I hear a hammer and a blowtorch work wonders.

Violence accomplishes nothing. Then why does that thought intrigue me?

Violence accomplishes nothing.


That's a lie. Violence accomplishes a lot.

Haha...

How is this plan different from the one that caused the housing bubble by creating government sponsored enterprises to purchase the loans extended to borrowers with less than satisfactory credit ratings?

The only thing government "thinkers" can create is bubble, which will pop again, leaving everyone with wasteful malinvestments.

B.S. I've read it.

I still say that Obama is doing stupid things. Now what?

Are you going to debunk me, or are you going to side brush me, and proceed to happily celebrate the good feelings?

I'll give you four names and when you want the other 200 let me know. All the following oppose Obama's stimulus plan.

James Bucanan Nobel prize winner in economics in 1986
Gary Becker Nobel prize winner in economics in 1992
Robert Mundell Nobel prize winner in economics in 1999
Edward Prescott Nobel prize winner in economics in 2004

Becker http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/01/on_the_obama_st.html

Perhaps their estimates of the stimulus provided by direct government spending are in the right ballpark, but I tend to believe that they are excessive. For one thing, the true value of these government programs may be limited because they will be put together hastily, and are likely to contain a lot of political pork and other inefficiencies. For another thing, with unemployment at 7% to 8% of the labor force, it is impossible to target effective spending programs that primarily utilize unemployed workers, or underemployed capital. Spending on infrastructure, and especially on health, energy, and education, will mainly attract employed persons from other activities to the activities stimulated by the government spending. The net job creation from these and related spending is likely to be rather small. In addition, if the private activities crowded out are more valuable than the activities hastily stimulated by this plan, the value of the increase in employment and GDP could be very small, even negative.

Hmmmm, My mind was on one track.. You're right unfortunately.

"The US economy is not your household economy."

I would like clarification of this statement- the differences of economic principles between the two (aside from being a larger budget and me being imprisoned for practing the same bookkeeping techniques). I would submit that those not in debt are the true experts in economics regardless of their professional title.

As per second guessing the so called "experts" (especially in regards to replication of past failures)- In my opinion only Lemmings and complete fools don't. The so-called "experts" once asserted the Earth was flat (like the EEG results of some here) and the center of the universe too. To either build upon successful theories/techniques by their predecesors, disprove the previous "experts" and develop new (and hopefully better) theories/techniques, or a try combininations of both for other applications... by second guessing and asking "what if?"

Even Herbert Hoover had economic "experts". Though I don't deem this as a credible source; However, this article does make for a few interesting comparisions. This sound like anyone we know?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

"Hoover's stance on the economy was based largely on volunteerism. From before his entry to the presidency, he was a proponent of the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth."

"At the outset of the Depression, Hoover claims in his memoirs that he rejected Treasury Secretary Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach.[23] Critics, such as liberal economist Paul Krugman,[24][25] on the other hand, accuse Hoover of sharing Mellon's laissez-faire viewpoint. It is often inaccurately stated that Herbert Hoover did nothing while the world economy eroded. President Hoover made attempts to stop "the downward spiral" of the Great Depression.[26] His policies, however, had little or no effect."

"President Hoover and Congress approved the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, to spur new home construction, and reduce foreclosures. The plan seemed to work, as foreclosures dropped, but it was seen as too little, too late." (my translation here "We just didn't spend enough").

"In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history."

"For this reason, years later libertarians argued that Hoover's economics were statist. Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible," and of leading "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[34]"

Obama adopting FAILED REBUPLICAN policies? Say it ain't so.

Oh man...
Sorry Fanta! This is just wrong..... LOL!