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

[mawilson 2,133]

In the absence of specific proposals, not very...

Plenty of ideas get thrown around in govt - they don't all end up becoming things that are legislated on.

Messing around with millions of people's investments is no joke considering if you mention Social Security reform you'll be tarred and feathered. Loose talk about seizing assets will lead people to withdraw their money when we need money in the system available for credit.

I thought you knew something about finances in your profession.

i wonder what aj and mawilson's take on this story is.

My take? I will round up a posse and string up the Dems by their nuts if they even think of doing something like that.

[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.

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.

the point i made was that the idea was formed due to people losing a lot of money previously and they are acknowledging that and trying to do think of something to do about it. the crooks are running amok right now, someone needs to do something. as i said, i'm not sure that this is the best idea but it is better than what is being done currently, which is nothing. anyone who thinks it is ok to continue on as we are has something wrong with them.

[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.

the point i made was that the idea was formed due to people losing a lot of money previously and they are acknowledging that and trying to do think of something to do about it. the crooks are running amok right now, someone needs to do something. as i said, i'm not sure that this is the best idea but it is better than what is being done currently, which is nothing. anyone who thinks it is ok to continue on as we are has something wrong with them.

So...what does that have to do with eliminating private 401K deductions and forcing people into a government run system? Are you another one that believes government is there to protect you from making poor personal decisions in your life and the answer is to have them run your finances for you in yet another government mandated program?

Hey...I don't mean to rain on your parade, but there always have been crooks and there always will be crooks. IMO the role of government should be to assure the integrity of the investment and financial system, not to protect individuals from making poor financial decisions.

Most people do not need to have government taking our money and then have us have to go through them to get it back. As stated earlier in the thread...government of both parties have a long history of squandering the public's money. The last thing anyone needs is to have these clowns get ahold of your money for safekeeping. If you feel that way I would suggest a simple savings account at an FDIC bank would be better than giving it over to government for them to administer as they see fit.

The fact that congress is even discussing this should raise some eyebrows with the public.

[akdiver 3]

If you eliminate the deductions for contributions, then people simply will not contribute. What's the incentive? Might as well just take the money as take home pay and save it in some other kind of account.

Once people stop voluntarily contributing, then they will be forced to contribute. This is exactly how social security works.

Bottom line? Tax increase.

[rocks 494]

So...what does that have to do with eliminating private 401K deductions and forcing people into a government run system? Are you another one that believes government is there to protect you from making poor personal decisions in your life and the answer is to have them run your finances for you in yet another government mandated program?

no, but it was clear that you assumed that of me from the start. thanks for the stereotyping.

Hey...I don't mean to rain on your parade, but there always have been crooks and there always will be crooks. IMO the role of government should be to assure the integrity of the investment and financial system, not to protect individuals from making poor financial decisions.

indeed, the government needs to regulate all companies to ensure the craziness that is going on now is not allowed to be repeated.

Most people do not need to have government taking our money and then have us have to go through them to get it back. As stated earlier in the thread...government of both parties have a long history of squandering the public's money. The last thing anyone needs is to have these clowns get ahold of your money for safekeeping. If you feel that way I would suggest a simple savings account at an FDIC bank would be better than giving it over to government for them to administer as they see fit.

The fact that congress is even discussing this should raise some eyebrows with the public.

all governments squander money, it's what they do. the article said it wanted to prevent people from losing more money. i fail to see where stopping people from losing more money is a bad thing? i never said any of these things you assume of me, but again, thanks for the stereotyping.

[britty 1]

It is all about control. Obama has always thought that the government needs to run your life. Him and his cronies can f-off if they think my 401k is better in their hands. So many people voted for this imbecile and they don't realize that he will tax the bejesus out of every single one of them. It doesn't matter how much you earn, Obama will find a way to take more money from you and then all those people on DC news channels that said "I will never have to worry about my mortgage again under Obama", and "Obama is gonna give me a pay day!" are going to be sadly disappointed. If you believe that the government needs to run your life because frankly you can't, then you voted the right man for the job.

[mawilson 2,133]

the article said it wanted to prevent people from losing more money. i fail to see where stopping people from losing more money is a bad thing?

I didn't see anyone complain when the return on emerging market funds was a healthy 20-40 percent per annum.

Instead, the government wants to give you a fixed 3 percent annual return... 3 percent! Wow. Excuse me if I'm not impressed - I can make that much in one day of trading in my IRA account.

[britty 1]

the article said it wanted to prevent people from losing more money. i fail to see where stopping people from losing more money is a bad thing?

I didn't see anyone complain when the return on emerging market funds was a healthy 20-40 percent per annum.

Instead, the government wants to give you a fixed 3 percent annual return... 3 percent! Wow.[ Excuse me if I'm not impressed - I can make that much in one day of trading in my IRA account.

It is a joke isn't it? What also makes me laugh is the fact that there are people out there thinking "hmm - 3 percent - not bad at all.." Doh !

[akdiver 3]

Instead, the government wants to give you a fixed 3 percent annual return... 3 percent!

So help me god, if this plan comes to pass, I will make Mcveigh look like a ###### saint.

Edited November 7, 2008 by akdiver

[nowhereman 1]

The usual suspects have their heads in the sand.

You could dredge up dozens of right wing articles that are just as scary. Everyone pull their panties out of their buttcrack and knock it off. Until anything is remotely close to becoming a policy it doesn't matter, so enough already.

[akdiver 3]

The usual suspects have their heads in the sand.

You could dredge up dozens of right wing articles that are just as scary. Everyone pull their panties out of their buttcrack and knock it off. Until anything is remotely close to becoming a policy it doesn't matter, so enough already.

That's short sighted thinking, ignores the concept of "mindshare" and fails to recognize that acclimation is the key to subjugation.

[rocks 494]

The usual suspects have their heads in the sand.

You could dredge up dozens of right wing articles that are just as scary. Everyone pull their panties out of their buttcrack and knock it off. Until anything is remotely close to becoming a policy it doesn't matter, so enough already.

exactly.

[nowhereman 1]

The usual suspects have their heads in the sand.

You could dredge up dozens of right wing articles that are just as scary. Everyone pull their panties out of their buttcrack and knock it off. Until anything is remotely close to becoming a policy it doesn't matter, so enough already.

That's short sighted thinking, ignores the concept of "mindshare" and fails to recognize that acclimation is the key to subjugation.

It's late, I'm tired and I don't feel like checking the validity of the article at this point... but I tend to worry about reality or probabilities, not possibilities.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

The usual suspects have their heads in the sand.

You could dredge up dozens of right wing articles that are just as scary. Everyone pull their panties out of their buttcrack and knock it off. Until anything is remotely close to becoming a policy it doesn't matter, so enough already.

just one small problem: how many of those right wing article topics are being discussed in the house?

[nowhereman 1]

The usual suspects have their heads in the sand.

You could dredge up dozens of right wing articles that are just as scary. Everyone pull their panties out of their buttcrack and knock it off. Until anything is remotely close to becoming a policy it doesn't matter, so enough already.

just one small problem: how many of those right wing article topics are being discussed in the house?

My point is that if you have a bias or hatred for a group or viewpoint (doesn't matter what group or viewpoint) you will always find something negative to say about them. That's why 99% of the fights happen here.