This post by John Stossel nails the problem with presidencies and economics:

I enjoyed this from Brad Smith at Division of Labour:

Thanks to the glories of YouTube, we can watch as the government mandates the destruction of perfectly good automobiles to "help the economy." Here is a very nice 1990s Dodge Dakota 4X4 being destroyed . It is a much better vehicle than my pick up truck.

This is a Corvette that looks to be in pretty good condition. Black, pretty sharp car. I’m sure there are a lot of young men crammed into 2001 Malibus who would have liked this car.

In this video, a ’98 Cadillac DeVille with less than 80,000 miles meets its end. Just 68,000 miles on this Chevy Caprice wagon.

A nice looking 2001 Mazda light truck with 75,000 miles bites the dust here.

Here’s a good looking Volvo prematurely destroyed.

This SUV would look at home in any tony U.S. suburb.

… Are these "clunkers?" Can it really help the economy to destroy perfectly good assets?

Of course, destroying assets does not help an economy.  The politicians who defend Cash for Clunkers remind me of the silly people who said that the rebuilding that would come after the destruction of Hurricane Katrina  would “stimulate” the economy.  What they forget is that the money for rebuilding —and the cash-for-clunker money—is forcibly taken from people who would have used that money to create other things.  

Brad Smith asks:
Are the people running the government the most economically illiterate bunch since FDR ruled the roost?

I doubt that.  Most power-hungry lawyers and others who run for office to rule over others—not to mention the media who cheer them on—are economically illiterate.   I don’t think that this bunch is better or worse than their predecessors.

Actually it’s worse than that. Presidents frequently set aside sound economic advice for short term political game. It doesn’t matter who the President is—Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter…