8:21 pm, July 12, 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.

  • 20
       

  • Spending will continue
    jst
    Hi Folks, even if the sequestration happens, spending in the government is slated to continue to climb. Nothing has been done to address the spending to date. So rough math would probably tell you that even though monies will be saved through cuts on one side, what makes people think that there will be any actual tangible savings realized? Short answer, there will not be anything saved. So what sense in the real word does a sequestor make? It totally transends logic to me. What I am affraid of is that once it hits, the darn thing will continue on past September. That given, I believe that we will in an a CR this time next year which is going to force another look at either a RIF or continued furloghs. I even have heard talk around the water cooler that there are talks about pay raise freezes being extended for another 3 years that will include COLA and within step grade increases for GS employees. Next will be reduction in grades. Retirement is starting to look pretty good is it not?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • That might be the plan
    LS
    If Congress makes Federal service so distastefull the people who can retire will tire of it and leave. Then they slap a hiring freeze on so agencies can't replace those that retire. They don't have to RIF and don't have to pay severance pay. Of course, this is the worst way to reduce Federal employment. The very people who retire are most likely your key people with vast institutional knowledge. A large exodus of these folks at once could really disrupt the functioning of an agency. Too bad we can't make service in Congress as distasteful so that they will leave and perhaps we can get more reasonable people in there.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • How about credits?
    Linda
    It's time for the government to start cutting the refundable credits. Not all at once, bur start reducing and stop creating them. A single person with 3 children earning $15,000 a year walks away with over $60,000 in government benefits, not including any specific state credits or such. Add it up....$5,666 in federal money without paying in a dime. They get back all their Medicare and SSA, plus that amount, then start in on food stamps, housing assistance, utility assistance, Medicaid (health benefits), education assistance, etc, etc, etc. the welfare system is no longer designed to help people when they are down temporarily, it is a full time career opportunity. The system encourages people not to work. That is one of the biggest government programs that has to be cut. I'm not saying let people starve or throw them in the street, but I would love to see a work fair program and if you can afford illegal drugs, you can afford to support yourself. And why do we give more and more money to those who have more and more children? Why do people have 9, 10 kids on welfare? Because they have nothing else to do but pro- create and they want the more money. The system encourages people to not work and to have more children not a good combination.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Careful
    Rob
    You're beginning to sound a bit conservative. Your points are spot on. Bill Clinton saw the light in 1996 when he claimed, "Today, we are ending welfare as we know it." Clinton, unlike the POTUS today, was a centrist democrat. Because he was a centrist he was able to get things done with a republican controlled house. Do you honestly think you'd hear Obama say, "Today, we are ending welfare as we know it?"
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Yes
    cubedweller
    I could honestly hear him saying that, but he doesn't need to. Obama is more conservative than Bill Clinton. After all, Obama promoted and signed a conservative health care reform plan, a plan that Clinton would have opposed. Obama is just less willing to play games to earn political points in a system that rewards ideologues and fear-mongering. Republicans are more concerned about who wears flag pins than they are about the national economy, and Clinton played into that. Obama doesn't.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • haven't heard that one before
    Rob
    I don't think any rational human on the face of the earth would rate Obama as more conservative than Bill Clinton. As a US Senator Obama's voting record was ranked as the most liberal of any US Senator; more liberal than even Ted Kennedy. Talk about the GOP nominating radical candidates. I'd hardly rate either McCain or Romney as far right wingers. Both were and still are much more moderate than Obama.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • This is nonsense
    cubedweller
    I can't believe people are still spouting this nonsense. Not only is your argument a wayward attempt at scapegoating, it's downright wrong. People don't get money for having children, they get money BACK, in terms of taxes paid in the form of either a credit or a deduction. If they're paying no taxes -- and someone earning $15k a year with 3 kids will pay no federal income tax -- you don't get anything. They don't get back any of their payroll taxes either, that's exactly why these taxes are often referred to as regressive. Most of the benefits they receive are capped anyway, either by amount or with time limits. No one can receive unlimited cash assistance, no matter how poor, without either having a job or actively looking for one. Being poor is not a career opportunity, and most poor people don't have money to spend on illegal drugs. You're using stereotypes and idiotic arguments to classify an entire group of people based upon your own personal biases. Most of America's poor do work, and having grown up in a poor household on a working farm, I am willing to bet that many of them work harder than you do. Finally, we aren't in this situation because of assistance to the poor. Overall, assistance for the poor accounts for less than 1% of our federal budget. We're in this situation because of ideologues in Congress.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • You have no idea
    Linda
    Cubedweller, you have no idea. Get a tax return and fill it out for someone with three children. Then add the EITC, the ADVANCED Child Tax Credit (This is your Social Security and Medicare Tax back), the child tax credit, the day care credits (if they pay for any),ect. Then look at the benefits they get the from the state in the terms of food stamps, low income houseing, education grants. etc. Fox finally did a story on this. I have been saying this same thing for 3 years. The entire system encourages people to have children and not work full time. Why else would women on welfare come up with the cash for fertility drugs, so they can have another kid and stay on welfare. I am not saying all are like that, but enough that it costs the rest of us a lot of money.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • refundable
    Old Navy Comms O
    Please note that REFUNDABLE credits are only given when taxes have been paid -- i.e., only when taxes are paid can they be refunded.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Credits and refundable vs. not refundable
    Lifer
    I can tell by the comments in the two paragraphs above that the writers do not prepare their own tax returns. Credits that are used to reduce tax such as dependent care benefits, child tax credit, etc., are not refundable. Payments, such as Earned Income Credit and Withholding are refundable, regardless of whether or not you have a tax showing on your tax return. EIC was originally intended to reduce tax but was changed to a refundable payment by congress so that people that don't pay any tax can still get the refund. Same thing with the additional child tax credit. It is now refundable if it isn't all used to reduce a person's tax. Both the child tax and the earned income tax credit are increased according to the number of children claimed on the tax return. My advice to all would be to actually LOOK at a tax return and read the lines before you comment on whether or not someone knows what they are talking about.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Refundable Credits
    Joe
    Lifer is right. These credits are paid to tax return filers whether they have paid federal income taxes or not. The amount of Earned Income Credit paid in excess of tax liability in FY13 is $52.3 billion; Child Tax Credit $21.9 billion; American Opportunity Credit $7.5 billion. That's almost $82 billion that is basically welfare. Coincidentally that's almost equal to this year's sequester.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Am I the only one?
    jspurway
    I support the Budget Control Act of 2011. We need to cut spending. What way could be fairer than across the board? Everyone has their pet spending projects, so no one wants specific cuts. All congress had to do was not to spend more money, and give more tax breaks, than in FY2012 and that would have taken care of most of the 103 billion.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • But it is not across the board
    Linda
    But the cuts are not across the board. Look at the VA, no cuts. No cuts to the refundable tax credits - see Joe above - no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Student loans, etc. Yes spending needs to be cut, but taxes also need to be raised and get rid of the refundable credits. I'm not saying all in one year, but over 5 years yes. It will stop a lot of the refund scams going on through the tax system for a start.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }