<?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: Obama Caves in Debt Ceiling Negotiations</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rightpundits.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=8978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8978</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 03:15:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Micky</title>
		<link>http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8978&#038;cpage=1#comment-828024</link>
		<dc:creator>Micky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:49:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8978#comment-828024</guid>
		<description>@ Weekly Standard;

&quot;Heres the breakdown as opposed to that ridiculous most disingenuous rant you deposited


&quot;How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House&#039;s Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in &quot;stimulus&quot; money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.&quot;

&quot;To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush&#039;s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama&#039;s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Weekly Standard;</p>
<p>&#8220;Heres the breakdown as opposed to that ridiculous most disingenuous rant you deposited</p>
<p>&#8220;How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House&#8217;s Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in &#8220;stimulus&#8221; money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush&#8217;s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama&#8217;s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Micky</title>
		<link>http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8978&#038;cpage=1#comment-828023</link>
		<dc:creator>Micky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:47:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8978#comment-828023</guid>
		<description>Still Snow

at present levels its not the time to raise the ceiling.
Carter, Cilnton,all democrat presidents have also raised the ceiling.
No matter what you think of their administrations the economy could handle such inflation at the time.
The way Barry has things set up his administration is the last one that should be approved for any loan in any fashion seeing as how hes pi$$ed away trillions with not a damn thing to show for it.

@ Investors insight dot com.

&quot;&quot;It took the United States of America 233 years (1776-2009) to amass a national debt of $11 trillion. Yet President Barack Obama&#039;s record large 2009 budget deficit estimated at $1.85 trillion and his own spending plans for the next 10 years (2010-2019) show that our national debt will likely double over the next 10 years.
Using the Obama administration&#039;s own projections, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that, including the record 2009 budget deficit of $1.85 trillion, and huge annual deficits over 2009-2019 will result in an additional $11.1 trillion in national debt, on top of the current $11.4 trillion. As I will discuss below, the national debt will very likely more than double in the next decade because some of the CBO&#039;s economic assumptions may be too optimistic.As noted above, the CBO also recently revised its estimate for the budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 to at least $1.85 trillion. But unless the economy rebounds soon, that number will very likely top $2 trillion by the end of September when FY2009 comes to an end. According to the CBO, Obama plans to run a FY2010 deficit of apprx $1.4 trillion and almost $1 trillion in FY2011.Keep in mind that these deficits do not include even half of the massive costs for Obama&#039;s health insurance plan, which some experts now project will cost between $1.5 and $2 trillion over the next 10 years.&quot;

Good enough ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Still Snow</p>
<p>at present levels its not the time to raise the ceiling.<br />
Carter, Cilnton,all democrat presidents have also raised the ceiling.<br />
No matter what you think of their administrations the economy could handle such inflation at the time.<br />
The way Barry has things set up his administration is the last one that should be approved for any loan in any fashion seeing as how hes pi$$ed away trillions with not a damn thing to show for it.</p>
<p>@ Investors insight dot com.</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8221;It took the United States of America 233 years (1776-2009) to amass a national debt of $11 trillion. Yet President Barack Obama&#8217;s record large 2009 budget deficit estimated at $1.85 trillion and his own spending plans for the next 10 years (2010-2019) show that our national debt will likely double over the next 10 years.<br />
Using the Obama administration&#8217;s own projections, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that, including the record 2009 budget deficit of $1.85 trillion, and huge annual deficits over 2009-2019 will result in an additional $11.1 trillion in national debt, on top of the current $11.4 trillion. As I will discuss below, the national debt will very likely more than double in the next decade because some of the CBO&#8217;s economic assumptions may be too optimistic.As noted above, the CBO also recently revised its estimate for the budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 to at least $1.85 trillion. But unless the economy rebounds soon, that number will very likely top $2 trillion by the end of September when FY2009 comes to an end. According to the CBO, Obama plans to run a FY2010 deficit of apprx $1.4 trillion and almost $1 trillion in FY2011.Keep in mind that these deficits do not include even half of the massive costs for Obama&#8217;s health insurance plan, which some experts now project will cost between $1.5 and $2 trillion over the next 10 years.&#8221;</p>
<p>Good enough ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Snow Crash</title>
		<link>http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8978&#038;cpage=1#comment-828015</link>
		<dc:creator>Snow Crash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:29:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8978#comment-828015</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;The Media made hay out of how Reagan raised the debt ceiling 17 times, but most of those increases were in the $50-100 billion dollar range.&lt;/i&gt;

Here, try this math -

Multiply $50-100 billion times 17. What do you get? Keep in mind he was president from 1967 to 1975, and account for inflation. Let&#039;s go on the low-end and say all debt ceiling raises were only $50 billion, and let&#039;s account for inflation only from the last year of his presidency. 

$850 billion in 1975 would be over 3.4 TRILLION in 2010.

Just a fun fact -
Entitlements contribute about 10%, Domestic discretionary programs about 7%, Tax cuts, well that&#039;s a whopping &lt;b&gt;48%&lt;/b&gt;, the rest is defense.

If you have a hint of intelligence then you might realize that you&#039;re not going to touch our debt by cutting entitlements alone. Look where the money is at!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>The Media made hay out of how Reagan raised the debt ceiling 17 times, but most of those increases were in the $50-100 billion dollar range.</i></p>
<p>Here, try this math -</p>
<p>Multiply $50-100 billion times 17. What do you get? Keep in mind he was president from 1967 to 1975, and account for inflation. Let&#8217;s go on the low-end and say all debt ceiling raises were only $50 billion, and let&#8217;s account for inflation only from the last year of his presidency. </p>
<p>$850 billion in 1975 would be over 3.4 TRILLION in 2010.</p>
<p>Just a fun fact -<br />
Entitlements contribute about 10%, Domestic discretionary programs about 7%, Tax cuts, well that&#8217;s a whopping <b>48%</b>, the rest is defense.</p>
<p>If you have a hint of intelligence then you might realize that you&#8217;re not going to touch our debt by cutting entitlements alone. Look where the money is at!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Z</title>
		<link>http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8978&#038;cpage=1#comment-827980</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Z</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:43:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8978#comment-827980</guid>
		<description>On the other hand, comparisons of Obama with Reagan are unfounded.  

When you look at the history of the federal budget, nearly every single increase in the debt ceiling up until last year&#039;s blank check of $1.9 Trillion by Democrats in February were basically to fund a particular program or a single annual budget.  

The Media made hay out of how Reagan raised the debt ceiling 17 times, but most of those increases were in the $50-100 billion dollar range.  Keep in mind, too, that not one of Reagan&#039;s budgets were ever passed in Congress.  Tip O&#039;Neil never lived up to any of his promises for spending cuts.

Likewise, consider GW Bush&#039;s last debt ceiling increase of $700 Billion was specifically meant to cover TARP.  Obama&#039;s first d/c increase was to fund the stimulus bill, the second one was needed in December because the gov&#039;t was short about $230B due to additional bailouts for Freddie and Fannie. 

What makes this one, along with Obama&#039;s 3rd debt limit increase unprecedented are that both are A) massive, $1.9T and now $2.5T, and B) both are not specific as to what they will actually fund.

As I have been saying all along, if you think all of the wrangling is over now, think again.  We still have the 2012 fiscal budget due Oct. 1st.  Look for plenty of drama.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the other hand, comparisons of Obama with Reagan are unfounded.  </p>
<p>When you look at the history of the federal budget, nearly every single increase in the debt ceiling up until last year&#8217;s blank check of $1.9 Trillion by Democrats in February were basically to fund a particular program or a single annual budget.  </p>
<p>The Media made hay out of how Reagan raised the debt ceiling 17 times, but most of those increases were in the $50-100 billion dollar range.  Keep in mind, too, that not one of Reagan&#8217;s budgets were ever passed in Congress.  Tip O&#8217;Neil never lived up to any of his promises for spending cuts.</p>
<p>Likewise, consider GW Bush&#8217;s last debt ceiling increase of $700 Billion was specifically meant to cover TARP.  Obama&#8217;s first d/c increase was to fund the stimulus bill, the second one was needed in December because the gov&#8217;t was short about $230B due to additional bailouts for Freddie and Fannie. </p>
<p>What makes this one, along with Obama&#8217;s 3rd debt limit increase unprecedented are that both are A) massive, $1.9T and now $2.5T, and B) both are not specific as to what they will actually fund.</p>
<p>As I have been saying all along, if you think all of the wrangling is over now, think again.  We still have the 2012 fiscal budget due Oct. 1st.  Look for plenty of drama.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Z</title>
		<link>http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8978&#038;cpage=1#comment-827979</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Z</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:29:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8978#comment-827979</guid>
		<description>Yes, L.Rivera,

I just KNEW that &#039;Me&#039; would have to crawl out of the woodwork and lament the shame of Obama.  I somewhat agree with &#039;Me&#039; that there is very little difference between Obama and Nixon.  After all, Nixon was part of the Establishment-Rockefeller wing of the GOP.  Heck, he worked for Rocky as a lawyer.  &#039;Me&#039; left out Nixon giving birth to &#039;Trilateralism&#039;, and severing the last connections our currency had with gold.  Not to mention wage and price controls.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, L.Rivera,</p>
<p>I just KNEW that &#8216;Me&#8217; would have to crawl out of the woodwork and lament the shame of Obama.  I somewhat agree with &#8216;Me&#8217; that there is very little difference between Obama and Nixon.  After all, Nixon was part of the Establishment-Rockefeller wing of the GOP.  Heck, he worked for Rocky as a lawyer.  &#8216;Me&#8217; left out Nixon giving birth to &#8216;Trilateralism&#8217;, and severing the last connections our currency had with gold.  Not to mention wage and price controls.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Micky</title>
		<link>http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8978&#038;cpage=1#comment-827974</link>
		<dc:creator>Micky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:56:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8978#comment-827974</guid>
		<description>&quot;How about that pinko who created the EPA and signed the clear air act, reestablished diplomatic relations with communist china, started earth day, created OSHA for workplace safety, cut spending by 1/3 on defense, proclaimed himself an Keynesian, expanded welfare and food stamps, and supported the ERA?

Most of that has been vilified by the GOP, but the liberal president who did it all was Richard Milhous Nixon.

Yeah, nice try.
The EPA had totally different implications in those days without 1/10th the reach it has today.
It did well, its outlived its purpose, its become an offshoot beech to gerbil warming which was non existent in Nixons days.
He established relations with China, so fckin what ?
Israel hates this guy more than any US president ever.
Using Nixon in one breath and Reagan in the next to make the same point makes you look pretty clueless

Right of center.
Give me a fckin break</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;How about that pinko who created the EPA and signed the clear air act, reestablished diplomatic relations with communist china, started earth day, created OSHA for workplace safety, cut spending by 1/3 on defense, proclaimed himself an Keynesian, expanded welfare and food stamps, and supported the ERA?</p>
<p>Most of that has been vilified by the GOP, but the liberal president who did it all was Richard Milhous Nixon.</p>
<p>Yeah, nice try.<br />
The EPA had totally different implications in those days without 1/10th the reach it has today.<br />
It did well, its outlived its purpose, its become an offshoot beech to gerbil warming which was non existent in Nixons days.<br />
He established relations with China, so fckin what ?<br />
Israel hates this guy more than any US president ever.<br />
Using Nixon in one breath and Reagan in the next to make the same point makes you look pretty clueless</p>
<p>Right of center.<br />
Give me a fckin break</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
