3:34 pm, July 12, 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.

  • 10
       

  • "...alerting them that their [sic] might by [sic] layoffs coming"?
    FERS Fed
    Did Federal News Radio furlough the copy editor?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • I touched on this yesterday
    contrarian
    But noone bit on the subject of RIFS. Big Govt has hired LOTS of people the past 4 years. Shouldn't they be the first to go?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "Shouldn't they be the first to go?"
    FERS Fed
    Maybe. Depends on how an agency's mgmt structures the RIF. As for "Big Gov't", there were about 2.8M executive branch employees in 2010 (according to OPM), representing about 0.9% of US population of about 308M. In 1990, there were about 3M executive branch employees representing about 1.2% of US population of about 248M.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Big Gov't or Big Gov't?
    Rob
    The size of government isn't necessarily measured by the number of employees. I cannot argue with your numbers, but I will say the scope/reach of gov't would be considered quite large when compared to 1990. Gov't is about to run, or attempt to run, one sixth of the US economy with it's takeover of healthcare and feels empowered to interfere with other aspects of the private sector, i.e. ownership of GM.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To Rob
    Moderate
    Same old Rob. Rob does not care if the huge number of uninsured can get medical care or not. Or if he does care, he wants to stick the expense on private sector hospitals and doctors. Remember, Medicaid does not reimburse the private sector properly.-------Oh, and Rob wants to let people be voluntarily uninsured. Of course, when these people suffer a heart attack or have huge medical expenses they cannot cover, he wants to force the private sector hospitals and doctors to cover the cost.-----Sorry Rob, I do not buy into your theories.----As far as GM is concerned, how many jobs were saved? And isn't the government getting out of the private sector? The government did not do badly when it helped the economy with these actions
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Theories?
    Rob
    What theories did you get from my above post? Is gov't not bigger in terms of its scope/reach than 1990? Unlike liberals, I don't believe government is the answer to every problem we face. Medicare is bankrupt. Social security is bankrupt. What makes you think the government will get healthcare right? Obamacare is going to bankrupt the entire country. Now that's a theory, but it's based on past performance. Now lets debate GM. We have bankruptcy laws in this country to deal with failed companies like GM. Lots of companies, like Delta Airlines, go through the bankruptcy process and come out stronger. Why couldn't the same have happened with GM? What makes you believe the government bailout and takeover of GM was better than the bankruptcy route? Here's another theory. The GM bailout was nothing more than a payoff to the unions for helping elect Obama. Obama couldn't let GM go through bankruptcy where all the sweetheart union contracts would have been torn up. No, Obama had to protect those folks since they put him in office. How's that for theories?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • yes, your theoretical nonsense
    Moderate
    In answer to your last question, it is a crock...that you have no evidence of. First, GM was not the only company bailed out. AIG was also bailed out. Was that also a payoff to the unions? Also, the bailout was in the form of loans and convertible stock. Dividends are paid at 5% per year. That is not a bad return on investment. Your theories make no sense here.-------Let us go to social security. Unfortunately, there are major problems with it because of the way it was set up. During the depression tax money was paid in and then paid out. It was not set up in the way insurance was set up. This was okay as long as there were enough people to pay in to cover the payouts to retirees. Obviously, there are too many baby boomers to cover this method. Therefore, retirement ages must be raised and a higher percentage of salary must be paid into the fund. Also, maybe your wealthy friends can kick in a few extra bucks to help the situation.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Yes, your theoretical nonsense part 2
    Moderate
    Let us continue. You obviously ignored my comments about those who cannot afford insurance and the idiots who choose not to buy medical insurance. However, I believe the law forces hospitals to stabilize or treat the poor and the idiots whether they have money or not. So, you want specific areas of the private sector to bail these people out.----And please stop with the stupid comments about liberals wanting the government to answer every problem we face. Liberals are not communists. And that would be like me calling you a facist, which I do not believe you are.--- Anything else Rob?
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • takeover of healthcare
    Linbob
    Please explain how the government is taking over 1/6th ogf the govrnment with the helathcare reform when all it is is giving the private inusrance comapnies opportunities to expand coverage to people with lower incomes? The insurance compnaies are making the money and they are STILL making decisions about who gets what care. Government has very little to do with it.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Enough with the "government takeover of health care" crapola, okay?
    FERS Fed
    "We the People" choose to have government -- federal, state, and local -- set the RULES for marketplaces key to our well-being. It's the result of 'lessons learned' from the robber baron excesses of early last century to which no serious person would contemplate returning. The DELIVERY of marketplace goods and services is left to the private sector. Sheesh!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }