6:03 am, May 25, 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.

  • 6
       

  • Of course there
    BeanerECMO
    is ignorance on the part of the administration; oh, I meant they ignore facts. If they don't want to count something that has a significant negative impact on their storyline; it's not going to be addressed. It's just like the unemployment numbers - the unemployment rate is not that high because there are fewer jobs and/or there are fewer people receiving unemployment benefits, etc., etc., etc. It's of no consequence that those no longer receiving unemployment benefits are working or not. And, it doesn't matter which administration it is - figures don't lie, but liars figure.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • You are right in these comments
    Moderate
    This inflation measurement was brought up years ago under, I believe, Reagan. It was garbage then and is garbage now. Maybe they should measure inflation based on the expenses of retirees. Medical would be a heavyweight there. Oh well, wishful thinking.------------It sounds like we agree on the unemployment issue as well. It is much higher than the stated rate if you include the discouraged ones and the underemployed. I agree with you regarding cited stats except that figures do not reflect the truth. They can and are manipulated by conservatives and liberals.---------- I wish you would leave out the last sentence. You took the liberal position in your comments. Have you become a liberal? Uh oh, I think I insulted you. (Just teasing)
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Why not? Do Retirees vote?
    Looking4Answers
    Why not take a stick and poke the retirees and older members of our society in the eye and see if they will remember when election time rolls around? They are reliability the most consistent block of voters that show up each and every year at the polls. Let's see how angry Congress can make them. Congress has got the Robin Hood story backwards...it's take from the rich and give to the poor, NOT the other way around and this bunch seem to feel they need not worry about the impact. If someone mutters 'Let them eat cake', head for the hills.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • failure to go into details, again
    pensioner
    It is said that a change in the way COLAs are caluculated might cost beneficiaries $1K per year. Perhaps it will, but how about the details so we can see for ourselves the assumptions on which that statement is made? The link provided goes to an unrelated story. So once again, the reporting of these matters of such great interest to retirees is inadequate.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • and more rants
    pensioner
    It would be nice to read comments that weren't uninformed rants expressing anger that benefits, in particular COLAs, might be reduced. The money has to come from somewhere, the only question being from where/whom it will come. Indexing of benefits is one of the things that has made defined benefit plans increasingly expensive for the government, which is to say the public at large, to support. If there is to be a less "generous" way of calculating COLAs for civil service, military and Social Security retirees, it is harder to make the case that that is unfair than it is to make the case that more "selective" changes in benefits are unfair. But the ranters just rant about these things.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Chaqnge in computing COLA
    Moderate
    This is in response to pensioner. if he truly is a government pensioner, he will be affected. If not, well...--------------No one can really tell you how much you will be affected because no one knows what the future numbers will bring. What the statisticians can do is compute what the COLAs were in the past and then recompute the COLAs using the new formula. Since the government says that the new formula will provide a savings to the government, that means the money will come out of the retirees pockets.------------An example what what they want to do is to consider that if the price of an item goes up more than its alternative, more people will switch to the alternative. An example is that if the price of beef goes up 50% and the price of chicken goes up 5%, more people will eat chicken and less beef. The government will then reduce the weight of beef in computing CPI and increase the weight of chicken.-------------This may sound fair to you, but the government does not consider the effect of the increase in medical costs for the elderly (retirees). Retirees have more medical costs than the average citizen, but it is weighted based on the population as a whole. If the government wants it one way, it should give it the other way. This is not likely.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }