>>>>Economists do not agree with you about the debt. Most of them think the government should be pumping more money into the economy, not less.
>>>
>>>Like with science, consensus does not equate to correct.
>>>
>>>Regardless, please cite your source for "most".
>>>
>>>Hint : I know you love the Times so to save time, know that Krugman is not most nor objective nor consistent. ;)
>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703915204575103720332317434.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
>>
>>I know very well who Paul Krugman is. He is a Nobel laureate in economics, among other things.
>
>Methinks you missed the point, so allow me to explain...
>
>Macroeconomics - Written 2004
>Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect
>http://books.google.com/books?id=dpTBdNGGrtUC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=krugman%20eurosclerosis%20unemployment%20incentive&source=bl&ots=GiMUCFpvMz&sig=vCcb2wkdXyBbx7wMDf_pjewae2U&hl=en&ei=FRORS-_BD8H08QaU9dz2BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=public%20policy&f=false
>
>March 2010 - What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05krugman.html
>
>He has countered his own textbook argument in 6 short years as he shifts with the political winds.
>
>>And since when is the Wall Street Journal objective?
>
>Now that you've shot the messenger dead regarding the smileyed "hint", care to cite that source?

What I wrote is something I have read repeatedly. I just didn't find sources online. Yeah, I know, that sounds lame.

Thanks again for the Rube Goldberg video. That got my morning off to a smiling start.