<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blunting Obama&#8217;s tax cuts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/10/blunting-obamas-tax-cuts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/10/blunting-obamas-tax-cuts/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 08:24:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benny Acosta</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/10/blunting-obamas-tax-cuts/comment-page-1/#comment-16482</link>
		<dc:creator>Benny Acosta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:43:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3932#comment-16482</guid>
		<description>The government should have continued with residential stimulus instead of giving money to the banks. Businesses are the markets to make money. If they can&#039;t sustain their operations then they shouldn&#039;t be in business.

But instead of returning the tax money back to the consumer. Government bails business out and leaves the American family to fend for itself. Broke banks want you to pay them. Government wants you to pay them by taking your tax money.

If the consumer had been bailed out, mortgage payments would have been caught up with. Money would have been put back in savings. And banks would have had a much healthier consumer based to which to lend. But business searching for government welfare asked for and received money that should have gone to public social safety nets so that those at the top wouldn&#039;t have to take any money from their own private reserves to fix their businesses.

The government needs to do it&#039;s real job and invest in the American family. Bail them out. No bank is too big to fail. But even one family is too important to fail.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The government should have continued with residential stimulus instead of giving money to the banks. Businesses are the markets to make money. If they can&#8217;t sustain their operations then they shouldn&#8217;t be in business.</p>
<p>But instead of returning the tax money back to the consumer. Government bails business out and leaves the American family to fend for itself. Broke banks want you to pay them. Government wants you to pay them by taking your tax money.</p>
<p>If the consumer had been bailed out, mortgage payments would have been caught up with. Money would have been put back in savings. And banks would have had a much healthier consumer based to which to lend. But business searching for government welfare asked for and received money that should have gone to public social safety nets so that those at the top wouldn&#8217;t have to take any money from their own private reserves to fix their businesses.</p>
<p>The government needs to do it&#8217;s real job and invest in the American family. Bail them out. No bank is too big to fail. But even one family is too important to fail.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Drewbie</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/10/blunting-obamas-tax-cuts/comment-page-1/#comment-16396</link>
		<dc:creator>Drewbie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:09:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3932#comment-16396</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve seen before that Americans are paying down debt instead of spending on new things.  Doesn&#039;t that have the effect of raising capital for banks (and other creditors), which should loosen up the credit market, which is what this crisis is mostly about?  Another large lump check seems like it would help out the economy more in the long run, instead of this plan, which doesn&#039;t seem to help the economy ever.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve seen before that Americans are paying down debt instead of spending on new things.  Doesn&#8217;t that have the effect of raising capital for banks (and other creditors), which should loosen up the credit market, which is what this crisis is mostly about?  Another large lump check seems like it would help out the economy more in the long run, instead of this plan, which doesn&#8217;t seem to help the economy ever.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Coal</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/10/blunting-obamas-tax-cuts/comment-page-1/#comment-16380</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Coal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3932#comment-16380</guid>
		<description>I would just like to thank President Obama for a stimulus that allowed my family to go out for hamburgers in April and May. I don’t think anybody really noticed a difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would just like to thank President Obama for a stimulus that allowed my family to go out for hamburgers in April and May. I don’t think anybody really noticed a difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
