11:40 am, 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.

  • 26
       

  • Furlough Days
    whitewaterrafter
    My wife (IRS) suggested that Federal employees refrain from any economic activity on furlough days, eg. no dining out, shopping, etc. Just to remind people of the impact of Federal salaries lost. Mike (retired IRS) Louisville
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Already started cutting back
    MichaelF
    I already started cutting back my personal spending. I began in March in anticipation of what was to follow. I put off making several purchases and I go out to eat less often. If those I usually do business with have not noticed yet, then they never will.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Stock Market is Happy
    contrarian
    Just wait until millions of Feds cut back their TSP contributions and take loans! In fact, with market at all time highs, now is a great time to cash out!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Are you sure?
    Moderate
    Are the PE ratios of the companies out of line? Be careful. Were you the one who screamed that we should be able to invest in precious metals? Look at them now. I cannot foresee the future, but I cannot predict where stocks and other investments will go.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • agree with whitewaterafter
    Gov-K
    I support that 100%. There will be no economic support from this home on those days, and very little in between. Our town and surrounding areas depend on Federal salaries to support their business. They have hired, grown and built a good life for many and their families. Many of the small business owners have done very well. Yet, some will be the first to bash and complain about Federal employees - biting the hand the feeds you....
    Gov-K
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Misleading 20% figure
    ACE
    Although the often used 20% loss of pay for one week is technically accurate it is misleading and overstates the actual loss of pay. Most federal employees are looking at 0 to 14 furlough days this fiscal year. That would reflect a maximum annual loss of 5 percent.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Accurate 20% figure
    DCRed
    The 20% loss for that week is absolutely accurate. It is not misleading, and overstates nothing. No one is reporting a 20% annual loss, just for the week of the furlough day. You lose a day of pay, you lose 20% of your pay that week. Simple. Why are you trying to minimize someone else's loss of 20% of their pay for the affected week?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • As I said technically accurate but misleading
    ACE
    Maybe we should state the loss by the day which would be 100%. That is just as accurate as your weekly number but does not use a reasonable time period that actually reflects the total lost pay. I am not minimizing the loss just looking for a more truthful representation of the loss.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Ridiculous
    DCRed
    Or maybe we should state the loss by the decade then. That would only be a half of a percent income loss. Wow, you're right, by your logic, the furlough keeps looking better and better. By the century, it's barely a loss of any income at all.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Having 20% less pay every payday...
    FERS Fed
    ...for feeding/housing your family and paying your bills is 20% loss of pay. End of bogus argument.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Facts is Facts
    ACE
    The sequester is for the fiscal year not the decade. It is looking like less then 1 furlough day per pay period that would be 10% per remaining pay period and still less then 5% per year. I would think the prudent person would have seen this coming and set aside a little extra during the year to cover the possible loss at the end of the year.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • And math is math.
    FERS Fed
    In the federal gov't, most civilian employees get paid for an 80 hour (2 week) pay period. One furlough day per week = -16 hours for the pay period. Don't know about the planet where you live, but around here -16 divided by 80 = -20% ..... Yes, furloughs vary by agency. Some folks in the Judiciary branch are being furloughed 1 day per week, 2 days per pay period. Others will have no furloughs at all. How people deal with it is none of your, my, or anyone elses business. ..... What this has to do with a year, decade, or any other time period is irrelevant.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • We will have to agree to disagree.
    ACE
    Your math is correct, but how many federal employees are getting a furlough day each week. Not many. TSA no furlough, SSA no furlough (me), defense is now down from 24 to 7 days and most other agencies are eliminating or dropping the number of furlough days. So far there are some folks in the Judiciary branch (public defenders) that are experiencing a 20 percent cut, for them I have no problem using the 20 percent figure per week because it does reflect the cut from now to Oct. 1. I have a problem with the indiscriminate use of the 20 percent in a week phrase when talking about 7 days between now and Oct. 1. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I suspect most federal employees will not experience anything near 24 furlough days. I have enjoyed our chat have a good life.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • furlough
    marien
    Furloughs mean much more than loss of pay that day. It means less federal and state taxes paid, hence having a negative effect on reducing the deficit as Congress thinks attacking federal workers and federal contractors will achieve; it means loss of retirement contributionts, eventually resulting in more reliance on federal programs when all these workers retire with inadequate retirement savings; it means less money put into savings accounts, mutual fund accounts and more money taken out of those accounts; it means far less consumer spending, thus reducing business' income and, therefore, reducing taxes paid by those businesses, including social security withholding. Who among us has any respect left for Congress, especially Republicans who think furloughing federal workers is such a swell idea? I think a swell idea is for them not to be paid on all their "not in session" days which, by the way, is a substantial number this calendar year. The House figures they don't have to address any problems if they pretty much aren't in session. When will their hatred of the President and federal workers end?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • And another thing...
    Rock Man
    Per a book review in The Washington Post on Oct. 13, 2012 entitled "Master of the Mountain", we learn that even Thomas Jefferson, signer of the Declaration of Independence, thought of his 180 slaves as "human capital". This is what Congress thinks of Feds in general, that we are simply capital that can be used when seen fit... not as valued dedicated employees. Maybe that is why agencies have changed their personnel office names to "Office of Human Capital", because that is apparently all that we are. Bring on the furloughs, and spend only for bare necessities... make it count!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • 20% misleading
    Linda
    Yes, over the entire year, the 20% loss in pay is much less as it is not one day a week for 52 weeks. That said, it is also mis leading for the week in question. Yes, you loose one days pay in 5 or 20%, but it will be much more than that in take home pay. Insurance is not reduced by 20%, FSAs are not Reduced, union dues, if you have a fix dollar amount rather percentage for your TSP is doesn't reduce, etc. the one day will be more than 20% of take home pay that week, more like 30% for many. Luckily, most agencies are doing on,y one day per pay period, so for the pay period the gross pay is only 10%, but I would figure closer to 15% for the loss of take home pay. The only calculator I saw did the adjustment based on two days a pay period and I would have lost 40% of my take home pay. I am almost happy to only lose 15%.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • misleading
    jst
    You are correct. Now lets see what happens in the coming months. Federal Workers who are having their pay "taken away" from an incoherient congress will remember this day when the mid term elections come around. Many of those who you see in office today, you will no longer see after mid-term elections. The people are fed up and are going to vote all existing congress members out of office and replace them with new ones... That is a given, starting with the speaker of the house. The next thing to watch for is how many Federal Workers will turn to moonlighting jobs outside of their Federal employment so they can make ends meet. With the cost of living in Maryland, Virgina, and D.C. areas, people will have not other choice but moonlight. This is going to be a big mess any way you look at it. Thanks congress for letting this happen! Well see what happens at mid-term elections! Get your resume's ready for Walmart.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Get ready
    Rock Man
    I wish my agency would get the furlough show on the road. I've got some part-time opportunities I want to pursue, which I plan to convert to even more part-time after retirement, which will be soon. And... the President did make at least the gesture of reducing his pay as a sign of support for Federal workers. But will those knotheads in Congress follow suit? Faggedabboutit!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }