Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts - "Agenda for Shared Prosperity"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Whatever man. That's cheap and you know it. When you can't respond to the argument presented to you - you go on the attack with b/s. You're like McCain - who needs to prove anything when you can just lay claim to "superior experience". Never mind actually demonstrating the benefit of said experience or having actually learned a thing or two.

But feel free to explain how badly wrong I am with your (presumably) superior knowledge of economics and finance. Have you ever heard of just agreeing to disagree...?

You're a lot more sensitive than I thought considering what I said was true and contained no coarse language. I did give an on topic serious response even if you didn't buy it. You are wrong about McCain though since he said he didn't know as much as he should on economics.

I didn't claim superior knowledge on economic or finances and a lot of smart people got burned in this slowdown so who's really an expert? I think your laboring under the assumption that most investors are rational and listening to the Fed Chairman or the Treasury Secretary. I don't think that's true based on fools selling their stock short when they should wait it out or even buy more. Take how many idiots believed the notion housing prices will always rise dramatically year after year and were shocked when the bubble burst.

Just for the record, what's your line of work so that I don't make another false assumption?

Dude - I smell your smarmy attitude a mile off. It goes hand in hand with your massive ego - which more than a few people have commented on.

I'm not labouring under any assumptions - simply pointing out the obvious that ripples in stock market confidence are more likely to result from things said by people in authority. I'm no expert but even "I" can see that.

Again - there's no bill on the table, nothing substantive, no comment from anyone who would actually make any decision on it, just some minor rumblings in government committees.

Do you think actionable policy is crafted out of every single government focus group? Do you honestly believe that?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The usual suspects have their heads in the sand.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The usual suspects have their heads in the sand.

Not sand but utopia.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The usual suspects have their heads in the sand.

Not sand but utopia.

So presumably going off half cocked over an article that makes reference to govenment committee meetings about social security reform and how savings are invested is... Dystopia?

All I'm saying is that this article proves nothing by itself and won't unless big names get behind the idea. If that's burying my head in the sand it would seem to be a pretty creative way of going about it..

The election is only a couple of days old.get a grip guys, for the sake of your blood pressure!

[akdiver 3]

I can tell you this right now. If the government confiscates my private retirement accounts and gives them to the social security agency to "manage", I WILL become a "terrorist."

[rocks 494]

The usual suspects have their heads in the sand.

Not sand but utopia.

So presumably going off half cocked over an article that makes reference to govenment committee meetings about social security reform and how savings are invested is... Dystopia?

All I'm saying is that this article proves nothing by itself and won't unless big names get behind the idea. If that's burying my head in the sand it would seem to be a pretty creative way of going about it..

The election is only a couple of days old.get a grip guys, for the sake of your blood pressure!

you can't get through to these people, they aren't listening to anything but the sound (or look) of their own voice.

the article quite clearly says...

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.

so regardless of whether this becomes a policy or not it is quite clear that this is being suggested to stop people losing more money, and that is a bad thing? gotta love those republicans for being ignorant.

[peejay 327]

so regardless of whether this becomes a policy or not it is quite clear that this is being suggested to stop people losing more money, and that is a bad thing? gotta love those republicans for being ignorant.

Ignorant? Do you really need gummit to manage and control every aspect of your life for you to save you from yourself? Who then is really ignorant?

[Pooky 3,784]

God, you guys are paranoid...

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

[Pooky 3,784]

the article quite clearly says...

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.

so regardless of whether this becomes a policy or not it is quite clear that this is being suggested to stop people losing more money, and that is a bad thing? gotta love those republicans for being ignorant.

And who, might I ask, got everyone into this flamin' mess in the first place? Government (all of it).

Now you're going to trust them to "look after" your previously private retirement funds for you and do a better job than someone who invests for a career? Please tell me you have more sense than this.

Oh, and before you say "it's not policy yet, just an idea being bandied about in committee", I give it less than 6 months before the bill goes before the House. Even without a filibuster-proof majority, this one is likely to be seen as moderate enough by some Rino's to be green-lighted. It's a bad idea.

[Dan J 277]

I don't really think this is much more than FUD from a paranoid Republican.

But that said. If we are to rely on the market to provide our retirement, shouldn't we expect a bit more stability in the market? Instead of managing a stable growth pattern, we go through cycles of extreme growth (bubbles usually), followed by contraction. That indexes right now are about the same place they were when Bush took office.

Of course its possible to take advantage of these cycles and limit risk by diversifying and moving assets or stocks around as the market changes. But how many people really have the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions.

[Pooky 3,784]

I don't really think this is much more than FUD from a paranoid Republican.

But that said. If we are to rely on the market to provide our retirement, shouldn't we expect a bit more stability in the market? Instead of managing a stable growth pattern, we go through cycles of extreme growth (bubbles usually), followed by contraction. That indexes right now are about the same place they were when Bush took office.

Of course its possible to take advantage of these cycles and limit risk by diversifying and moving assets or stocks around as the market changes. But how many people really have the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions.

My comment was relative - I really don't think the Government, with its current track record, is the right manager for your retirement money.

They sure as hell weren't the right manager for your mortgages.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I don't really think this is much more than FUD from a paranoid Republican.

But that said. If we are to rely on the market to provide our retirement, shouldn't we expect a bit more stability in the market? Instead of managing a stable growth pattern, we go through cycles of extreme growth (bubbles usually), followed by contraction. That indexes right now are about the same place they were when Bush took office.

Of course its possible to take advantage of these cycles and limit risk by diversifying and moving assets or stocks around as the market changes. But how many people really have the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions.

True, look who's president.

[rocks 494]

so regardless of whether this becomes a policy or not it is quite clear that this is being suggested to stop people losing more money, and that is a bad thing? gotta love those republicans for being ignorant.

Ignorant? Do you really need gummit to manage and control every aspect of your life for you to save you from yourself? Who then is really ignorant?

did you read what i said or did you just get really mad after reading the quote?

i didn't say it would become a policy, the chances are it probably won't but this idea was suggested to try and prevent people from losing more money. get more upset about someone trying to stop people from losing money. enjoy being angry.

Edited November 7, 2008 by rocks

[Dan J 277]

I don't really think this is much more than FUD from a paranoid Republican.

But that said. If we are to rely on the market to provide our retirement, shouldn't we expect a bit more stability in the market? Instead of managing a stable growth pattern, we go through cycles of extreme growth (bubbles usually), followed by contraction. That indexes right now are about the same place they were when Bush took office.

Of course its possible to take advantage of these cycles and limit risk by diversifying and moving assets or stocks around as the market changes. But how many people really have the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions.

My comment was relative - I really don't think the Government, with its current track record, is the right manager for your retirement money.

They sure as hell weren't the right manager for your mortgages.

The government definitely influences how the market performs. So they already are managing your money, albeit indirectly.

I'm not advocating that the government take over 401k plans. But instead suggesting that the government can do a better job than it has in overseeing the markets to result in more stable growth. Regulating out the destructive behavior that results in extreme market shifts, before it becomes a problem.

In the current market cycle, regulating derivatives long before they actually become a problem, would have probably lessened the bubble and subsequent collapse as we have experienced. Not to say that we wouldn't have gone through this cycle, but it probably would have been less extreme.

[peejay 327]

so regardless of whether this becomes a policy or not it is quite clear that this is being suggested to stop people losing more money, and that is a bad thing? gotta love those republicans for being ignorant.

Ignorant? Do you really need gummit to manage and control every aspect of your life for you to save you from yourself? Who then is really ignorant?

did you read what i said or did you just get really mad after reading the quote?

i didn't say it would become a policy, the chances are it probably won't but this idea was suggested to try and prevent people from losing more money. get more upset about someone trying to stop people from losing money. enjoy being angry.

Who's angry? I'm just commenting on your post. I'm certainly not advocating total deregulation in the USA. Government does have a role in enforcing some semblance of order and keeping the crooks from running amok. That is a far cry from government micromanaging your life and treating adults like children.