So your argument is that since the government can't do anything, it shouldn't do anything?

The first step in going the right direction is to identify which way is the right direction. Just giving up is NOT a solution. Waiting it out is NOT a solution.

Because the Bush adminstration created an inflationary gap by overkilling the 2001 recession. Keyensians recommened a CONTRACTIONARY mindset, during an economic growth, which includes higher taxes and interest rates.

For your third line, as Krugman said, you spend now, and you save later. We didn't save after the 2001 recession ended, causing an inflationary gap.

What do you think it means?

Few reasons, first off, it isn't really spending that is the cause of the economic decline, secondly, not all spending is equally beneficial, some spending has more bang for your buck, finally, without economic spending, there is little reason for compnaies to hire, or produce, and more reason for them to layoff, creating a cyclical downwards spiral.

Bad idea, imagine that the government cut off its spending, contracts would dry up, and people both in the public and private sector would lose their jobs, these newly unemployed, without any government support, due to the cut in spending, would cut their own spending, as would others who lost government support, this would lead to less consumer spending, which would result in lower sales at stores and businesses, this would result in lower production and more layoffs, which would further contract spending, and further reduce employment and production, resulting in a death spiral of deflation and recession, a likely permanent contraction of the economy.

Well, I'd listen to Krugman before I'd ever listen to Greenspan or anyone that follows Friedman.  We've followed Friedman's ideas since Reagan got into office and now we are paying for it bigtime. 

Until people are able to figure out that the core economic issues faced by society aren't solved just through the creation and moving of little slips of paper, the sooner the madness will calm down.  Economists see themselves as some sort of magicians who think they have all the answers, and all that is needed is money.  Well... if there isn't a need in an economy for certain resources, goods or services, no amount of money is going to make it so.  You have third-world nations create hyperinflation, because their economies are not able to absorb the money that is created by governments.

But hey, keep thinking that massive government spending will somehow magically produce a permanent "ecosystem" that will sustain itself.  As I see it, while government spending can help get infrastructure in place, stimulus money to cause consumption that won't remain once the government stops spending in an area, isn't going to work.

Anyhow, what do I know.  Krugman and all those people who tanked the economy with their math that said home prices will keep going up forever know more than I do... right?

What is not being understood apparently is that the economy has run on a big bubble of debt, and there isn't any other place for people to get money from, in order to keep the economy going.  People maxed out credit cards, borrowed against their home equity, and went from one household income to two.  Along the way, India and China came online, along with Russia and Eastern Europe, and put downward pressure on wages.  All these things mean there isn't a place to get money to grow the economy, and that includes government running up debt.  A lot of nations have been engaged in deficit spending that the likes of Krugman say are "sustainable" if under X% of GNP.  Well, what happens when the GNP shrinks?  Oh oh... you can't sustain it.  Of course, the Krugmans in the world don't have to suffer like average Joes.

So you don't believe that people spent less, due to their assets (home value) going down, even though they had the same exact annual income? And you don't think that keeping the economy at its potential output and preventing liquidization, freeze of credit, and unemployment will expediate the process at which people once again start to spend a greater fraction of their money?

Baisically, I'm saying that people spent less when their wealth went down. They're not going to spend more faster, when we experience deflation. It'll be a lot QUICKER and a lot less PAINFUL, if we spend now. Then, once the consumers strart spending again, the government cuts back, but not too quickly and not too sharply. When employment goes back up to its natural rate, you start worrying about balancing the budget and inflation.

At least economists use induction and statistics. You've yet to say why increasing the money supply can't stimulate the economy. You've yet to explain why having government spending cut the slack of consumer spending won't increase consumer confidence quicker.

Exactly what is a "proper education"?  I have a Masters in Information Systems (Computers) and years of IT experience, and haven't work anything remotely resembling regular employment since 2007.  If I am lucky, I will be lining up some part time tech support stuff out of the home for less than $9/hr. (no benefits) in the morning to early afternoon, and then leave to clean offices at night part-time also for $10-11/hr.  Yes, two jobs here. 

In another bit of news, over 50% of those under the age of 25 now are without jobs (from January 2010):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDqboEt1tx0

I posted more in a group I put up on Facebook called "Degreed and Unemployed":

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=125157977519656