12:52 am, July 13, 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.

  • 4
       

  • Not happening
    chicagoman
    "House lawmakers are planning a Thursday vote on a funding package that would provide 2013 budgets for the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments while leaving the rest of the government in continuing resolution mode." Yes, of course, fund defense but nail everyone else - dream on - just wasting time here. The point of having a large Defense component of the Sequestration was to get the Republicans' attention since they would eagerly gut the other big ticket items - Medicare, medicaid, Social Security. Republicans are going to have to learn that (i) they lost the election and that has consequences; (ii) they will have to compromise on spending and taxes before the House goes Democrat in 2014.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • chicagoman
    kenifer47
    your Liberal is showing. Yes, there are consequences to losing the election. Four more years of listening to your bleeting. Taxes have already gone through compromise with the president getting most of the tax increases he wanted. But what of the spending part? What reductions were made pray tell? What compromises were made or even offered? Yes, the DoD is bloated and needed paring, but don't you think Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid do to? Hardly a week goes by when some report doesn't show fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement there as well. At some point chicagoman, you and the rest of us are going to have to bite the bullet (very appropo for your fine city) and say enough! Is spending on entitlements all you care about? You won the election, but not on the economy, the debt, the budget, or anything else of national importance, you won by scaring the electorate into thinking that all their give away programs would end if the Republicans won the election. How long are you going to demand blood from the taxpayers to pay for winning elections? Please answer.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • We had a small increase in taxes for the rich - which will have little impact
    chicagoman
    That won't do it - the really high income folks don't constitute enough of the economy to make that effective. Social Security was reset to pre-recession levels - the lower rate was never meant to be permanent. No doubt that Medicare and medicaid and Social Security are going to have to be less generous - serious cuts are in order. Medicare and Social Security may eventually be means-tested, and their age of eligibility may be raised. But you cannot balance the budget on revenue cuts alone - taxes on middle income folks are going to have to go up. Most people want these social programs to continue in some form, which is why Congress has been so reluctant to cut them. For one thing, there is no earthly reason why capital gains tax rates should be so low relative to wage income tax rates. You may argue that this encourages risk-taking but why should such behavior be over-encouraged at the expense of taxing wage-earners more? Low capital gains rates are fantastic for those with massive fortunes who don't go out to work for a living.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • ??????????????????
    MichaelF
    "In the Navy, for example, a full-year CR copied-and-pasted from 2012 would provide several billion dollars more than the service requested for this year for weapons systems and several billion fewer than it needs for its operational accounts, which fund everything from combat training to CIVILIAN SALARIES to military healthcare to maintenance on military barracks." Civilian salaries as well? This contradicts other press reports I have read which say funding will come from further cutting personnel costs -- meaning programs would be funded, but there will be fewer people on board to carry them out. Which reports are real?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }