Couple of problems with your little theory:
A, I don't listen to talk radio; I can think for myself, thank you.
B. I am not republican; I am anti-democrat. There is a difference.
C. IF you had actually studied economics, you would know that the New Deal failed to get us out of the Great Depression, and that, had it not been for WW II, it would have gone down as a spectacular failure, of dubious legality and constitutionality.
D. Trying to tax and spend your way out of a recession is about as effective as standing in a bucket, grabbing the handle, and trying to lift yourself. I can't remember who said that, but it's true, nonetheless.
This is scary.
First. I agree that the New Deal was no match for the Great Depression, and probably prolonged it. But I wasn't talking strictly about the New Deal, which is why in the post of mine you quoted I say that government spending on war manufacturing ("military Keynesianism") was the only stimulus large enough to prime the manufacturing pump.
While I kind of agree with your point about the New Deal, I'm a little worried about the simplicity of your conclusions, which mimics the sort of rhetoric you hear from say a Bill O'Reilly, who also claims to be independent, but is an Apparatchik for the Right Wing Machine.
I'm not sure the New Deal was all bad in quite the monolithic way you suggest. New Deal work programs rescued Reagan's father. Some people think FDRs "spending" (investment) in struggling families paid off. You forget that Reagan was a staunch New Dealer until the crude Keynesians and welfare nuts moved it off the map (not to mention the anti-war, civil rights, feminazis who came along later)
Worse: you seem to make no distinction between programs and regulations which did some good (TVA, Glass-Stegall), and ones which were abysmal failures, like the National Recovery Administration, or the lingering political stench created by corrupt Big City Democratic Machines. At the very least you might want to add some nuances to your conclusions. Even Milton Friedman praises some of the Keynesian approaches FDR deployed during the Great Depression. In fact, he had great respect for Keynes; he thought Maynard would have been disgusted by the crudeness with which both parties used his ideas.
Worse: in your haste to ignore my post and spew some very tired bumper stickers of Movement Conservatism, you didn't address my main point, which is far less ambitious than defending the New Deal in all its sprawling, unruly complexity. I was and am suggesting that some of the Big Government projects of the Progressive and Liberal era were vital to the economic development of modern America. Frankly, most of my college educated friends on the Right don't dispute what is a truly a meek and uninteresting conclusion. The only people who cannot see the relationship between Big Government Spending -- on [things like] the Hoover Dam, Interstate System, TVA, the Space Program -- and economic growth are folks educated by Movement Conservatism, which radically under-reports these facts for political reasons.
Your anti New Deal sentiments are like your anti-spending sentiments -- they seem too simple. You might consider adding some nuance, i.e., perhaps you should separate government spending on pork from government spending on the Hoover Dam, or the development of the internet, like when JCR Licklider of MIT worked with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop a global network of computers. Or you might separate spending on "bridges to nowhere" from spending on the development of computer technology at places like the Aberdeen Ballistic Research Laboratory.
While you're not a Republican, you seem to have been infected by the rightwing mythology that Big Government research and spending has played no role in the development of the country's most vital infrastructure and technology. This is scary because it means that Movement conservatism is literally re-writing history.
