12:21 pm, April 19, 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.

  • 22
       

  • Feds will be better with Romney
    contrarian
    We know that "hope and change" was hooey. It was borrow from China until we go bust. Romney said what I needed to hear: no job losses except by attrition. Obama has done pathetically little for Feds, any losses you perceive Romney will enact, will also come from Obama. But with Romney he'll eventually balance the budget. What year? I doubt the first. All in All, get ready for mean and nasty, because that's what is guaranteed to come.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Feds will be better with Romney
    Dennis Retiree
    So is the new or latest Romney Position, Federal Job Cuts will all be by attrition LOL, I don't buy it. If you savagely cut Federal Agencies' Budgets, there will be RIFs. Romney will say or do anything to win the Presidency. The federal deficit is much larger because of the actions of the Republicans. First, we have the Bush Tax Cuts. Second, we have the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Third, we have the huge loss of revenues caused by the economic collapse and recession that was caused by the Bush Administration and Wall Street, big banks, Mortgage companies etc. When Bill Clinton left the Presidency, we had a budget surplus. This surplus was blown to pierces by the monumentally inept George W. Bush. You need to wake up and smell the coffee.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Tax Cut Delivered More Revenue
    ben
    Once more, as a result of the Bush tax cuts, revenue increased $4.8 trillion (constant 2005 dollars) over that produced during Clinton's 8 years. Largest tax revenue increase in history.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Tax Cut Delivered More Revenue
    Dennis Retiree
    Ben, why are you attributing the increase in tax revenue to the Bush Tax Cuts? This is the big trickle down lie. If there is a tax cut, and revenues increase, it must have been due to the tax cuts, wrong. We had strong economic growth in 2001, 2002 etc. This was the era when computerization was booming. Everyone was buying PCs, printers, software etc. This was a large driver of economic growth, not the tax cuts alone.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • You just made Ben's point
    Joe
    Bush cut taxes and the economy grew in 7 of his 8 years and unemployment was under 6% until 2008. Lower the tax burden and business/employment grows, increase taxes then they shrink. Same thing happened when Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton cut taxes. No sane economist has shown that tax cuts caused the 2008 recession.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Politics of the wealthy commented on
    Moderate
    Again, the wealthy got the money while the rest of us get crumbs. This was also true during the Reagan years. It was still tough to get a job during the best of the Reagan years. It was not so great during the Bush years.-----And Bush's policies gave us the Bush depression.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To Dennis
    Rob
    Do you not remember what happened in 2001? Why do you think our economy bounced back so fast following the events of 9/11/01? Could it have been those evil Bush tax cuts that minimized the impact? What do you think people do when they get a tax cut? Maybe it was it the evil Bush tax cuts that put the money in peoples pockets so they could buy those computers, printers, and software you mention?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To Rob
    Moderate
    Yeh, it put money in the pockets of the wealthy who accumulated more wealth. That is why they pay the bulk of the taxes. We just got crumbs. of course Bush gave us the Bush depression.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Reason for the Boom
    ben
    People saw their incomes increase from the tax cut. Unlike short term stimulus, long term icreases in income increase a perception of increased wealth and well being. People have more money to spend and invest -- resulting in a boom.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Money for the wealthy, crumbs for the rest
    Moderate
    Except that the people with more money in their pockets are the wealthy. The rest of us get more crumbs unless we are laid off or cannot get government services.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Tax Cut faith-based economics again?
    Jerry A.
    Economists have looked at the results of the several GOP tax cuts over the last 40 years. Each one has *not* helped the economy and has raised the federal deficit. After subtracting out the Afghanistan and Iraq war costs, the Bush tax cuts cost billions of dollars. We borrowed all of the war costs and tax cut costs, and they are still accumulating. See the latest report by the Congressional Research Service in September of 2012. Does ben have any data to back up his GOP/Fox talking points, or is this another case of faith-based economics? . Thomas L. Hungerford, "Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945," Congressional Research Service, September 14, 2012
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Yeh, the wealthy get the money
    Moderate
    Yeh, and what about the Revenue generated by the Bush depression? And again, the money is going to the wealthy to pay these taxes. Then they keep the rest while the rest of the country is stuck.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Budget Surplus Under Clinton
    Rob
    Clinton was the beneficiary of the internet boom. That was the main reason for the budget surplus and that bubble burst long ago as did the housing bubble. If you weren't so partisan you'd recognize that the policies of BOTH political parties led to the collapse of the economy. Both parties thought it was a good idea to promote home ownership regardless of one's income level. The other reason for the surplus under Clinton was the GOP take over of the House which led to a balanced budget. Unlike Obama after the 2010 mid-term election Clinton came running to the center when the GOP won the House in '94. Last night Obama looked like a deer in the headlights. Even the radical left winger Bill Maher admitted Obama looked lost without his teleprompter. Not sure what impact this will have in a month, but it was nice to see Obama finally challenged without the protection of the mainstream media.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To right wing Rob
    Moderate
    If you were not so partisan, you would realize that it was the hands off policies that led to bankers' greed which led to the Bush and the Republicans Depression. Yes, bank rules were loosened. But Bush did not follow up when the loans were made to people who could not afford the loans. he did not follow up to the fraud involved in these loans. Thus, we have the housing crisis and the following Bush Depression.---- Stop trying to spread the blame for Republican arrogance.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Wrong again MOD
    Rob
    Go back and look at the facts Mod. Bush tried to reform Fannie and Freddie and your friend Barney Frank stould in the way.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Really?
    Moderate
    Be specific, where is this at?
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Economic Booms
    ben
    From every tax cut after a recession from Harding-Coolidge (they cut expenses, as well), there were economic booms. Any economists who missed this phenomena should turn in his crystal ball. Not all tax cuts were during Republican administrations. Bushh's tax cut resulted in a $4.8 trillion increase in revenue over from the preceeding 8 years under Clinton. My source --http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals. As to revenue going to the wealthy, most of that revenue was paid by the wealthy.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Voodoo economics part 2 (Bush's way)
    Moderate
    You call the 20's a boom? Try again. I know about the roaring twenties, but it was very uneven. Gong from harding to Coolidge to Hoover to sharp downturn, to decent potential recovery, to great depression under the Republicans. Yeh, the wealthy paid the taxes because they got the benefits from the Bush economics. Thanks for nothing.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • The Real Story
    ben
    Harding- Coolidge administrations were from March 1921 to March 1929. To counter a recession in the first year, taxes and expenditures were cut. The result was a GDP of 4 percent per annum, zero inflation, and an unemployment rate of 3.3 percent from 1923 to 1928. Yes, Moderate, I call that an economic boom. Then Secretary of the Treasury Hoover wished for much more government intervention. However, his wishes were denied. In reaction to a recession in President Hoover’s administration, he sponsored the Smoot-Hawley act in 1930 raising the tariffs on 20,000 imported items to an unprecedented rate. Over 1,000 economists sent letters pleading with Hoover to veto the act, in vain. In reaction, US trading partners passed similar tariffs, basically shutting down world trade and causing a word-wide depression. Beggaring you neighbor doesn’t help your economic situation. Revenue collected during the Bush administration was $17.159 trillion. During the Clinton administration revenue collected was $12.371 trillion for an increase of about $4.788 trillion. That’s $4.8 trillion not added to the debt.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Lots of right wing nonsense posted.
    Moderate
    This will comment on contrarian's comments. Losses by attrition? What you do not say is how he will gain attrition. How about by no pay raise for 5 years as opposed to 2 by Obama, with pressure from the right wing Republicans. You say Obama allegedly did pathetically little for us, but it is guaranteed that Romney will do much worse for us. If Romney is balancing he budget, he will do it on our backs and on the backs of the middle class and poor.---You knock obama, but he is much better for us and the country than the right wing radical republican party.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • I was wondering the same thing
    contrarian
    For example: If they change high three to high five. Bam, there goes a bunch of people right there. Ditto for the rest of Mike's list. So there are ways attrition can be enhanced. But, remember: With Obama the same thing or worse can happen, and maybe RIFs. His team has already signalled they don't need to follow certain labor laws. What others will they ignore?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To contrarian
    Moderate
    Have to agree with you about your first line. That will include me.You are speculating what Obama would do without any facts. he Repubs have stated what they want. It is much meaner. Please get the facts about his reasoning before you comment about the labor laws. I would like to read his reasoning.
    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" }