11:52 am, May 26, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 10
       

  • Step 2
    MichaelF
    OK. It's a first step. Not a big step, but it is a step. So what's next? Independent economists and the Congressional Budget Office have told us what to do: 1. MODERATE spending cuts. 2. SELECTIVE tax increases. 3. Seriously control entitlement spending. So what's the holdup, Congress? Get moving, Mr. President!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Ah yes, yet another trumpeted program to cut waste
    Jeremiah
    Better late than never, the President has apparently concluded that maybe the November 2010 elections said something about public angst over the wasteful ways of the inside the beltway crowd. It's ludicrous, however, to put the VP, a prime porker in his own Senate days, supposedly in charge of this effort. That pretty much tells the story of just how unserious this new initiative really is. More window dressing for the run-up to the 2012 election. It'll generate a few feel-good headlines, and will be shunted off to the side quietly once milked of all its positive spin.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Pick on the little people?
    30YrFed
    It is interesting that the article point to the Forest Service Folk Band as wasteful spending but they do not point to the Navy's Blue Angels or the Army's Golden Knights. All three serve a similar function of getting a message to the public. Should we compare the cost of these three activities and see where the greatest savings can be found? Should not all activities of the same nature be subject to the cuts not just the little people? I think they all provide a useful function and there should be a realistic cost benefit analysis not just a political sound bite analysis as the basis for the cuts.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Reality
    redduke
    Step 2 will get us nowhere. At tax rates at a 30 year average of 18%, the entire tax revenue will be used for entitlement bill by the year 2049. In case no one is looking each household now owes $525,000 in debt. The Government is broke now. And pick on little people; "realistic" cuts must include an adult conversation about cutting huge areas of wasteful spending such as the entire Department of Education, an unconstitutional Federal intrusion into the States' rights. These "feel-good" "political advertisements" and "weapons of mass confusion" must stop.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Web Sites *Savings*!
    G Street
    Glad to see they've solved that pesky debt limit crisis problem and can concentrate on this instead! (Somehow, one thinks they have no idea what little cost is involved in hosting a website…)
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • WASTE STOPPAGE
    BeanerECMO
    How about - what does government provide as a product beyond those in security & defense? What effort does government do to produce 1 drop of oil revenue or 1 loaf of bread? Oh, they manage. Yes, much like MMS, USAID, DOEd, DOEn, DOC, NEA, NLRB, HUD, EPA (using faux science to manufacture regulations), OPM, FDA (yes, I know they are blasted if they do release/recall and blasted if they don't) et al. DEFUND THEM ALL!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }