<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Real Deficit Numbers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.leeeldridge.com/the-real-deficit-numbers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.leeeldridge.com/the-real-deficit-numbers/</link>
	<description>A Bit of Commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 01:00:20 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Lee Eldridge</title>
		<link>http://www.leeeldridge.com/the-real-deficit-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-263</link>
		<dc:creator>Lee Eldridge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leeeldridge.com/?p=676#comment-263</guid>
		<description>Hey Bobby, I assume that&#039;s because most of the stimulus money has not been spent yet. I did some quick googling and was unable to find a recent number. One article I found showed that as of last September, only about $84 billion had been spent. Not sure if this is accurate or not, but it&#039;s probably close. That was one of the primary criticisms of the stimulus package when it was passed -- that too little of the money would be infused into the economy in year one. And a lot of it would be spent in year two and later.

I was against the stimulus package because of it&#039;s size and scope. Very little of the bill actually had anything to do with stimulating the economy. Most of it was just more money for government programs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Bobby, I assume that&#8217;s because most of the stimulus money has not been spent yet. I did some quick googling and was unable to find a recent number. One article I found showed that as of last September, only about $84 billion had been spent. Not sure if this is accurate or not, but it&#8217;s probably close. That was one of the primary criticisms of the stimulus package when it was passed &#8212; that too little of the money would be infused into the economy in year one. And a lot of it would be spent in year two and later.</p>
<p>I was against the stimulus package because of it&#8217;s size and scope. Very little of the bill actually had anything to do with stimulating the economy. Most of it was just more money for government programs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bobby</title>
		<link>http://www.leeeldridge.com/the-real-deficit-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-262</link>
		<dc:creator>Bobby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:32:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leeeldridge.com/?p=676#comment-262</guid>
		<description>I thought the stimulus package was close to $800 billion?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought the stimulus package was close to $800 billion?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
