4:37 pm, May 22, 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.

  • 11

  • Voting for Obama
    Sleepless G
    I half-heartedly wish there was a viable Republican Candidate other than Romney. If there was, I would vote for them to teach this current administration that they can not use us and take our votes for granted. I can only think of 3, maybe 4 very powerful but small groups that have benefitted from the Obama administration.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Wishing
    I just wish there was a viable candidate. Most of the country call themselves moderates, yet there are no moderate candidates because they can't get through the party primaries were the far left and far right hold control. Oh for a Fiscal Conservative and Social (moral) Liberal. Get out of the wars, don't let people on Welfare live a middle class or better life style and raise the age for full Social Security for the next generation (keep the age 62 for the manual labor people who can't physically work until age 70) and we would go a long way to balancing the budget. For the states too. If people live better working than on Welfare, they might actually get a job. And there are jobs out there, just not at the pay people want. A lot of people want all of it, but don't want to pay for it in taxes or other wise. Everything has a cost.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • No Way!
    This administration can't convince the voters as a whole that they are better off than four years ago. So, Obama has to go after individual groups with what I call bribes. He promises women free birth control. He promises college students low cost student loans. He promises Hispanics a path to citizenship. He's now going after the senior citizen vote in Florida with more political candy. The list goes on and on and it's nothing more than desperation to get votes. Thankfully there are voters out there that don't have the word STUPID stamped on their foreheads.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "generous" health care benefits?
    disgusted fed who hopes to hold out until retirement
    I have to take issue with that statement. While we are better off than a small business with no or limited health care benefits, there are co-workers I know who prefer being on their non-government-spouse's health insurance plan. Also, in case no one else noticed, the federal health care plans dropped ALL dental coverage for 2012. If you weren't signed up to pay more for a dental plan, you don't have any coverage.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • From the WH
    It's Bush's fault
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • effect on retirees
    As is so often the case, and frustratingly so, Mike is less than clear and/or precise when it comes to what is of so much interest to his readers, that is actual $$$ into or out of their pockets. The column is mostly about the $$$ prospects for those who are still working (e.g., a miniscule or no pay increase next year; possibly an increased retirement contribution; the continued threat of a high-5 rather than high-3), but the headline mentions retirees and at the end of the column there is what there is there about them. One might have expected to read about some measure the would negatively affect retirees' pocketbooks (e.g., increasing the insured's share of the health insurance bill), but thankfully retirees won't be seeing any changes to the benefits they get, because POTUS and Congress have let them be, at least for the present. What retirees face in 2013 is a possibly greater % increase in their insurance premiums than the % increase that the CPI will dictate to there annuities. But that has been the case more often than not, and is likely to be the case in future years, because the cost of health care has been going up faster than the general CPI for years now. (For many, if not most, retirees, it is likely they will see more of a $$$ increase in their annuity than they will see in their insurance premiums.) So the truth is that unlike current employees, for retirees it is the same old same old for the present, with no whacks from their paymasters on the horizon, just the perennial question of what will be the CPI results and the cost of health insurance.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • pre-tax vs post-tax payment of insurance premiums
    Apropos what can be expected by current employees versus retirees, the former will continue to enjoy the great $$$ advantage of being able to pay their insurance premiums with pre-tax $$$, something that retirees (both federal and the wilder world of non-federal ones) can't do. Have there been any serious lobbying efforts for a change that would allow retirees to pay their insurance premiums in pre-tax $$$, as current employees have been able to do for years? That would be a big boon to retirees, if it ever happened. Not likely, but it would be wonderful if it did.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Health Premiums
    Obamacare eliminates the pre tax exclusion for everybody.The employee health premium costs become taxable income.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • GEAR emplacement
    To tell the truth, the machinery has already been put in place to destroy the federal workers if a president GOPPER is elected, or if the Senate turns GOP with the House still being GOP. (1) GEAR would be implemented - the new GOP-based evaluation system where they can fire you any day, any time they want. Wash my car punk! (2) Five year high for retirement - come on you have to work for 20% FERS plan! (3) Pay more into retirement fund, and no defined benefits like healthcare! Take home pay is less oh yeah! No more giving people more money if they live in a high cost area - remember we have to get more and more workers to quit their fed jobs! Pay more into taxes - let all tax breaks for the middle class expire with no renewal! Sounds good? You must work for DoD - the only federal workplace that is run by GOP! Am I kidding? No, not at all this is just the reality I speak of which means I'll be unpopular for speaking the truth, and several government ninjas will be attaching tracking devices to my used car.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • not exactly correct
    "Five year high for retirement - come on you have to work for 20% FERS plan!" What does that mean, where does the 20% come from? Going from high-3 to high-5 will make NO difference if there are no salary increases for 5 straight years, but a BIG difference if salaries increase significantly between where they are at time 0 and 5 years later. "no defined benefits like healthcare!" - the term "defined benefit" refers to retirement annuities and means yours will not vary according to how successful you are investing your money in the employer's plan. It doesn't pertain to healthcare.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }