12:34 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.

  • 14
       

  • Panetta playing politics
    dante805
    Obama has demanded that DOD furlough people Instead of cutting or delaying programs no one would see the effects of. People losing 20% of their pay will create a nice main stream media story...it even hooked Gov McDonnell of VA. He has now been swindled by Obama and the liberals. The effects of the cuts will be ZERO to the average person on the street. Lets just make hay about it and hope the media carries the water again for Obama.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Spoken like a true Know-Nothing
    Fedweb
    I understand that facts only confuse and annoy people like you, but Obama has not "demanded" anything - he can't. All he can do is request and suggest; action or, in this case, INaction, is up to Congress. So in 2011 Obama says if you can't agree like intelligent people, you can throw the country in front of a bus with these harsh cuts ... and Congress chose the bus rather than doing anything that they might require them to compromise with the other party. One plan to avoid sequester couldn't even get voted out of the committee, and another received only 38 votes in the House. Maybe you could stand losing 20 percent of your pay for the rest of the year, but what about "the average person on the street" who owns a business in someplace like Fayetteville or Killeen or Columbus or Leavenworth that depends on military people spending their money in those businesses. And that's just the effects on DOD. Suppose you work in a chicken or meat packing plant that has to close a couple of days a week because the USDA inspectors are furloughed. Go on thinking that the Federal government doesn't touch your life, and you'll soon learn how wrong you are.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • right, Obama never "demands" anything
    joeschmuckatelli
    in just the last two weeks: regarding sequestration: http://pjmedia.com/blog/pentagon-on-furlough-notice-as-unengaged-obama-demands-tax-hikes/ regarding gun control: http://www.thenation.com/blog/172855/obama-demands-congress-do-work-self-government regarding presidential use of drones to kill: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/7/obama-demands-unquestioning-acceptance-of-his-abil/ regarding the debt limit: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-demands-quick-action-raise-debt-limit-165748456--politics.html regarding immigration: http://www.twincities.com/ci_22476883/obama-demands-quick-action-immigration-overhaul regarding his fear of latino leaders: http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/8903-obama-demands-eating-utensils-be-removed-from-audience-at-luncheon-for-safety-reasons/ and Fedweb calls other people know-nothings, thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Demand
    Sam B
    You aren't too bright, are you? Just because a news outlet says he demands something in its headline doesn't mean that the President actually has the Constitutional authority to demand something. Fedweb is 100% correct. The President can request and suggest but he has no Constitutional authority to DEMAND that Congress does something. Simply posting news articles that use the word "demand" in their headlines does not mean anything. Thanks for playing. Try harder next time.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Obama Demands
    HC
    By doing his "Community Organizer" thing, stirring up his base in permanent campaign mode, and holding staged events employing "victims" as props. He is abetted in this by a compliant and cheerleading media. (And your comment about "not too bright" is typical lestist rant - ad hominem insults.)
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Obama Owns Sequestration
    HC
    He just is unwilling to admit it - or to compromise to avoid it. President Obama proposed sequestration in the summer of 2011. At that time, the White House was Congress raise the debt ceiling. Republicans said they would the President agreed to cut government spending. When the two sides couldn't agree to cuts and the President John Boehner’s offer to raise $800 billion in taxes, the White House proposed “sequestration.” Now the bill is coming due and the President refuses to compromise. Remember, compromise involves give by BOTH sides - but not in this President's world. His definition of compromise is "Do exactly what I want - immediately!" Obama figures that he does not have to compromise - that he can blame Republicans for any economic effects of his policies. Given the compliant state of today's media, he may be right. But in the midst of the White House propaganda war, it is good to remember just who spawned - and who owns - sequestration.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • So if we had the time to make these cuts...
    JohnE
    in a smarter and more deliberate manner, the DoD wouldnt have to furlough all these workers. Well, the fact is we have known these cuts were a possibility for well over a year and no one during that entire time apparently was thinking ahead and planning for this contengency? No one..so now its all a Cluster duck.....and all these terrible draconian actions have to be taken with dire consequences for national security. If you believe that then I have some very nice vacation property in Syria I liked to talk to you about. Pure hysterics and the Defense Department is using the threat of thess forloughs to leverage their failure to plan for these cuts which were coming one way or the other. $45B is chump change for the DoD..with a budget that probably exceed $1T dollars when you include the public budget, the black budget and the monies set aside for the war in Afgahistan...around $88B. Thats not to say $45B cut in seven months is not substantial. Its supposed to be but as a total of the entire DoD budget around 5%. It all smoke and polictical games that are being played. Pure hysteria that the national defense is being gutted. Laughable. As I said these cuts were coming and this is just the tip of the iceberg one way or the other for defense spending which should be cut trillions of dollars not just 100s of billions of dollars over the next decade. Those defense employees are going to be fired not just furloughed in the near future. We are going to be down sizing our entire armed forces..we are going to be cutting much deeper than the $45B they are screaming about and it has to happen so why not get this started NOW. Congress has proven it can not nor will it take the actions necessary to cut spending. Sequestration is the cowards way out for these spineless traitors who spent the money and now when it comes time to pay the piper they cant be found. IMO let these cuts happen now. Its the only way anything will get done. Maybe they were never supposed to happen..maybe no one thought the government would be dumb enough to let the cuts happen..but since no one else has a better plan to actually cut spending and nothing has gotten done during the last year and Congress is so concerned it went on a ten day holiday, myabe this is the only way to get anything done..but listen and listen carefully, this is just the tip of the iceberg. These cuts are virtually meaningless and much, much more has to be to done on federal spending...and I mean discretionary spending..not entitlements..not until we cut federal spending much deeper. The DoD wastes and loses nearly %50B dollars a year..thats right they cant even account for over %50B dollars a year in spending..its just gone...so dont cry to me Argentina about these cuts. Its pure political propoganda. Get used to hearing a lot more whining from the DoD...take a time out, send the Sec Def to his room and have him sit in the corner..quietly.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Not Allowed to Plan for Sequestration
    CSForest
    We knew & wanted to plan for Sequestration, but were directed specifically by our Commander in Chief (the President) that we were NOT authorized to plan for it. That directive stayed in place until just before Christmas (before they extended the Sequestration impact date from 2 Jan to 1 March). As such, those of us at the working level have been trying to plan "under the table", if you will. We've talked amongst ourselves about impacts to our acquisition programs; but since we couldn't document things to share outside our immediate office, it was only rudimentary planning that could be done. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean our command wasn't being cautious in case of sequestration. While we were directed by upper management (Pentagon) to continue "as usual" during the 1stQtr, since then, our management has been extra prudent about what they've been authorizing ... critical tasking only, delaying funding big "bills" if they could wait until April, etc. They officially did this with the explanation soley attributed to the impacts of the CR; but in reality, they also tried (where possible) to also try to accomodate for sequestration. The big programs (e.g., MDAPs) were left alone because they had too much visibility with the Pentagon, WH, & Congress; but the smaller programs (which account for millions) were impacted the most. So, although Sequestration doesn't officially take affect until 1 March, and much of the dire consequences won't occur until weeks later, the reality is that industry is already feeling the impacts of the combined sequestration & CR, because we haven't been able to issue/obligate funds on contract except for "critical" work (e.g., work deemed necessary to support foward deployed units).
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • the sky is falling
    tgn
    the sky is falling the sky is falling
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Facing Furlough
    CSForest
    As a DoN employee facing furlough, I have been closely watching & listening as much as possible to a variety of media sources. At this point, it really doesn't matter who's to "blame" for sequestration (President suggested it, but Congress (both sides) agreed to it & passed the law for it). The fact now is that it will very likely happen. The best I can (and have been doing for almost a year now) is to plan & prepare for ... I've been saving money & have postponed buying a new car. If necessary, I will begin cancelling things like subscriptions for Netflix, Gamefly, etc. In talking with my colleagues, many of them also are making similar plans for reducing their day-to-day living expenses. So, our furloughs will affect not only ourselves, but those employees at companies that we reduce (or eliminate) our services from as well. At work, however, I'm not sure what will happen. I work in an Acquisition command, where we manage development & production of new defense weapons systems. Because our work is (rightlyfully) not deemed "critical", it is commands like ours that will be affected the most. We've been directed to cut our program management by at least 50%, whereas our Fleet support counterparts are only having to cut no more 30% max. Note, that's MORE than 20% because of the affects of BOTH sequestration AND the Continuing Resolution. Like another person commented, while sequestration will be devasting (eventually, if the full effects are allowed to take place), I'm so tired of the back & forth bickering of the past few years, that I'm ready for to just let it happen, and then MAYBE congress & the WH will be able to find a compromise instead of both sticking to their ideologies. I'm surprised I feel this way, as I'm a very fiscally conservative person who doesn't support tax increases ... and while I still don't want more tax increases, I also just want this essential "stand still" on the budget to be over already!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }