First of all; I'll keep this short since I've got a couple of things to finish this weekend and as some of you already know by now: I tend to lose track of time when engaging in discussions on economics
(I'll be back in full force on Monday to defend the Austrian School and the free market)
1. nation-x: I'm glad to see you are making a distinction between what you call "market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs." I hope you realize that those corporatists (political entrepreneurs) aren't just in bed with members of the GOP but with politicians of all parties. While they may be targeting a different audience, there is in essence no difference between a republican or a democrat. They all want more power to be able to implement what they think is best and neither of them will really oppose the other one when the other one 's in power and expanding the power of the state because he knows (or hopes) that one day he'll be the one pulling the strings and be able to use that position of power.
2. nation-x: Redistribution of wealth doesn't make anyone wealthier. Redistribution of wealth amounts to a redistribution of capital and thus consumption and destruction of capital. The important thing to understand here is that capital is not just money. Capital or capital goods are goods that are intended to be used in the production of consumer goods or other capital goods. Redistributing capital only leads to decreased production and higher prices (because supply will be down).
3. nation-x: from several of your posts I get the impression that you believe the Keynesian (or Marxist or another of the consumptionist theories) view that demand (=spending) is what drives the economy. It's not. What drives the economy is entrepreneurship.
Government intervention in the economy hinders entrepreneurship. Central banks (government sanctioned institutions) adjusting the interest rates are what causes mallinvestments.
4. If the stimulus had worked than we would have seen spectacular growth by 2010 like the neo-Keynesians such as Kruggman predicted and there wouldn't have been any need for a second round of quantitative easing (which is coming to an end right now) and there wouldn't be any need to talk about a possible third round of quantitative easing to be started in September.
5. GregE: WWII and government intervention was not what ended the great depression. The whole reason the depression of 1929 ever became "Great" is because of government intervention. Whoever heard about the depression of 1920? No one. Why? because it took less than 18 months to recover. Why? because there was hardly any government intervention.
6. instead of typing some more I'll let Keynes defend government spending and Hayek defend the free market: