3:35 am, July 10, 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.

  • 21
       

  • All things considered
    Budgetweenie
    I used the estimator to determine what I would have lost over 15 years. though the number was significant I am left to wonder how it would be that I would "lose" $40K when I never had it to begin with. the more troubling thought I have is, if asked to forego $40k how can I be content if knowing that so many will find methods to circumvent the intended purpose of sustaining the trusts. (i.e., taking anything deemed in excess of requirement and using for other, less worthwhile purposes). What is of greatest concern is, if I make the sacrifice, how do I know that the very wealthy, who are less scrupulous, won't find other means of capturing a larger percent of the eggs, resulting in my diminished "nest egg"?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Thanks to the dirtbags in the worthless Congress and the big dirtbag in the White House for shoving it up ours again.
    The Original Joe S
    1] The after-tax money you put in ain't what you're taking out. So, we'll only allow you 1/30th of that as a deduction each year for 30 years. We hope you DIE before it's all done, and your heirs don't know about it so that we keep it and don't tell 'em about it. 2] Too bad we can't force you to take below-market rate savings bonds any more. We really banged you with low rates, AND humped you by taxing the NUMERICAL DIFFERENCE [NOT the CONSTANT DOLLAR DIFFERENCE] so that we can take YOUR money and give it to the undeserving leeches who slobber at the public trough. The dirtbags in Congress and the Executive are happy when the Fed workers do their jobs at below-market salary rates, but they ALWAYS try to hump the workers LATER out of the benefits THEY EARNED. The dirtbags bleat that they "can't afford" to pay. Can the workers afford to get scrood out of their earned benefits? I'm glad I retired from those dirtbags soon as I hit 30. I didn't let the door hit me in the kiester as I split with JATO speed. Keep sending my money to me in my tropical paradise overseas where the buck still gets something, and I enjoy spending most of it on women and whiskey, and simply squandering the rest.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • spam instead of beef
    harveyinnyc
    The basic tenet of "chained CPI" is this: "It's o.k. that we'll pay our seniors and retirees less, because they will make a choice to eat spam on Friday nights instead of beef." And according to the President and certain economists, that's perfectly o.k.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • What happens when?
    dancermommd
    What happens when you are already living as cheaply as you can? You need milk but you can't get milk any cheaper? You don't ever buy steak, only chicken or fish? This is a remarkably stupid way to calculate CPI. CPI already doesn't take into account the cost of utilities or gas which are two of the most unstable costs retirees have to deal with. So you figure that on $30K a year I live on steak and fine wine? And I can choose lower cost items? Please! On $30K a year you are already living on the cheapest items you can. This is just a calculation designed to scr*w you out of money, period!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Sam Johnsons Comments
    harveyinnyc
    According to Mr. Johnson, using the chained CPI will strengthen social security. Well Mr. Johnson, it's obvious that reneging on someone's pension will save money. A better solution, Mr. Johnson, would be to make a samll increase to the amount of income that is subject to social security tax. That would also strengthen social security, without confiscating someone's earned retirement.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Refreshing...
    strizhko
    to actually see someone else mention raising the cap on the amount of salary subject to the SS tax. It has not been raised in years so at least adjust to cap to reflect inflation, whatever that may be. Too often the disadvantaged are asked to give up more so the rich can have their second and third BMW's. Then again, that's the wishes of Boner and company, especially Paul Ryan. BTW -- Paul Ryan says he can balance the budget in 10 years... and give the rich a $250k tax CUT! Now how do you think he plans to do that.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Agree
    Spanky
    Also what is not mentioned is that all these entitlement savings they are gouging at us is for....... ??? More new shiny jets, subs, ships, UAVs, missles and many other WMD that they refuse to remove or reduce on any DoD budget. Whilst we fight war-made 16th century jihadists created from the many wars this Pentagon/CIA created!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }