Why not fund individuals directly with as little fuss as possible, and capitalize banks/save businesses through their microdecisions, and save state governments through taxes on their increased incomes?

And which individuals does the government then fund directly? Put a different way: Which cadre of insiders gets all the government pork? What then compels the individuals to spend the money? Why give money to large sections of the population, and instead give it to a very small number of people, that just squandered a ton of money on inscrutable financial boondoggles?? Yeah. I'd rather give the money to the masses. Sorry.

Also, the stimulus STILL isn't out here. If speed was the answer to "catastrophe" just deposit a lump sum in our bank accounts. What's up with the months of delay?

Over-simplification to prove a point? Tawdry and lazy. Simply providing cash isn't a way out, it is a way to enable the poor decision makers among us. The aim of the stimulus plan is to get the wheels moving (goods and services), not just fill up the gas tank (liquid assets, money). If the tank is full, but the pump is dry, you need to prime the pump. The government spending money on tangible assets, infrastructure, school improvements, is the kind of pump priming that gets goods moving in the economy right now. We need that spending, South Carolina needs that spending, but Mark Sanford does NOT need that spending. If President Obama's administration succeeds in lifting South Carolina's people up, then Sanford's position is damaged. Ergo, No Obama money for Sanford's state. Translation: "Hey, is that a nose on my face?? I'LL CUT IT OFF, SO HELP ME, I'LL CUT IT OFF!!!!!!11"

Right, I get it. There is a vast difference. When Obama does it and it is reported by the left-wing press, there is nuance, detail, discussion.

When Bush did it, it was merely outrageous. I get it.

Much like the world, shades of gray prevent you from making connections, it seems. Bush breathes, Obama breathes and one is bad? Nope, because human beings need to breathe. Bush makes a signing statement, and Obama makes a signing statement. And you are complaining that President Obama's statements aren't rejected, just because they're signing statements? Unfortunately, closer review of the facts before us seems to point to people reading what the signing statement says, and then judging it. Remarkable, that concept, judging something on its merits instead of leaping to conclusions. How's that jump?

Bush signing statements = bad.

Obama signing statements = good.

You used to write for JibJab, is that it? Your oversimplification of the situation lends you no credibility.

Earmarks in the Republican Congress = bad.

8,700 earmarks in the Obama stimulus bill = good.

Which presidential candidate ran on the platform of no new earmarks? And, please explain how those earmarks in the stimulus bill are inherently bad or good. It seems, through your WONDERful use of oversimplification, that no matter what the earmark is, you personally see them as bad... otherwise you'd have no reason to project this point.

Drone-supported missile strikes during the Bush years = war crimes.

Drone-supported missile strikes during the Obama years = yawn.

How's life in left field? I think you threw this one in from there... and you forgot to blame Clinton. Don't forget Clinton's missile strikes.

"Abuse and mistreatment" at Guantanamo Bay during Bush = Bush's shame.

"Abuse and mistreatment" at Guantanamo Bay during Obama = Bush's shame.

Here, I will agree with you. Yes, President Bush's administration is and was responsible for the abuses that occurred at Guantanamo Bay abuses. President Obama had no say in its creation, including the original authorization for the treatment that occurred there. President Obama has taken responsibility for it, and will shut it down. Complaining that he hasn't done it quicker is petty. Closing any prison operation shouldn't be rushed, and it isn't like this economy has demanded his attention or anything.

Private corporate jet use by executives asking for stimulus money for their companies = bad.

U.S. Military Gulfstream G5's used to ferry Nancy Pelosi = non-story.

And this last little throw-away... Nancy Pelosi. Was this some sort of Republican talking-point bingo card that you had to fill? Nancy Pelosi? In an article about Obama. I realize that you had to stretch to find examples of Democratic Party hypocrisy, but this is thin stuff. For Salon's resident troll, I expected a lot more.

Obama fatigue, indeed. I wonder when "faux-right-wing-outrage" fatigue or "really-Really-sore-elections-losers" fatigue will set in.