North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
this should be something that gets your attention I posted this same issue before the election and got one response. I really found that amazing.

Read these

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122477680834462659.html

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-com ... plans.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/23/d ... -security/

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7K2 ... AD93VSB001

Let me give it to you very briefly. So far, this is not Obama yet, but this goes straight to my point about all of the idiots on our side and in the media expecting Pelosi and Reid and Obama and everybody to govern from the center. The 401(k) was a central plan, a central tenet to get people to save for their own retirement in addition to Social Security. It came into play during the Reagan years, and it was designed to supplement your own investment program, dollars that you have earned in a retirement plan that was independent of Social Security. And, of course, the way it works, your company offers you the 401(k). You can take a percentage of the gross, your gross pay every month and put that in your 401(k). It reduces your taxable income.

George Miller, who heads the House committee that deals with 401(k)s, about a month ago said, we have to eliminate this tax subsidy. The government is losing $80 billion a year. We can't afford to lose this kind of money. There are too many people that don't need this tax break anymore. So what we're going to do, we're going to take away the whole notion that you get to deduct from your gross whatever you contribute to your 401(k). The government needs that money. :******: :******:

So one of the big incentives for having a 401(k) came under assault. Then that same committee two weeks later brought in an economist from the New School in New York called Teresa Ghilarducci. I'm having trouble with her name, and not on purpose but her idea is even worse, Darcy.

She wants to basically eliminate the 401(k), and the way she wants to do it is she wants to go to people who have a 401(k), who have seen its asset value plummet because of the market plunge. So she wants to go back to August levels. Everybody that has a 401(k), we'll take you back and we'll give you money. We'll restore the value. The government will. We're just going to print some money here, and we're going to restore your 401(k) to its August amount. Then we're going to take it. We're going to take your 401(k), and we will put it in your Social Security account that the government is monitoring for you, and we will invest every year 3% in government bonds. We'll buy government bonds so that your 401(k) will grow at 3% every year adjusted for inflation. The most that you will be able to contribute to your 401(k) every year is 5% of what you earn.

And then when you retire, your 401(k), and plus there's a $600 annual addition that she formulates here because she finds it inequitable that some people get a 36% tax deduction and some don't because the various income tax rates that affect how much of a deduction you get. So the bottom line is, they'll take your 401(k) and put it in Social Security. They give you 3% a year plus 5% of your gross added, and then at the end when you retire, you get one check. Your Social Security check plus whatever your 401(k) is. The government takes over your 401(k). Not so much flushes it, they just take it, like they're going to take some pension money. Now, this is not centrist. This is not moderate. This is George Miller, and this is the kind of thing that Reid and Pelosi will go for.

I don't know where Obama will stand on this, but the odds are that it will sound attractive to him because these people are all about expanding government coffers. And that's what they're going to do. So that's what's ahead for people's 401(k)s if the Democrats get their way. They may not, but that's what their planning is. And it's a great indication of where we're headed.

The Media didn't talk about this because they knew that it would be devastating.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,829 Posts
I don't think it's hard to believe at all. The left will find anyone they can with the same view and make them sound like they are the most informed person around. To completely dismiss it is ignorant.

I guess there is no reason to invest in retirement anymore? For us that have somehow they believe we have been getting an unfair tax break. :eyeroll:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
You ask

Does this Teresa Ghilarducci really have that much of a say in our economic policy? This seems pretty hard to believe.
Heres more on this topic, now understand these same people have driven SOCIAL SECURITY into certain bankruptcy

EYEING YOUR PENSION
If you have a 401(k) or equivalent retirement plan, you've probably seen your nest egg shrink considerably due to the current turmoil in the markets. Well, it could be worse, says the Wall Street Journal; some politicians are eyeing the end of the 401(k) as we know it!

The House Education and Labor Committee has heard a plan that contains elements that they are seriously considering, says James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal.

The plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, would fundamentally change tax-preferred savings plans:

1) All workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government toward their retirement savings, but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration.

2)The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
In addition, workers would be able to pass on only half of their account balances to their heirs; presumably the government would seize the remaining half. :******:

3)Further, the current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated. :******:

In the short term, Ghilarducci proposes that Congress allow workers to swap out their 401(k) assets for a guaranteed retirement account, but for one time only.

Overall, Ghilarducci's proposal will dramatically limit everyone's ability to take risks and will greatly increase government control of American's retirement funds. It is by no means certain that Congress or a President Obama would embrace such a proposal, but this is a direction in which things may move, says the Journal.

Source: James Taranto, "Eyeing Your Pension," Wall Street Journal, October 23, 2008; based upon: Teresa Ghilarducci, "Guaranteed retirement accounts: Toward retirement income security," Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper, No. 204, November 20, 2007.

For text:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122477680834462659.html

For Ghilarducci text:

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204.html

For more on Social Security Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?A ... ategory=39
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
955 Posts
:******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******: :******:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Maybe if you actually hear them say it it will sink in :eyeroll:

I dont know why this link doesn't work properly just click on the

jump to youtube

to watch it, it works there.

This is Jim Moran Democrat Virginia telling how the Democrats believe they need to seize your money and redistribute it

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carolina Journal Exclusives

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs
By Karen McMahan
November 04, 2008

RALEIGH - Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts - including 401(k)s and IRAs - and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers' retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on "The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers' Retirement Security," blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will "strengthen and protect Americans' 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans" and the "Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people."
:puke: :withstupid: :withstupid:

Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers' retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn't offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality

Ghilarducci's plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, "exacerbates income and wealth inequalities" because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are "skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do."

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals "provide a much larger 'carrot' to wealthy families than to middle-class families - and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes."

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not "earn a 3% real return in perpetuity." In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn't eliminate the tax breaks, rather, "I'm just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading - spreading the wealth." :eyeroll:

All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions. :******: :******: :******: :******:

Another justification for Ghilarducci's plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, "humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan." She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that "a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement." :******: :******: :puke:

What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to "enforce additional private savings," a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said "self" was the most important contributor, followed by "government." When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the "government" was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked "government" last and "self" first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).

On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina's economy into a long-term downward spiral.

Income and Wealth Redistribution

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution.

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that "from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw" in tax code incentives because they are "provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits."

Even people who don't pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. "There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all)," Greenstein said. :eyeroll:

"Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time," Greenstein said, and "reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality." :puke:

When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci's proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas.

Miller's biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.

After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of "killing the 401(k)" or of "killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s."

Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the "roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes" by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. "Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression," Beach said.

Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.

Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their "spreading the wealth" agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.

In the interview, Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society." The Constitution says only what "the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you," and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn't that radical.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not "optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts," as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

"The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change," Obama said.

Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Seabass the Clintons were cooking up a similar scheme in the early 90's and it was derailed when Newt Gingrich gained control of the congress.

I forget the eact details but believe their intention was to seize 10% of all monies in the ira/401k funds.

My point is not an anti Democrat thing it is that we cannot ever trust or underestimate the greed and power seeking that politicians on either side of the aisle will commit if we are not forever vigilant.

The huge amount of money currently out of the reach of these crooks in Washington is just an constant temptation they cannot resist.

I dont trust the republicans any farther than I can thow them and the Dems in congress are even worse.

It will be interesting to see if Obama is able to control the dem congress and their far left ajenda or if he even wants to.

If hes foolish enough to let them control him like they believe they can, the first black presidency will be a huge failure.

He is caught between a rock and hard place dealing with the far left in congress and the legacy he will create of his black presidency. Because if he succumbs and he lacks the will to stay to the center, blacks will be once again considered sterotypically inept and it will hurt them for many years.

Hes in a tough situation

My hope is that he surprises us all.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,688 Posts
Actually Regan did about the same thing to federal employees in 1986. He sacked the federal retirement funds paid by employees to save social security.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,865 Posts
hunter9494 said:
if Obama let's this pass, he will be run out of office BEFORE his 1st term is finished. this would cause a virtual civil uprising......it is theft, pure and simple.
Sure it is, but I doubt he will be run out of office. He's exactly what the Far Left want in the Oval Office...

I think he did a masterful job during his campaign of concealing how far Left he truly is. I would guess he's a lot closer to Pelosi than even he would be to Jimmy Carter (who I despise for eviscerating the Military when I was in the Army...). I suspect we are all going to find out pretty darn soon after he takes office.

Does anyone honestly think he is going to go against the likes of Pelosi/Reid, and govern from the Center?. Not me, brother...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,688 Posts
I think he is left of Pelosi and Reid. Listening to the news I understand he intends to use executive order on many things. Most presidents have used this sparingly, but it sounds like Obama wants to move fast. As a matter of fact that is what he expressed. I can only imagine he wants to move fast before anyone can stop him. He declares executive order and the republicans in congress never get a chance to filibuster a stupid bill.

How far reaching is executive order? Just how much can he do. I will bet he oversteps it, and who is going to stop him? It looks like he intends to reinstate capitol gains tax immediately. Down goes the stock market. If you had a good profit going would you sell now, or wait until Obama takes office? Now watch some dishonest partisan come on here and say he would wait. Right! Only an idiot would wait until Obama takes office. People will be divesting themselves as quickly as possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,556 Posts
if he is that stupid, then he will have no chance at a 2nd term........there will be a ground swell of opposing support by then......usually guys wait until the 2nd term to pass the most insidious regulations and penalties, if he does the most damage by executive order, the whole dem party will pay the price in 4 years, maybe sooner...people wanted change, but his plans will cause a backlash of epic proportions. the majority of the people in this country are not THAT damn far left....not even Ryan!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,688 Posts
I think the big problem is people can not comprehend that he is taking their money. If he knocked them down on the street, grabbed and emptied their wallet they would cry to high heaven, but that is essentially what he is doing. Obama and the democrats are going to rob you at ballot point and you don't even know it. It looks like America (as we currently know it) will die without a whimper.

This past election kind of reminds me of watching the pigs on the farm when I was growing up. The fat ones are kind of independent, and no matter how much you shake the bucket they may or may not pay much attention to you. On the other hand if you toss a few kernels of corn to the skinny pigs they will follow you right to the slaughter. I think to many people think Obama is going tax the snot out of the fat pigs and give them a few kernels.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top