Why not Rush's plan?

Here it is: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html

Why not this plan?

Don't focus on who it is. Forget that it is Rush. For once in the life of the political forum, let's focus on substance.

What is substantively wrong with this plan?

Moderators, please delete any posts that focus on Rush as a person. He is not the topic here.

 

Perhaps you missed it, MP (or just ignored it), but the thread is not about Rush. It is about the plan. I realize he is a private citizen (remember Obama said he wanted to hear from them). I specifically asked that this focus on the plan.

So forget where the plan comes from. It is irrelevant for this discussion.

Why not the plan? What is wrong or right with the actual ideas?

 

I thought about not mentioning who it was, but the link made it clear, and someone would probably accuse me of something underhanded. Besides, it is pretty well known where the plan comes from I think.

Hopefully we are mature enough to focus on the issues and not the personality.

 

Let's stop playing stupid games. You were not making a valid point about the plan. Your point was about process. Again, that's not a particularly fine distinction, and I rather imagine that you know that very well, but couldnd't pass up the chance to say something about Rush. So get over it, and get on topic, or don't post.

Pretend it is Obama's plan, or McConnell, or Pelosi, or anyone you choose.

What is wrong with the plan?

 

I don't either. But that's not the topic, as you can tell by reading.

Your contributions have certainly made it so. You are making the issue about process. The issue is about the plan itself. If Congress passed this plan, what would be wrong with it?

Rush isn't the topic.

I am not on one. I am trying to foster and intelligent conversation and you are thwarting that with your contributions.

No you didn't. You said, "neither has the right to spend money." That is a process issue (who can spend it), not a plan issue (how should it be spent). Again, that distinction is not all that fine, so it doesn't take a great amount of thought to understand it. You should be able to get it.

Let's explore this a bit: You said, I falsely accused you of saying something derogatory about Rush. Where did I say you said something derogatory or made an attack against Rush? Please quote it for me. If you can't find it, apologize. Either will be fine with me.

Second, you call Rush my radio god and my hero. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have listened to Rush more in the last week than in the last ten years, and that equals about two hours. I don't even like Rush. As I have often said, if I am listening to the radio from noon to three (which is rarely), I am listening to Jim Rome. That is well known here at the BB, so you are simply not telling the truth.

So you have some matters here to clear up.

1) You need to find where I said you attacked Rush or said something derogatory about him, or you need to apologize for making false accusations and saying things about fellows posters that aren't true.

2) You need to apologize for saying that Rush is my radio god or my hero. Neither is true, and you know it.

 

That's not the topic here.

 

Of course not, but that's not the issue. You, like MP, are talking about process for some reason. No single individual, including Obama, has the right. But this is a different subject.

Why not talk about the plan?