<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Just to Get it Out There</title>
	<link>http://enableate.com/steve/2009/1390</link>
	<description>make it happen</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:52:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Jamie</title>
		<link>http://enableate.com/steve/2009/1390#comment-19819</link>
		<author>Jamie</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 02:48:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://enableate.com/steve/2009/1390#comment-19819</guid>
		<description>Agree with Michael...  While there was some ambivalence around these parts about GW's bailing out the banks, there was not any "going on record" against such measures.  

Let's be fair here....  We need Americans to have jobs.  Working class jobs is the best place to start given that there will always be a need for better roads, better bridges, and better schools. 

If done correctly (and I understand folks are skeptical about the gov doing it correctly) we can put people back to work and make those that already work have a better life via more efficient transportation, public goods, etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree with Michael&#8230;  While there was some ambivalence around these parts about GW&#8217;s bailing out the banks, there was not any &#8220;going on record&#8221; against such measures.  </p>
<p>Let&#8217;s be fair here&#8230;.  We need Americans to have jobs.  Working class jobs is the best place to start given that there will always be a need for better roads, better bridges, and better schools. </p>
<p>If done correctly (and I understand folks are skeptical about the gov doing it correctly) we can put people back to work and make those that already work have a better life via more efficient transportation, public goods, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://enableate.com/steve/2009/1390#comment-19818</link>
		<author>Michael</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:06:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://enableate.com/steve/2009/1390#comment-19818</guid>
		<description>Yes, spending on tax cuts, infrastructure, and schools is definitely stupider than giving 150 billion dollars to AIG, 45 billion to Bank of America, 45 billion to Citibank, etc.

What was I thinking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, spending on tax cuts, infrastructure, and schools is definitely stupider than giving 150 billion dollars to AIG, 45 billion to Bank of America, 45 billion to Citibank, etc.</p>
<p>What was I thinking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: boose</title>
		<link>http://enableate.com/steve/2009/1390#comment-19814</link>
		<author>boose</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:35:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://enableate.com/steve/2009/1390#comment-19814</guid>
		<description>the government is spending more money?  It's bound to be largely stupid.  The fact that it's larger makes it almost definitely stupider.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the government is spending more money?  It&#8217;s bound to be largely stupid.  The fact that it&#8217;s larger makes it almost definitely stupider.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://enableate.com/steve/2009/1390#comment-19811</link>
		<author>Michael</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:53:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://enableate.com/steve/2009/1390#comment-19811</guid>
		<description>I suggest you do your homework (google search?) before making blatantly biased posts:

"Obama's stimulus plan nods toward Republican ideology by devoting about 275 billion dollars to tax cuts, including a credit of 500 dollars for each working family.

But the lion's share of the package under debate in the House goes to infrastructure spending, including over 60 billion dollars to roll out new power grids and make federal buildings energy efficient.

Forty-one billion would go on modernizing US schools, 30 billion on highways construction and six billion to expand rural access to broadband Internet."

This is somewhat different than Bush's plan of giving hundreds of billions of dollars to failing banks with few to no strings attached.

Certainly Obama's plan has its faults, with 43 billion in unemployment benefits and 87 billion for health insurance for the poor, but to say that Bush's bailout was more justifiable is just plain wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suggest you do your homework (google search?) before making blatantly biased posts:</p>
<p>&#8220;Obama&#8217;s stimulus plan nods toward Republican ideology by devoting about 275 billion dollars to tax cuts, including a credit of 500 dollars for each working family.</p>
<p>But the lion&#8217;s share of the package under debate in the House goes to infrastructure spending, including over 60 billion dollars to roll out new power grids and make federal buildings energy efficient.</p>
<p>Forty-one billion would go on modernizing US schools, 30 billion on highways construction and six billion to expand rural access to broadband Internet.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is somewhat different than Bush&#8217;s plan of giving hundreds of billions of dollars to failing banks with few to no strings attached.</p>
<p>Certainly Obama&#8217;s plan has its faults, with 43 billion in unemployment benefits and 87 billion for health insurance for the poor, but to say that Bush&#8217;s bailout was more justifiable is just plain wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

