7:53 pm, April 20, 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.

  • 11
       

  • All those savings?
    contrarian
    We have money to turn sand into glass but not pay FedEmps? How every sitting party to this transaction does not get pilloried is beyond me.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Savings? Probably not
    Rob
    Any savings that came from sequestration will be wiped out if we get involved in another Middle East war. Have we not learned any lessons from previous involvement in the ME? The only thing interesting about the Syrian war debate is how the politicians are NOT considering what's best for the country, but merely considering how a vote for or against war will help/hurt their midterm bid for re-election.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • So true
    Moderate
    Politicians, whether Democrats or Republicans, work for the next election. However, according to the polls I have seen, a midwast war willl not help them. So, I am confused.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Representatives of the people?
    Jimmac
    The American people are mainly against any military action in Syria. In spite of a majority of the electorate being against another fiasco in the Middle East our elected representatives are charging ahead with a military plan.(Talk about a representative democracy) These people cannot even balance the budget let alone wage a successful war. It is time for a change with midterm elections bringing in people who will represent their voters. Hopefully the new Congress will cease using Federal employees as a political ploy.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • making decisions can be tough
    Rob
    The country is definitely war weary. Going to war is a tough sell when you have no clear objective. Couple that with the fact that the side you’re trying to help is just as barbaric as the one you’re seeking to bomb. However, I must say that I’m not a big fan of always checking the temperature of the electorate before making decisions. Presidents are expected to make tough decisions and if their decisions turn out to be bad then the electorate will do its thing come election time. If we want our president to always do what the majority wants then running the country can be done by anyone....with the aid of a teleprompter of course.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • War without concurrence?
    Moderate
    Congress and the public have demanded their say in military actions. That happened in the Viet Nam war among others.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Syria has no impact on our finances
    marxwj
    We have hundreds of thousands of missiles in storage for a war that may never come. We could empty all the ships in the region of missiles and never need to replace them in our stockpiles. We have spent more shipping over food and medicine to Syria than we will spend on the few bombs they are planning to drop. My office does construction and maintenance and we simply aren't doing it anymore because of sequestration. We have plans to eliminate, not cut back, building renovation and modernization projects. They are looking into how much they can cut back on simple facility maintenance and preventative maintenance to just above what is needed to keep the lights on. No one will have a clue how much this will cost us for years to come. Buildings that have a 50 year life expectancy with adequate maintenance lose time every time we cut back on maintenance. Standard funding usually comes out to about 80% of what we should be doing. Sequestration took us to about 60% this year, and next year they are looking at 50% or less. This damage compounds year after year. You would be hard pressed to notice it after one year, unless you knew what to look for, but after 10 years of sequester it will start to become obvious to even the most untrained eye. Unfortunately, the bills will continue to mount for decades after, as systems that should still have years of life, die off faster than they should. We have traded one loan for another, and this one has an escalating interest rate.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Nope
    melekali
    I don't think there were much in the way of real savings - its more of a numbers game, kind of like a shell game. Putting half of all cuts on the Defense is a good way to make us undefensible. So what do the President and Congress want to do? Waste billions of dollars intervening in Syria, a truly unjust, immoral action. Perhaps Congress and the President (and all his so-called aids) should stop taking any money since they don't seem to be doing their jobs.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }