8:37 am, July 11, 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.

  • 14
       

  • I disagree that items have not changed over the years
    Moderate
    The writer admitted to some changes over the years. However, he left out certain changes.----Many years ago I believe retirees got inflation changes twice per year. I believe there was also a modification due to the delay in implementing the raise. This was changed to once per year with no modifications.----Years ago employee raises were given in October instead of waiting until January or not at all.----Years ago, retirees could take their contributions to the retirement plan immediately upon retirement. They would get a reduced retirement. That has been eliminated.----Years ago retirees could count their retirement contributions against the payout immediately instead of spreading it over the expected life of the retiree.----Years ago, retirees could elect not to be covered by medicare without penalties. Now you get a penalty if you do not have medicare at all. That penalty is the reduced payout by the medical plan. However, your premium is not reduced.-----Therefore, be wary of someone who says do not take these threats seriously.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Vat? Vorry? Me?
    Mc
    The fact that Congress does very little to nothing is not cause to relax. In the face of HUGE debt these bought (off) and paid for folks will stand back and watch as: 1. Over the cliff we go (in itself not a bad thing as its the only way to cut the CRAZY defense spending that pays both parties). 2. Debt rating downgrade (would have happened anyway) 3. Debt ceiling debate (more downgrades) 4. Stock market crash worse than 2008 5. dollar devaluation (banks close for a brief period in order to do it) of 50% or more 6. Oh, so NOW you're buying gold???
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Gold?
    Moderate
    Precious metals could be part of an investment portfolio, but not the major part. precious metals went up very nicely in 1979-1980 period and went down steadily during that time. I made nice money selling some of my items back the Over the past number of years, the metals have gone up very nicely. Will it continue? Will it go up sharply then drop? Your guess is as good as mine. Be careful and diversify. Same applies to stocks.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • All Federal Civilian Worker's Pay and Benefits are 0.7 Percent of the Budget
    Radar Tech
    Wow, look at the leadership attack our budget problem. The president has given us a 2 year and 4 month pay freeze and look what a big dent our "shared" pain has made in the deficit and the debt. Great leadership there, Mr. President! Way to show your support for the federal workforce! Oh, and congress, you guys and gals are the best. You are looking to balance the budget on the backs of the people that keep the nation running, while giving more freebies to illegal migrants that snuck across the border and stayed. Where was the "shared" pain? Oh, that's right, you screwed all the seniors out of their COLA's for Social Security. You guys hurt your workers and their families, hurt seniors that paid into the system their whole lives, yet reward contractors that are raping the treasury, pay the losses for big banks that gamble with other people's money, and reward criminal migrants. What more devilment can you think up next?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Good Points Radar Tech
    Moderate
    The wealthy must return some or all of the Bush tax cuts starting in 2013. of course, we must define wealthy. Defense must be cut as we cannot afford to do it all. I believe the ages for medicare and social security must be raised as they will go bankrupt. In addition the social security tax should be raised. I do not believe in chained COLA as that does not represent true inflation.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • What Must They Return!
    ben
    The Bush era tax cuts resulted in $4.8 trillion (in constant dollars) more in revenue, than the preceding 8 years under Clinton. It was the largest increase in history.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • So what. George benefitted the wealthy
    Moderate
    Again, we were coming out of a big recession when this happened. And look what happened in 2007 during the Bush years. Now tax collections are down due to George Bush and the Republicans. And how much did the wealth of the wealthy increase during the Bush years vs the rest of the country?
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Not Too Bright
    Rob
    The Dems will ensure the rich become less wealthy, but their policies will also ensure the 99% become poorer and more dependent on gov't than ever. This is the goal of Obama. A poor America keeps Dems in power. Hello, is anyone out there?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Ayn One Out There
    ben
    Sounds like the refrain from the musical "1776." Saw it before I shipped out to Nam in 1970.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • You must be speaking about yourself Rob
    Moderate
    The ronald Reagan years gave the wealthy a huge increase in assets while the rest of the country got very little increase in wealth. Federal workers got shafted completely. I was unaware that the wealthy got less wealthy during the Clinton years. And of course, the wealthy got the tax breaks during the Bush years.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Still Don't Get It!
    ben
    The tax cuts contributed to the recovery from Clinton's recession. As to 2007, Clinton caused the recession. No, tax collections are down because of Clintonian programs. As to wealth increase, so what! They contributed more tax revenue than at anytime in history. Envy isn't pretty!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • I know you do not get it
    Moderate
    The recession of 2002 or 2003 happened well into the Bush years. Please read Wikipedia on the internet. This was in the US. Even if we blame Clinton or Bush, it was a mild recession. To blame Clinton for the Depression of 2007-2009 reeks of the twisting the the facts per Newspeak in the book 1984. It is pathetic that you even write that Ben. George and the Republicans failed to make corrections in a major part of the economy when they had control of both Houses of Congress as well as the Presidency. They allowed the abuses to persist. That brought us the George Bush and the Republicans Depression. As you may or may not be aware, it is very tough to get out of a depression.----- Tax and economic policies are supposed to be for everyone and not just your wealthy friends.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Like, like, like :-)
    bamboo
    It's so refreshing Radar, to see someone who gets it. You are right on and I am just glad to know that there are other folks out there who see the light, so to speak.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Definition of wealthy
    Moderate
    I will change the topic slightly. Hope this does not offend. I just read in the Wahington Post that the difference in the definition of wealthy is 250000 vs 400000. If this is correct, then the negotiators should accept the definition as 400000 and move on.
    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" }