Muerte, I don't get it.  First of all, I think that the reasons for the constant FDR/New Deal comparisons in the mainstream media are obvious.  In a very superficial sense, it seems like an apt comparison.  It also fits right along with ideological desires to either call the New Deal a fantastic success or a dismal failure, depending on your ideological stripe.  Finally, it fits with the MSM desire to not be meaningful or relevant whatsoever.

In reality, no one can really deal another New Deal.  For instance, you can't create the FDIC again (though you can double-down on its existing imperative).  There are plenty of other examples that you mention that can't simply be re-done or one-upped.  I suppose we could hope for World War III?

I'm still at a loss as to why you (and others) seem to take this as the moment to fret over our debt situation.  There really isn't anything we can do about it at this point.  It was fine to balloon the debt for tax cuts for the rich, fine for wars of choice, but marginal increases to debt for desperately needed moves on transportation and energy infrastructure, education and health care are cause for major hand-wringing over spending at this point?  How does a nation address the debt-to-GDP ratio when GDP is shrinking?

The worst possible outcome for our current obligations is that Asia decides we're a bad long-term risk.  Until then, we essentially remain immune to bankruptcy.  China and Japan are far too invested in the success of brand USA to walk away from the table at this point.  That won't necessarily stay the way it is, but do you really see any major, near-term game changers in this scenario?

The one near-term factor that could seriously change Asia's long-term USA investment strategy is if it looks like our star is destined to fall permanently.  As I understand it, that's really what we're trying to avoid.  If this bill contributes even modestly to avoiding recessive or depressive tendencies in the economy, then it'll be far more successful than most people will be able to comprehend.

As I said above, I really just don't understand your perspective on this bill.  It should be bigger than a New Deal, but it shouldn't because we perhaps we can't afford it?  Do you just simply not buy into Keynes at all?  That's the only way I can figure that someone could think like this.  If you buy Keynes even a little bit, then you should at least understand that the reason for making moves like those being made in this bill are precisely to address the long-term health of the economy, not to merely smooth over short-term bumpiness with no concern for long-term outcomes.

Maybe it's just difficult to wrap one's head around numbers this big.  After all, it's very strange to hear it said in one breath that this is the largest single spending bill in US history, but then in the next that it might not be big enough.  You're certainly not alone in making that assessment.