4:19 pm, March 1, 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.

  • 37
       

  • Savings
    wareagle83
    Mike, My rainy day fund is dual-purposed as my daughters college fund. And, she starts school this fall. Bad times await.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Maybe you'll get more financial aid?
    contrarian
    Look at the bright side.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Financial aide for many just means they let you take out a loan......
    cayenneblue
    Don't think this will help at all. Middle class is hurt most by the rising college tuition. Can't afford to pay the $48,000 a year they say we can afford (are they kidding me?), so the only option for us, since we were only able to save up enough for a portion of one child's tuition, is loans.... Thousands and thousands of dollars of them. A rainy day fund with today's college costs will be gone before you know it, and I have no idea how we (and others in this situation) are going to be able to handle a 20% cut. There really is no bright side....
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • No Deal
    Mc
    There is no deal coming. It isn't going to get better, it will get worse. Look at Cyrpus for the way we're headed.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • entitlement cuts?
    Rob
    Does the GOP want to cut, reform, or slow the growth of entitlements? I guess the answer to that depends on which side of the political aisle you're on. I have yet to see any budget proposed by anyone in the GOP that actually cuts spending....I saw this morning in the WP that Obama is urging banks to approve more home loans. Wow, isn't that the type of policy that got us into this mess? Furloughs vs. Zero pay raise for three years. Which hurts the most over a 30 year federal career? I can hardly wait for the administration to release its 2014 budget. One would think after a three year pay freeze and 14+ furlough days that we're about to hit the pay raise lottery in 2014. Come on folks! Obama is going to take care of us this time, right?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "...hit the pay raise lottery in 2014"?
    FERS Fed
    No, Rep. Paul Ryan (R) is going to take real good care of us. The chairman of the Budget Committee in the House, where actual spending legislation originates, plans in his 2014 budget changing federal pay and benefits to "better align" with the private sector (that's a pay cut for those who can't read between the lines), and for feds to contribute 5.5% more to their pensions, i.e., a corresponding cut in fed's "take home" pay. ..... Ryan would also reduce the federal workforce by 10% over 2 years. ..... And Ryan will eliminate the student loan reimbursement program that agencies use for recruiting and retention.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • blah blah blah
    Rob
    We could list literally hundreds of proposals through the years that would harm feds if they ever became law, but nearly all those proposals die before making it to the president's desk. I only care about that what the president signs and so far this president hasn't signed off on many pay raises has he? When the GOP controlled 3/3 (100%) of government in 2003-2006 (4 years) my raises were 4.33, 3.65, 3.20, 2.40. When the Dems controlled 3/3 (100%) of government in 2009-2010 (2 years) my raises were 0.00 and 0.00. That's reality! Budget proposals that never become law are fiction.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Blah blah blah
    Moderate
    That is what you are giving us. Blah, blah blah. Your Repuiblican friends are pushing all of this garbage down our throats and you want to find a way to blame the Dems. And your cites are in years of relative prosperity while the Dems inherited the Bush and the Republicans Depression.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Still don't see that for what it was, do you?
    FERS Fed
    Those pay raises and all the deficit spending in that period of GOP control (2 unpaid-for wars, an unpaid-for Medicare prescriptions entitlement, 2 rounds of tax cuts) was the opening gambit to put the country on course to 'break the bank'. ..... Doing so allowed the GOP to seriously propose eliminating the social safety net, with which they've always disagreed, all in the name of fiscal prudence. ..... Don't believe it? Ask yourself this -- who wins and who loses? The wealthy get to keep more of their money, and the poor/disadvantaged lose everything. Welcome to the new plutocracy. ..... The only way the GOP gives a crap about you is if you have $1M net worth or more.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Not Quite
    ben
    The tax cut resulted in an increase of $4.8 trillion in revenue during the Bush administration. Last two budget deficits signed by Bush FY 2007: $161 billion FY 2008: $459 billion First three budget deficits signed by Obama FY 2009: $1,413 billion FY 2011: $1,300 billion FY 2012: $1,089 billion
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Conservative half-truths as usual
    FERS Fed
    "First three budget deficits signed by Obama...." included massive stimulus spending to try to pull the country out of the Bush Administration's recession.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Which Failed
    ben
    Government stimulus usually fails, as it did so, once again. Japan tried stimulus two decades ago. Results -- a national debt 233 percent of GDP and flat growth. EU, most recently tried. Result -- abject failure with attempts t austerity that is producing riots.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "Which failed"? Really?
    FERS Fed
    The economy is growing, albeit slowly. The stock market up. Unemployment is falling. ..... You have a different definition of 'failed' than most.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Recovery Lite -- Very Lite!
    ben
    This recovery is the weakest and most drawn out since 1945. Jobs offered are at much less pay than those lost. The Fed pumping billions into the market is pumping up that market. That and the multi-nationals revenue increase from overseas profits.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Takes time
    Moderate
    Takes time to recover. And the Bush Depression is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • P.S.
    FERS Fed
    With respect to the revenue increase, there's no way of knowing what the economy would have done in the absence of the tax cuts. ..... Consensus among reputable economists is that the economy would have grown, producing increased revenues, regardless of the tax cuts. ..... Correlation doesn't prove causation.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Actually, wrong
    ben
    Both Chicago and Austrian Schools of Economics agree that pre-Bush, the tax rates were at diminishing return rates. Therefore any cuts would result in increased revenue.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Supply-side, trickle-down Reaganomics...
    FERS Fed
    ...have been thoroughly discredited. ..... "CBO estimated that extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 beyond their 2010 expiration would increase deficits by $1.8 trillion dollars over the following decade. CBO also completed a study in 2005 analyzing a hypothetical 10% income tax cut, concluding that under various scenarios there would be minimal offsets to the loss of revenue. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter." Source: Wikipedia.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Missed It
    ben
    The $4.8 trillion increase during the Bush administration exists. The existence of a thing is proof that it can exist -- Logic 101. Empirical evidence always supersedes theory. Deficit increases were/are caused by an increase in spending -- from the 18 to 19 percent of GDP for the last 50 or so years to the present 25 percent.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • No, ben, you missed it.
    Jerry A.
    Tax revenue always goes up when the economy goes up. The tax cuts did not add to the $4.8T in extra revenue. The Congressional Research Service wrote a report in September 2012 that analyzed the cost and benefit of tax cuts over the last 65 years. Tax cuts did not increase tax revenue, did not improve the economy, and did not benefit 95+% of the population. The only people who gained were the top ~5% of income earners, who kept more money. And no, there was no job creation. (Of course, the GOP-controlled House tried to force the CRS to retract the report. The CRS checked the numbers and re-published the report.)
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Not disputing that the $4.8 trillion increase occurred
    FERS Fed
    But there is ZERO empirical evidence that the increase in tax revenues had anything to do with the Bush tax cuts. ..... Again, correlation doesn't prove causation. That's Econ 101.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Then, Why!
    ben
    Then, why, after tax cuts under JFK (actually Johnson), Reagan and Bush, were there significant revenue increases over the previous periods?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Because tax revenues mirror the economy
    FERS Fed
    When it rises, tax revenues rise. When it falls, so do tax revenues.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • You've Missed It Entirely
    ben
    FERS Fed, Did you read what I posted? After the three large tax cuts I cited, revenues INCREASED. The $4.8 trillion increase after the Bush tax cut was the largest in history. The explanation is well known. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon explained it decades ago. When income rates are significantly raised, investors place their money in tax free muni and state bonds (and TIFFS, now) When rates drop, they place their money in more risky, but potentially higher revenue producing areas.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "Missed It Entirely"? Not!
    FERS Fed
    Consider this. If all it takes to stimulate economic growth is tax cuts, then politicians and central bankers would always just cut taxes and, voila, there would never be any more recessions. ..... Doesn't quite work that way in the real world though, does it?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Not Tax Cut Alone
    ben
    Not just tax cuts, but a cut in government spending and over regulation, which now costs about $2 trillion annually for federal regulations, alone. Saddling a $16 trillion economy with such costs equal to the cost of production is a sure economic killer.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Good
    Mc
    !
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Federal Pay cuts.
    GetOffYour Butts
    The USA spends over $100 Billion per year paying for the defense of Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, S. Korea with our bases on their soil. Our tax dollars to defend them, while we make cuts at home inside the USA and screw our own people. I am a 30+ year federal employee and I just cashed in over $40,000 of US Saving Bonds and wrote on each one of them "Cashed in due to sequestration".
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • One More Time
    ben
    Once more, for the fifth time, I believe. The Japanese pay 100 percent of our costs, except military pay and upkeep of tactical vehicles. The Marines we are relocating from Okinawa to Guam will cost more to support in Guam. The South Koreans pay 50 percent.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Can't afford it dude! I can't even spare a square.
    contrarian
    What part of broke don't you get? If Obama's giving up 5% then you know he WANTS at least that much from you. Any FedEmp that voted for Obama should be demanding impeachment right about now! If we can't afford to pay Fed Emps then we can't afford to do alot of stuff, like toilet paper. Just saying you should keep a roll in your desk and not be caught by surprise. I may not give you a few squares.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Gee thanks.
    Moderate
    I wanted George's impeachment and voted against him. I'll take obama over George any day. All we got from George is a depression.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Tax and take, for the greater good
    FedEngr
    "Democrats want tax cuts;" Really?! Since when has that EVER been true? Mike, you need a proofreader. Rob - You're right on. Slowing growth is not the same as cutting, but hey, it's a start. Personally, I neither need nor want to be taken care of by the POTUS.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Good catch
    contrarian
    I think he meant to say Dems want tax increases.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Do you know
    Yakn2
    I know about all Federal Agencies being hit by furloughs, budget custs, contractors out of work, etc. Does anyone know is Congress impacted the same as we are? Are their employees facing furloughs, travel restrictions, etc?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Yankn yer chain
    contrarian
    Psst: I heard rent reduction in Crystal City means toilet paper cutbacks. Better stock your own rolls and not be caught by surprise.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Subject matter
    Moderate
    That is really a *%#@8 subject.
    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" }