10:10 pm, April 18, 2014

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.

  • 31
       

  • Martial Law
    deployed decoy
    New hires after 2012 would immediately pay the higher 5.8% FERS retirement under the House proposal. This entire proposal to reverse/replace the mandatory cuts that otherwise go in to effect 1 Jan 2013. Shaves under $400B off the budget, about $85B from Feds pockets. It does not come close to the $800B defense alone would be required to absorb next year. CNN has a story today on 1 percenters in Congress. Republicans have the upper hand at 35 of them. Dems have a lowly 21. The richest member of congress with a net worth of $448M and leading the charge to screw federal employees, Issa. Elsewhere in the news (CNN) The US Treasury IG is reporting an estimated meager $26B will be lost to FRAUD in the next 5 years because of IRS under staffing. The IG further stated, To make matters worse, the IRS is not effectively helping the victims of identity theft, adding that it can take more than a year to resolve these cases... Now I think I understand why both parties blame each other and nothing gets done. Think about those angry filthy rich folks on both sides of the problem in both the House and the Senate that stand to lose out if they actually do anything to reduce the debt and pay their taxes. What those fools do in the 2 months after they all get fired in November, is what scares me. My powder is dry, the 9X scope zeroed for a 300 meter target on the 30.06, and the 12 Ga ready for close order combat as the peasants revolt and there is no money to fund the Martial Law military crackdown.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Reply to Martial law
    Budgetweenie
    I believe there is an error in your comment. I assure you, the military's budget for 2013 isn't anywhere close to $800B. But to erroneously claim that they would have to absorb 800B in cuts next year is quite false. Certainly the militant position you have established against all things contradictory to your views is a representation of how we have arrived at the national level. Personally, I find it extremely difficult to sustain a war-time funding level ad infinitum without increases to taxes or other revenue increases. Yet, if there are no increases to revenue and only deductions from existing programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Education, health care, transportation/infrastructure and Social Security, I can't help but wonder if there would be anything worth fighting and dying for.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Promises not kept
    contrarian
    Bringing the troops home was one of them.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Type O
    deployed decoy
    Yep, sorry. It is only $600B from Defense with another $600B from the rest of the Govt due to hit 1 Jan 2013. Some of that spread out over 10 years. Remember this $1.2T repayment plan last year over a number of years was to give the US to go in debt another $3T. The debt is around $15.6T now. As I remember during the last small problem the debt was only $11T. For the USA to impose the same per capita austerity cuts as Geese currently just fired their Govt over. The USA Defense Dept and entire Social Security agency would need to drop to ZERO immediately. Read this story on govexec for more details. http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/05/feds-would-pay-more-pensions-under-house-bill/55622/?oref=river
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Also read
    deployed decoy
    Federal News Radio, House spares Pentagon, homeland security from cuts. Democrats spoke glowingly of a $72 billion veterans and military construction measure approved by an Appropriations subpanel by voice vote and also backed a $600 billion-plus measure funding the Pentagon and military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq... the militant position established is congress. Remember these guys are really worried the direction of the muzzel flash from the military when the peasants storm DC. Who would expect the people protecting congress from the masses anything but BEEF.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Most want less gov't spending until....
    Rob
    If you look at the various polls most Americans think the gov't spends too much and should work towards a balanced budget. These same Americans go bonkers when proposed cuts hurt them individually. Just look at how upset federal employees get when there's talk about raising retirement contributions. Everyone agrees with Obama that WE MUST PAY OUR FAIR SHARE. I guess WE means those evil rich folks. France will learn the hard way. Raising taxes on the wealthy to 75% will actually reduce revenue not increase it. The way to increase revenue is to spur economic growth. Raising taxes on ANYONE, especially during rough economic times, will REDUCE revenue because that sort of policy stifles economic growth. HELLO.....WAKE UP FOLKS!!!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • You are Right
    Linda
    Rob, you are right that most Americans want to cut spending until it effects them. The problem is Congress seems to think it can balance the budget on the back of only Federal Employees. I would have no issue paying more into my retirement, if Social Security Taxes went back up to prior levels plus 1%, all refundable credits in the federal tax system are eliminated (except taxes paid in through withholding) - this take out tons of fraud sources, the retirement ages are increased for those under age 30 and then indexed to life expectancy, and we get out of Afghanistan. That is just a start. Combine federal agencies that duplicate each other (lots of those), but more time consuming. If all else fails I have no problem with the Bush Tax Cuts Expiring at the ending. And believe me, as a DINK that will hurt. The only reasonable change that was made with the cuts was the reduction of the marriage penalty. When more than 40% of the county pays no taxes, not even Social Security and Medicare (after refundable credits), it is crazy! Everyone, needs to pay a little something if they work. And I also would approve a work fare programs. If people (other than the totally disabled) had to go out and pick up litter from the side of the road 2 - 3 days a weeks, or what ever simple labor project can be found, I would bet 50% would get off Welfare. I wouldn't excuse women with children either. Because some of the women could work in the day care to tak care of the kids while the mothers are picking up litter. And.......it creates jobs! Because the government could hire sub-contractor to suppervise the welfare recipients. I don't mind helping people while they are down, but I do opject to paying for them to not work most of their lives and living off my dime. When people on welfare have cars, cell phones, and need their medicaid prescriptions mailed to them while they are on vacation (from what?), then they are getting too much!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Truth or Consequences
    Moderate
    You make some good and bad points. The refundable EUTC helps the working poor make ends meet. I will agree that no exemption deduction should be refundable. Elaborate on the retirement age issue. Are you writing about social security or federal pensions? Are you going to adjust the age each year for all working people starting now at age 30 or what? And how would you implement this? look at the IRS computers and the difficulties they have? Multiply that by 10 on the difficulty scale to implement that plan. And look at the cost to do so. You conservatives keep on citing the 40% or 50%. How many of them are retired people on social security? How many of them are below 18 or are in college? How many are victims of the Bush Depression? Get a true number.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To Moderate
    Linda
    I have haerd from too many people that they have to have their IRS refund (from the EITC) so they can go on vacation, buy a TV, etc. People on Welfare will pay for furtility drugs so they can keep having children under school age to stay on welfare. Is it all of the people on Welfare.....no, it's not, but it is a large number. I am talking about changing the age to get Social Security. Federal Pension would be separate. But, if you want a reasonable retirement, you work to at least 62 on federal pension anymore anyway. I have no objection to changing the retirement age from 55 to a higher age for new hires. As far as Social Security, you may have to make that change for people who are 30, 25 or 18, which ever is reasonable. The life expectantcy is already tracked. Adjust every 5 or 10 years, probably 10 to keep it easier for Social Security. It is easier to let people retire earlier than later......................I have been reading a book called Chasing Life by Sanje Gupta that is talking about within the next 10 - 25 years people may be able to live to 100 on a regular basis. As I was reading this, I just saw $$$$$$$$$$ going out of Social Security. When Social Security was formed, the life expectantcy was 58, you got Social Security at 60. Now you get Social Security at 62 and Life expectantcy is 78. No wonder there isn't enough money. Think of the cost is life expectantcy is 120?..........By the way, I am insulted you call me a Conservative. I am fically conservative and social (morally) libral. I am a true independent because I don't agree with either side. But, please don't insult me by calling me a Conserative.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To Linda
    Moderate
    My apologies for calling you conservative. You are more moderate. Please accept. However, your citation of 40%, (some say 50%) while it may be true, is grossly misleading for the reasons I have given. That is a radical right comment because they say that without giving all of the information as per above questions.---I can understand your point about new hires for the pension. But do not change the rules for current workers.----As far as social security is concerned, changing the retirement age in the middle of a career is not good because the worker cannot plan when he (she) will retire. If you want to adjust the age, adjust it for new workers(at age 18, 21, or whatever) Workers should not be forced to keep on adjusting their retirement age. I will comment about welfare
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To Linda part 2
    Moderate
    I am sure you have seen some misuse of welfare funds. I will pose this question to you. Could you live comfortably on what welfare plus the benefits pay out. I am very frugal with my money, but I know I could not do so. Have you seen this misuse of funds over a long period of time by thousands of people? However, I do agree that workfare is a good idea.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Truth or Consequences part 2
    Moderate
    I agree with the workfare, but would make it a 5 day week 40 hours. Sounds familiar? However, true training should count towards the 40 hours. So should hunting for a job. Good points.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "The way to increase revenue is to spur economic growth"?
    FERS Fed
    How much economic growth would it take to cover $1 trillion in annual deficits, or $15 trillion in accumulated debt? Is there that much economic growth in the entire global economy, or is this just more right-wing Republican crapola that has NEVER worked?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • You're a riot
    Rob
    The only way out of our soon to be $20 trillion hole is through economic growth. The liberals in this country and all around Europe seem to think raising taxes on the evil rich is the answer. The socialist in France who vowed to raise taxes on the wealthy to 75% has sentenced his country to certain economic disaster. The question we face in November is do we want to press "forward" towards the European model or not.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Name-calling, non-answer duly noted
    FERS Fed
    Just more Republican voodoo economics chants, just like 'privatize gains, socialize losses'. Anyone with a lick of sense -- liberal or conservative -- can see that the only way out of the debt predicament is economic growth AND increased taxes AND budget cuts affecting ALL Americans,not just federal employees.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Name Calling? Non-Answer? Can You Read?
    Rob
    Go back and read my posts. What name calling are you referring to? Does being called a liberal offend you? Be proud of your liberal beliefs. I'm quite proud of my conservative values. Every spending cut offered by the GOP is met with the same response from Obama, that the "cuts are significant and harmful to critical national priorities." Name one significant cut to entitlement spending that Obama has offered. Your party is not interested at all about addressing entitlement spending. I concede the point that the GOP is not interested at all about raising taxes.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • maybe you need to comprehend
    Moderate
    I have read your posts and find very little value in them. Of course truth is that you and I just disagree on the cause of the problems and the solutions.-----One significant cut that obama has put out is to raise the contributions to the pension plans by the federal workers. This lowers payroll costs. So there. You must concede that The GOP is not interested in raising taxes on the wealthy without raising taxes on everyone else. That is and was Obama's proposal. Also, you are an extreme rightist who is trying to label us as liberals. I do not consider myself a liberal. i take each issue and try to figure out what is best and why. if it comes out on one side or the other so be it. I have never heard about you taking the liberal side on an issue.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "Name one significant cut to entitlement spending that Obama has offered"?
    FERS Fed
    During last summer's debt crisis negotiations, Medicare spending was put on the table, and tax increases were proposed in return. Republicans walked away. So, tell us again which party "is not interested at all about addressing entitlement spending". What kind of fool takes a key tool -- revenues -- off the table when trying to solve a fiscal crisis? I'll tell you what kind of fool -- one who puts party before country. There is no “us vs. them” when all of us are facing a common crisis. Our country is figuratively and literally falling apart and all you do is blather on about 'liberals this' and 'liberals that'? That kind of mindless, relentless addiction to orthodoxy conservative indignation blinds you to the facts. And now, ten months later, Republicans have reneged on the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 they voted to enact. Yeah, sure, everything is 'liberals' fault. Right.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "ALL Americans"
    pensioner
    Does your "ALL Americans" pertain to both "increased taxes" and "budget cuts," or only to the latter? If you that everyone should share the burden of increased taxes, even if that burden is not to be shared equally, then you are at odds with President Obama. He wants taxes increases for only the "wealthy," by whom he means earning >$250K per year, everyone from $249,999 per year being at most "middle class" in his scheme of things. And let's not that after more than 3 years and 3 months in office he has proposed no legislation to change rates or other tax code provisions save for his bogus "Buffet Rule," which would do precious little to reduce the deficit and not much to make it all more equitable. But who knows what will happen as far as taxes go come 1/1/13.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Tax Changes
    Moderate
    I will write that the $25000 figure is way too low. Two middle class wage earners living in New York and probably San Francisco are not wealthy at $250000. I will also write that the Buffett rule is wrong and should not be legislated. However, since the wealthy got a disproportionate amount of the benefits under Bush, then they should pay more taxes. Maybe a 35% bracket at 1/2 million taxable income and 40% bracket at 1 million income is appropriate. He has proposed changes in the tax brackets for the wealthy. That would be eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • I make way less than $250K yet my taxes are going up
    contrarian
    The FSA going down to $2500 is a huge hit. Plus the SSA 1% going back up and he 5% FERS hit, with no COLAs for 3 at least three years, yet inflation is at least 5%, means huge take home pay cuts.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To contrarian
    Moderate
    Thank the radical right for the 5% FERS (CSRS) hit. They are proposing it, but hopefully, it will not pass. Blame Obama for the reduction in FSA. I believe that is part of the Obamacare Act.I assume SSA is social security tax. I did not get that tax break. Inflation is at least 5%? Maybe in the things you buy, but not according to gov stats. Of course, I do not believe in gov stats.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To Rob
    Linda
    The only way out of the $20 trillon hole is to increase taxes, cut give-a-ways and cut spending. Econcomic growth will not do it all. Get real.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Surely you jest
    Moderate
    Why do you keep on calling the rich people evil? That is because they got the most tax cuts during Bush and Reagan on a per capital basis? Yes, they must pay their fair share based on the progressive tax system we are supposed to have. Of course you want to raise taxes on the poor who cannot afford to pay federal income taxes. You also want to take away services for them. No, you are really quite wrong contrary to what Linda says.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • actuarial details of pension funds
    pensioner
    Does anyone know where to find "objective" data, that is just the "facts," on the pension funds? How much of the cost of federal pensions is paid by employee contributions presently? How actuarially sound are the trust funds, that is are they properly funded or are they a growing liability like so many state and local pension funds?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To Pensioner
    Linda
    To pensioner, I doubt there is a way to do an actuarial costing of Federal Pension, like there is really no way to do it for Social Security as these are not really Trust Funds if Congress can raid them to pay bills. If Social Security payments were put into a real trust fund, allowed to earn income (safe and conserative interest type stuff), and not touched by Congress, most likely there would be plenty of money in there for years to come. But, is not allowed to earned interest because Congress raids it. Congress write IOUs, but does it pay interest, I understand not. The Federal Pension is the same. Everytime we get to a budget crunch and the government is about to default, the Treasury puts that off my raiding Social Security Funds (which are put into the general fund anyway) and Federal Pensions, which are not. They holds off the default until Congress adds more debt.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "...just the "facts," on the pension funds?"
    FERS Fed
    Where's Tom McKinney of Dunwoody, Georgia, when you need him?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • No way
    Moderate
    He has already said that we must give back a substantial piece of our pensions. No way. I paid for it.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Historically Political Inertia considered desirable: Judge Gideon Tucker
    RW
    In 1866 said: "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the Legislature is in session" so it has been thought (before) that inertia is better than an activist Congress.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Gridlock
    Gonesoon
    Gridlock is Good. Long Live Gridlock. Woooohoooo.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }