"Quit Listening to Rush!" shrieks BHO."I won, I will trump you on that!"

[zeus3925]

Well lets see who is a budget genius. Here is a little game to play while your watching the paint dry. How about giving it a whirl and see what we come up with.

http://americanpublicmedia.publicrad...08/budgethero/

[zeus3925]

Wouldn't it be better to give people and businesses tax cuts instead of a punch of pork projects? It is estimated that with interest, this current stimulus package will run well over a TRILLION dollars. The way to stimulate is to allow businesses to expand and individuals to keep more of what they earn. The Republican plan is the plan. Your trip to the dentist is an exploratory rootcanal.

I was a strong believer in exactly that approach. The Republicans I learned my Poli. Econ.. from believed you should cut taxes AND spend in rough times. But once the economy fired up again, it was time to cut the spending and raise taxes to both moderate the irrational exuberance. I haven't seen either party have the political will to do that.

I share your distaste for pork. Unquestionably, we have too much of it. But sometimes the enemy is us. We love politicians who go porking for us and welcome them as heroes when they bring home the bacon.

Then there is a question on how far you go in determining what is pork. The nation's infrastructure is in bad shape. We need to address that now. Some may call it pork, but we have to do it anyhow. In this financial climate, the price tag won't be this cheap again.

In a normal recession, the Republican plan (actually a warmed over JFK plan) works pretty well. This ain't a normal circumstance. Many economists are now saying that tax cuts are not enough. We must get the money markets open as quickly as we can and stimulate spending enough to get the pump primed again. I don't see the differences between the plans as irreconcilable. We need elements from both plans.

Am I happy with a trillion bucks on top of the bailout? Hell no!

[Vicky Trainor]

Stop the personal attacks. If you can't be a part of this discussion without doing so, don't hit the Submit button.

[IowaBayDog]

1) 3) As I said before, there isn't any legislation that is coming forth on this. That is the reality, regardless of what Pelosi's position is. (And Pelosi definitely fits the 'hyperpartisan' description.)

The only legislation that has been introduced related to the Fairness Doctrine in the past few years has been introduced by Republicans (in order to 'pre-empt' the legislation that is supposedly being introduced in the bizarro world they inhabit).

The obsession that right wing-nuts have with this non-issue is amusing. So is your regurgitation of the talking points that Rush is spoon-feeding you.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michae...e.html?showall

Wrong again, its not even really a challenge anymore proving you wrong.

[John Kelder]

Yep. Spent about the same amount as Bush did in 2005 and managed to entertain five times the number of people. Finally, a President who understands the economies of scale.

Bush spent 42 million , BHO 200 million . I may not be an economist , but I can do the math .

[YardleyLabs]

Bush spent 42 million , BHO 200 million . I may not be an economist , but I can do the math .

Wrong. The $42 million all costs other than for the parties themselves. The total cost was estimated at $150-160 million. For Obama the intial estimates for comparable costs are about $160-170 million although your $200 million number may prove to be more accurate. The comparable "party" cost for Obama was about $45 million compared to Bush's $42 million. BTW, quote yopur source and I'll post mine.

[backpasture]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michae...e.html?showall

Wrong again, its not even really a challenge anymore proving you wrong.

Are you really this thick, or are you just having a hard time getting off of the talking points? Of course there are some idiots in Congress who want to do this. But, they are a small minority.

Amusingly, each time one of those few left wing idiots who are for the 'Fairness Doctrine' says something about it, the entire right wing nutosphere has a conniption. The smart folks on the left are more than happy to have the Republicans follow their pied piper (Rush Limbaugh) right off the cliff.

Call me when the 'Fairness Doctrine' gets more than a handful of wingnuts supporting it. In other words, don't call me.

[Julie R.]

Wrong. The $42 million all costs other than for the parties themselves. The total cost was estimated at $150-160 million. For Obama the intial estimates for comparable costs are about $160-170 million although your $200 million number may prove to be more accurate. The comparable "party" cost for Obama was about $45 million compared to Bush's $42 million. BTW, quote yopur source and I'll post mine.

You forgot to add the $200 million to repair the sod on the mall...that makes Obomo's coronation tab closer to about 400 million.

[YardleyLabs]

You forgot to add the $200 million to repair the sod on the mall...that makes Obomo's coronation tab closer to about 400 million.

Just to be clear, the funds for improvement to the National Mall that were included in the original House bill have been dropped at Obama's urging. Second, the resodding costs were $21 million, not $200 million. If the balance is going for grass, it must be for the Republican leadership to smoke.

The efforts to refurbish the Mall did not start with the inauguration. This story from Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/146735) estimated costs of $350-500 million in needed repairs because of the 25 million visitors received by the particular National Park each year. The article was written last July. A number of people have objected to the fact that the project was dropped noting that it would have generated a large number of jobs almost immediately and therefore was appropriate for the stimulus package.

[subroc]

Here is an article or open letter to the president by Rush about the fairness doctrine, free speech and the like.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123508978035028163.html