10:55 am, April 28, 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.

  • 35
       

  • Misconceptions
    Joe
    There are many misconceptions in Mike's column and many of these comments regarding the sequestration. First, a furlough is not the same as a government shutdown. Agencies can stagger furlough days over the five day work week so no more than 20% of employees are off on any one day. So planes are not going to crash and bank robbers will not be having a field day. The state of California put their employees on furlough days a couple years ago and nobody noticed any difference in service. Second, the IRS notified employees they will get a 30 day notice so the earliest furlough day will be April 1 (appropriately April Fools Day). Third, the sequester was Obama's idea in the first place. So if it happens blame him. Fourth, we already increased taxes on the rich with no spending cuts. What has POTUS proposed cutting to equal the sequester cuts? Fifth, the sequester cuts this fiscal year =$85 billion or about 2% of the federal budget. The House already has a $4 trillion ten year spending cut plan. It is time for the Senate and POTUS to step up.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • and no Rebulicans voted for Budget Control Act of 2011
    jspurway
    "The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act (GRHDRA) of 1985 created a congressional procedure, now known as sequestration..."
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Really?
    FERS Fed
    The Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) passed the House by a vote of 269-161, with 174 Republicans including Speaker Boehner and House Majority Leader Cantor voting 'yes'. ..... It then passed the Senate by a vote of 74-26, with 28 Republicans including Senate Minority Leader McConnell voting 'yes'. .... If the GOP didn't want sequestration, it wouldn't be happening.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Originated In The White House
    ben
    "They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase. “A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts." WashPo fact checker: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-fanciful-claim-that-congress-proposed-the-sequester/2012/10/25/8651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html Jack Lew sold Reid on the sequester. Share responsibility, shared blame.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • If the GOP thought sequestration was such bad policy...
    FERS Fed
    ...as they now claim, then they shouldn't have voted for it. Own it.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • own it?
    Rob
    When is Obama going to take ownership of the crappy economy? You liberals won't take responsibility for anything. It's always the GOP's fault. You lefties even blamed the GOP when Obama, despite super majorities in both the House and Senate, froze our pay for 2 years.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Rob
    contrarian
    Ownership? Never going to happen. Ask yourself why.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Hey, Rob!
    FERS Fed
    Still got your cushy USG job?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Huh?
    cubedweller
    The sequester was proposed to prevent Republicans from tanking the economy in 2011, and Republicans voted for it. Remember the super committee? They were supposed to come to a bi-partisan agreement to avoid sequestration, and they failed. Taking this out of context serves no one. And the cuts aren't just $85 billion. They total around $1.2 trillion, and some programs will be cut by as much as 10%, while others are left untouched.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • who to blame?
    jspurway
    we get who we elect.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Inactivity Brought Us To This
    ben
    Refusal by Congress and the President have brought us to this point. Departmental heads didn't instruct their personnel to perform a true drill to determine where saving could be obtained with the least pain. Now, they must go for the quick fixes like furloughs and the old bureaucratic trick of cutting high visibility programs to make the opposition appear the bad guy -- right out of "Yes, Minister." Hopefully, the department secretaries will give better instructions for FY14. True savings can come only from cutting and reducing entire programs such as agriculture subsidies, changing entitlement programs, and reforming social security and medicare to meet actuary realities.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Chicken, egg or
    Budgetweenie
    left shoe right shoe. there are many "truths" contained in this thread. But the mosaic hasn't been finished. You either believe one side or the other is completely to blame for the pain and suffering about to unfold, but really, it is both sides, unwilling to let their philosophical views take second place. But, if we can't agree on what, when, where, or why this situation is getting so critical, then we haven't had enough conversation. Facts are subjective when presented in pieces because it changes the context. Some believe stimulating a dormant economy is the right thing, while others say the economy must reset. Consequences for either choice. Some say, let those who don't want to be owners and therefore, increasingly successful financially, accept their lives as "have nots". Opponents would say, "but you have enough, share. If not willingly, then by law". Some said, 1 term only, no matter the price, others said "ha". "Too much, frittered away, I wish I had some for another day......"
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }