I'll tell you what NOT to say...

You have a continuing habit of mocking and deriding anything associated with FDR and the New Deal era of Federal government, but when someone offers even a HINT that certain aspects of that presidential policy and/or era of American history may have actually be GOOD... it is dismissed with mountains of sarcasm and no substantial facts outside of your "opinion" as a conservative.

Please stop.

Jambo showed three historical examples of cost-effective Federal programs that can be shown to have stimulated the economic improvement of the nation AND provided services to the nation/region each and every years since while making a PROFIT, but no credibility is given to his opinion because it exonerates FDR and his New Deal?

Jambo's underlying point that the Obama administration and the Reid/Pelosi Congress are GOING to get something pushed through which has (seemingly) zero chance of costing less than 3/4 of a trillion dollars, and why not strive to make one or two GOOD things come out of all that waste is also dismissed and/or ignored. Why?

It has already been determined by ALL OF US that the best course of action in the long-term for the US to take is to work for an ability to find, produce, and distribute a plentiful and affordable alternative fuel for our domestic use that would remove the burden on our society of the need (an absolute need) for imported foreign oil... yet the idea that this goal begins to be met NOW is ignored and dismissed, as well. Why?

NO ONE in this forum is in favor of the Stimulus Bill as it stands in ANY form, but any call to spend the money... that is GOING TO BE SPENT anyway... in a responsible or rational manner that might actually benefit the country in the long-term is seen as "liberal tripe". Are you longing for an opportunity to watch the Bill become law and bankrupt the economy simply so you can point your finger at Obama/Reid/Pelosi and say "HA! I was RIGHT!"? What is the rationale here, please?

Why do you insist on referring to Jambo's use of the BLM as an example of the government doing what private industry couldn't (or wouldn't) do as an "empty platitude" made in the hopes of justifying a better future position for the US as a whole? Why is his example any more an "empty platitude" because it looks 10 to 15 years into the future when your continued (and unrefuted, I might add) call for additional drilling of domestic oil sources only looked 3 to 7 years into the future? Hasn't the early efforts of the BLM given us an advantage over other societies by bringing electricity (and subsequently TV, phone, sewer, water, gas and internet) to nearly every corner of this nation? Haven't we all agreed that in some areas, it is NOT in the best interests of the nation to wait for the "private sector" to inovate and expand infrastructure? Or was Ike's highway program wasted money? Hoover Dam? The Golden Gate? The Key's Highway? The Alaskan Pipeline? SDI? The Manhattan Project? Should ALL of these programs and initiatives have been ignored by the Feds in favor of a "laisses faire" reliance on industrial and corporate America to get it done "the right way"?

Prove to me he's WRONG, and I'll applaud you all day long.