9:25 pm, April 24, 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.

  • 39
       

  • Historically
    ben
    Historically, unemployment did go down after the the three big tax cuts and GDP went up. Uncertainty is the main driver -- taxes, Obamacare and regulations. Recently, a private study determined federal regulations cost $1.6 trillion annually. That was poopooed by the administration, ignoring a Small Business Administration study that put the amount at $1.75 trillion. Obamacare will add about $94 billion and Dodd-Frank another $34 billion. At $2 trillion annually, that's 13 percent of GDP. Cost of federal regulations rising to rival the cost of production. No wonder offshoring looks good. Please, no horror stories about burning rivers, BP oil spill, etc. I'm not talking about emulating Somalia, but rather Swiss or Swedish regulations.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "Please, no horror stories about burning rivers, BP oil spill, etc. "?
    FERS Fed
    Interesting that the same day of your post lamenting the cost of regulations, there's ANOTHER oil rig burning in the Gulf of Mexico.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • In Bed With BP
    ben
    The federal regulators authorized to regulate BP was high and in bed with the the oil industry. NEXT!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Your studies and your comment
    Moderate
    What is that about? Please give me the cite so I can read the story. And I would like to read about the study, especially the source of it. Is it a right wing fantasy with an agenda? And unfortunately, many of these safety regulations are absolutely necessary although you may not believe so. We do not need locked doors during a fire. or hands chopped off byu unsafe machines.---You may not like Obamacare, but the uninsured should have access to medical care without forcing hospitals to take medicaid. That is the purpose of Obamacare.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • MMS in Bed With Oil
    ben
    This was well publicized both in MSM and government, "Since the inception of the MMS, and in particular since the 1990s, the Agency has been embroiled or implicated in numerous scandals. For example, in 1990 MMS employees were linked to prostitution,[15] and in 2008 the Department of Interior's Inspector General reported that MMS employees had participated in drug use and sexual activity with employees from the very energy firms they were to be regulating.[16]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Ocean_Energy_Management,_Regulation_and_Enforcement Like I stated, you are using obfuscation to justify literally hundreds of thousands of pages of regualtions -- literally, the de-industrialization of the US via offshoring.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • MMS has a few emplyees in bed...The agency is not
    Moderate
    First, Ben, you show integrity by citing your sources. I respect that even though I disagree with you on many things. And yes, there have been some scandals. That has nothing to do with whether we need the regulations. The question is whether we need the regulations. And yes, we need the regulations for, among other things, safety reasons. As for the scandals how many people were involved in the scandals, vs how many are employed? Those involved should go if they were involved, for example, with taking bribes, no matter what the form of the payments are. (such as sex) However, that percentage appears to be very low per your cite. You do not get rid of the regulations based on what you have cited.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Necessary Regulations!
    ben
    As I stated, I'm not against, some regulations. However, I am against generating regulations that raise the cost of research of the regulations and compliance to more than the cost of production. The MMS was extremely delinquent in their oversight of Gulf oil, simply read the contingency plans look for the required equipment that was not present. I'm in favor of something like the REINS act -- requiring agencies to calculate the cost of new regulations. If, the cost is over $100 million, annually, the regulations must be passed by Congress, not bureacracy. And, a review of present day regulations -- 10 percent per year over 10 years for the same status. Put in punishments of small cuts to agency budgets if their estimates prove too low, perhaps over 10 percent. Nothing gets an agency's attention like budget cuts. At present EPA has twice been caught using unofficial email to bypass transparency rules within their own agency to impose regulations without the required public notice before implementation.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Regulations
    Moderate
    You are against regulations that raise costs beyond the cost of production. Would you please tell me the value of a human life and a piece of that human's anatomy. Regulations should not be passed by Congress. Laws should be passed by Congress. If a regulation violates the law, then Congress should be able to override it and that regulation should be taken to court. Knowing the Republicans do not value human life very highly, unless that human is a wealthy patron of theirs, it would be very difficult to get a regulation past them.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Regulations Redux
    ben
    The Swiss, for example, manage to have industry, prosperity and a clean/safe environment without excessive regulations. For this sin, the EU is attempting to force them to adopt EU laws. The Swedes, while a welfare state, is a very capitalist economy. Lord help a bureaucrat who attempts regualtions limiting their industry. He'll spent his career measuring the toxicity of reindeer scat in Lapland. Yet, their environment is quite pristine. A nation that chases its industry and jobs out of the nation will, in time, be a much less safe and dirtier one. Poor nations usually are.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Doubts
    Moderate
    Wow. I was totally unaware that you were an expert on Swedish laws and regulations. Wanna give us the source of your expertise in this area. And you say they are a welfare state without "excessibve" regulations? Maybe you are right and maybe not. I do not know what "excessive" is in that area. Somehow, for some reason I have some doubts about what you are writing.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Economic cycle
    Moderate
    For the numerous times, GDP went up, but how much went to the wealthy vs the rest of the population? And unemployment went down, but what kind of jobs were available? Burger King, etc. had field days. And the employees went without health insurance. Please remember that the economic cycle produces the same effects.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Where Have You Been the Last Half Of the 20trh Century!
    ben
    Where Have You Been the Last Half Of the 20trh Century!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Your comment is senseless
    Moderate
    Wanna elaborate. Your comment is senseless. You do not need my biography
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Deja Vu, All Over, Again!
    ben
    My comment was partially rhetorical and partially to determine your actual experience. Once of the blessing of growing older is seeing the same arguments and replies come up over and over, again. And, the results! The last three tax cuts generated more revenue, than the higher rates. Economic prosperity followed as well, for all. As JFK said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." I assume you are rather young and do not have experience.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Age is not relevant
    Moderate
    I will comment later, but I am 62 and have a little experience. And yes, I have seen what you describe.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Who gets the money?
    Moderate
    Let us start with JFK. Tell us which tax cuts you are referring to. I will start you off with the investment tax credit. I will continue with a probability that the highest marginal tax rate was much higher than it is now. At one point in the past is was 91%. It is now about 35-36%. And again, we came out of a recession with those tax cuts. And again, the wealthy got the benefits and the revenue at least during the Reagan Romp. I am guessing, based on the direction of the cuts, that is also true under Bush 2. If uyou do not mind the wealthy getting the money, then you are okay with cuts. I think thre lower economic classes should get the money now.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Factual error
    CM1969
    There is a factual error in this article. Per OPM's website, "Federal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the following public holidays for Federal employees. Please note that most Federal employees work on a Monday through Friday schedule. For these employees, when a holiday falls on a nonworkday -- Saturday or Sunday -- the holiday usually is observed on Monday (if the holiday falls on Sunday) or Friday (if the holiday falls on Saturday). "http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2012.asp Therefore in 2011, when Christmas fell on Sunday, December 26th wasn't a "bonus" day off, it was the observed holiday. This is the same rule that gave federal employees the day off on January 2, 2012 for New Year's and November 12, 2012, even though Veteran's Day is actually November 11th.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Bonus holiday?
    Sam B
    "In 2011, feds got the Monday (Dec. 26th) as a bonus holiday." No, in 2011, feds got the observed federal holiday. Was November 12th's observation of Veterans Day (which falls on the 11th) a "bonus holiday"?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Bonus Holiday
    Briancpa
    I think you are missing the point. Mike says "Obama" gave us the holiday. All good things must come from him. However, we all know that the law passed many years ago gave us the holiday -- not the current president. (Nice try Mike)
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Mike mixed up
    bowmanrand
    I think Mike was just mixed up there and needs to look at his 2011 calendar again. Don't look for a nefarious motive, Briancpa. Everybody knows about official holidays that fall on weekends and how they work.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }