With the incredulity of a Brooklyn-born native, it feels comfortable for me to raise that question with certain members of the Federal Reserve. As I’ve discussed in recent weeks,  there is a faction within the Fed that thinks the Fed should be embarking on a so-called “exit strategy” that would drain its considerable resources spent on economic recovery in an effort to normalize monetary policy.

In my estimation, such a move would be dangerously premature, if not fatal, for this fragile economic recovery, such as it is.

I might go even further than the typical New Yorker and ask, “What the Hell are you looking at?”

Does the Hoenig-Warsh-Plosser-Lacker-Fisher Fed faction think the economy is on a sustainable path toward economic growth? Did they see the 27.2% drop in existing home sales for July? The sales rate fell to a 15-year low! Have they noticed that, despite record-low mortgage rates and a precipitous drop in home prices, inventories of unsold homes now top 12 months -- the largest build-up of unsold homes in over a year?

Has it dawned on them that interest rates are plunging to levels not seen since the depths of the financial crisis? That plunge in rates can be a serious sign that the bond market, which offers the purest read on the economy, is warning of recession and deflation.

Have they noticed that oil prices are in the process of collapsing with a slowdown in demand for energy products from Boston to Beijing?

While most measures of inflation still are positive, the trend toward deflation is growing stronger every day. A policy mistake from the Fed, i.e., removing monetary stimulus from the economy, would doom us to a Japan-style recession… or worse, in my humble opinion. They seem quite cavalier about the prospects of ushering in a lost decade, or two, for the U.S. economy.

The above-mentioned contingent failed, in 2007, when it was quite evident to many of us, that there was a credit crisis AND a recession coming. I spoke quite forcefully about both of those possibilities on CNBC from the summer of 2007, and beyond.

However, the fractious Fed faction fought Ben Bernanke, tooth and nail, in his innovative approach to a massive economic intervention that saved us, to date, from another Great Depression. Now, they are arguing that it’s time to “take away the punch bowl” BEFORE the party has even started. The Fed is supposed to take that punch bowl away before the party gets too wild. We are a long way from there, to be sure.

We are more punch-drunk than we are drunk on punch.

Investors are so risk-averse that they are accepting less than 1% on their cash, preferring the return of capital to the return on capital. As that money sits idly on the sidelines, unused by consumers and corporations, alike, the Fed needs to get money circulating in this economy, not cut off the circulation that is the economy’s lifeblood.

If the inflation hawks on the Fed were doctors, they’d be more qualified as coroners than practitioners of the life-saving sciences.

Ben Bernanke took out the paddles and revived the economy after a near-death experience in 2008. His colleagues are arguing that to save the patient, we should kill it first.

In the end, I believe Bernanke will win this doctorial debate and take some astounding steps to jolt the economy back to life. They will be widely criticized, both in economic and political circles. But, they will be the right measures at the right time.

Thus far, however, Bernanke has been the only Washington professional who has shown any signs that he has been properly trained for the job he is doing. The rest are recommending “meatball surgery” on an economy that is perilously close to being rushed back into the ER.

Let’s just hope that, despite a serious rift among the doctors of our economic philosophy, Dr. Ben remains the chief surgeon. If not, we’ll need to call a priest.