<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: LunchMeet: Jimmy Wales on a Transparent Federal Budget</title>
	<link>http://www.podtech.net/home/4045/lunchmeet-jimmy-wales-on-a-transparent-federal-budget</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:14:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Working for families? &#171; Rowan Simpson</title>
		<link>http://www.podtech.net/home/4045/lunchmeet-jimmy-wales-on-a-transparent-federal-budget#comment-373097</link>
		<dc:creator>Working for families? &#171; Rowan Simpson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 21:39:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.podtech.net/home/4045/lunchmeet-jimmy-wales-on-a-transparent-federal-budget#comment-373097</guid>
		<description>[...] Slack&#8217;s post last Thursday reminded me of an idea that Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) put forward a while back for a transparent [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Slack&#8217;s post last Thursday reminded me of an idea that Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) put forward a while back for a transparent [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ames Tiedeman</title>
		<link>http://www.podtech.net/home/4045/lunchmeet-jimmy-wales-on-a-transparent-federal-budget#comment-200327</link>
		<dc:creator>Ames Tiedeman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.podtech.net/home/4045/lunchmeet-jimmy-wales-on-a-transparent-federal-budget#comment-200327</guid>
		<description>Without the tax cuts we would be in surplus. This is a fact. Revenue goes up in the long run, not because of the tax cuts, but because of real GDP growth. If we have to raise taxes by 3 to 5% to get a surplus then it is what we must do. The benefits of a surplus far out weigh the negatives of raising taxes a bit. I am a real conservative. I would not spend a dime more than we take in each year.  Look at what Eisenhower did in 1960. Exactly the same thing!
Also, if we just moved spening to 2003 levels we would be in surplus in 2007. Both political parties spend way too much money. It is also time to means test entitlments. People like Steve Forbs who say we need not do this are fools. Warren Buffett does not need  Social Security. This is just common sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Without the tax cuts we would be in surplus. This is a fact. Revenue goes up in the long run, not because of the tax cuts, but because of real GDP growth. If we have to raise taxes by 3 to 5% to get a surplus then it is what we must do. The benefits of a surplus far out weigh the negatives of raising taxes a bit. I am a real conservative. I would not spend a dime more than we take in each year.  Look at what Eisenhower did in 1960. Exactly the same thing!<br />
Also, if we just moved spening to 2003 levels we would be in surplus in 2007. Both political parties spend way too much money. It is also time to means test entitlments. People like Steve Forbs who say we need not do this are fools. Warren Buffett does not need  Social Security. This is just common sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
