US 'Economic Stimulus' Budget Review

[Don Corleone]

The Economist is from the "other side"? For real? Then what on earth is your side?

I don't understand why people are getting so worked up about a plain statement of fact. All I said was that we (a) shouldn't base our discussion purely on that source, and (b) that I would need corroborating evidence before I took what they had to say as true.

If I opened up a thread with nothing more than a long screed from Daily Kos, I expect you'd ask for backup as well.

Check out any of the factual bits of what I've posted. It's all legitimate, and if it isn't I'll happily retract. Here's another source on the non-existent CBO report that NRO went on about.

The truth of the matter is that the bailout and the stimulus are huge, complex things, and I'd like to hear actual experts talk about it, and try to get to some sort of picture of what's appropriate and what isn't; what's potentially effective versus ineffective. Bloviation about "Left-Wingery," kinda lowers the level of discourse right off the bat.

Instead of eating your daily breakfast of outrage over my calling NRO exactly what it is, why not clue us in to what you think about the recession (depression?) and the various plans offered to bridge it. And while you're at it, why don't you see if you can pull in some sources that aren't complete and utter crackpots.

-edit-

Oh, and Don, my links were to (in order): National Review, Washington Monthly, Wikipedia, Forbes, and now The Colorado Independent. If one of those sites is hosted by Firedoglake.com, I'm not aware of it.

Now I may be wrong, but wasn't the impetus for your John Yoo=TortureBoy thread the firedoglake.com blog entry that you actually posted at the bottom of it?

And I'm not saying I don't enjoy the Atlantic or the Economist. I do, they're very well reasoned, well thought out positions that they're advocating. But they do come from one side of the playing field.

If you want my honest opinions on the recession, the need for stimulus and my consideration of the merit of the items proposed so far, I'll be happy to offer those. My intent was to say that if you're going to brand something like National Review as a partisan rag full of hacks, then expect it to come full circle. As for National Review flubbing the CBO report citation, which was wrong, where is your outrage when the NYTimes has another Jason Blair episode? Nope, then it's 'honest mistake', and for the record, Jason Blair really did invent his stories, and I still think that his editors went to press knowing it. But when it's National Review cites a report that hasn't been released yet, you start with the dispersions.

It's that old double standard thing, amigo. It really gets under my skin.