first a point of order ... you continue to list SSI, now commonly referred to as SS only (an important distinction as it now serves millions as a primary retirement fund, & not supplementary). I can not think of a clearer example of a misguided government program than social security. It carries with it two fundamental flaws (& both I believe, FDR was aware of). First it presumes that the central government can be trusted to collect billions in tax revenue and in essence sit on it over decades upon decades - without spending it - & then give it back to the tax payer at the age of 65. That was FDR's intent (I know LBJ officially moved it into the general fund). To believe a government capable of such a feat is the height of naivety, even in the 1930s. And FDR doesnt strike me as the naive sort. Secondly, it presumes (assuming IOU's would at some point need be issued) there would never be a baby boom. The very premise of a government mandated and collected retirement program (as primary or supplementary) is flawed ... its simply unsustainable. SSI is a failure. A multi generational failure that is never more than one generation from crumbling as it drags on our national deficit. That is as obvious as the sun coming up. And before you quote to me the millions that would have/would starve without SS income, let me note that citing such a thing presumes these millions of people wouldnt have made other arrangements for their retirement during their working life (think of all those billions in private sector investment plans, its mind boggling to think what that could of accomplished for the retirees & the economy as a whole).

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

As conservatives, you & I, knowing the effect massive peace time deficit spending, the expansion of government regulations/oversight/departments, & oppresively high taxes have on an economy, is it so unreasonable for me (or presumably you, as a conservative) to look at New Deal and say "that couldnt of possibly worked." ? And then point to the Roosevelt Recession as evidence of that?

Let me put it another way - that recession demonstrates something very clearly to me. Turning on the spigot was like administrating morphine to a gun shot victim until the doctor arrives. It doesnt, however, get the doctor there any faster. And in fact, if you administer too much morphine you can make the doctor's job that much harder. I submit that while it felt good to the millions that received it, FDR's overall approach (in its' totality) was to administer too much morphine. Not out of malice, but because he was (forgive me) standing over a bleeding friend writhing in pain & wanted to do "something." And the only "doctor" capable of saving a patient who was gut shot & now overdosing on morphine, was WWII.

Is that such an unreasonable position for a mindful conservative to take?