Dems Target 410Ks

[Ron61]

I didn't do a lot of searching on this article to see if it is true or not, so take it as it is. Sorry about the mispelled Heading. I can't edit that to correct Target 401Ks.

http://www.remoteviewer.nu/?p=9019

Ron

[computerworks]

...fixed thread title...CW

[Ron61]

Thanks Ron. Much appreciated.

Ron

[392cobra]

Good post Ron.

It sure gives an insight as to just how Socialist the Liberal Demos are.
What I see as frightening is how well they can sell this chit by tying it to a "fairness" bandwagon.

This is not the America I grew up in.
The irresponsible have nots are starting to run amuck.

[clayfoushee]

This is another "tin-foil hat" rumor, but to understand why, one needs to understand why a Congressional hearing is held and what it is designed to accomplish. When Congress is in session, there are often 5 or more hearings per day in various committees. These hearings are structured to publicly air a large number of views representing very diverse and different perspectives. Since Congress is composed of those you have voted to represent you, it is the primary means by which the legislative body puts every thing on the table for public discussion and maintains transparency with the public.

It is this very public debate in hearings and other forums, that allows representative to take the temperature of the public. A few ideas gain traction in this way, but the vast majority of views and proposals don't progress past the submission of written testimony.

This particular rumor about confiscating 401k accounts began when one of the witnesses in one hearing (referred to in the link above) presented such a proposal as one means of guaranteeing that a 401k wouldn't be wiped out by a market collapse. It was a radical view, and polar extreme views on both sides are the norm in these hearings. In that same hearing, other witnesses presented strong opposing views.

If one gets hysterical about what one witness (out of hundreds) says in one Congressional hearing, you're likely going to have to double or triple up on your blood pressure medication, and your anti-anxiety pills. Just because one witness tosses something out there, doesn't mean there is a plan to draft legislation. It is simply one voice among the cacaphony of views.

I would give this proposal exactly a 0% probability of going anywhere.

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by clayfoushee

you're likely going to have to double or triple up on your blood pressure medication.I would give this proposal exactly a 0% probability of going anywhere.

I hoping my single dose will work this morning.

I certainly hope you are correct about 0% probability but it is something to closely watch.

Something like trust but verify ?

[clayfoushee]

Sure, it's always healthy to watch your government in action, as long as you understand that testimony in a hearing never even closely approximates actual policy. It is certainly not worth losing sleep over or, worse yet, blowing up your internal plumbing.

I repeat, it ain't gonna happen.

[VRM]

Ron,
Maybe you should do some research before posting stuff like this. This is a total distortion of what actually happened. The person mentioned in the article talked about changing around the tax benefits for 401Ks. There was no discussion of confiscating them, or eliminating them.

We already have CdC, Perry, and Warren posting all kinds of 'sky-is-falling' nonsense.
We have plenty of things that are wrong with this country that are factual, we should focus on those before worrying about the fake ones.

Steve

[Ron61]

Clay,

That is the reason that I put take it as it is as I didn't find anything to verify or deny it. There are so many wild rumors going around right now that I don't pay a lot of serious attention to many of them, but I do think they should be watched as it will be to late to do anything if some of the stuff does come to pass. I don't like Obama, but I am willing to wait and give him a chance to see if he will put the country and people ahead of himself and his friends. I hope so, but doubt it as for the last 40 years or more, we have just steadily lost more and more of our rights from Government meddling. Hope that I am wrong about a lot of the things I fear, but only time will tell.

Ron

[mdmull]

No comment on the 401k rumors, but I must take exception to the explanation of the congressional hearing realities. In the Civics texts the above explanation is correct, but in reality, they provide an opportunity for each party to alternately bash opponents of their point of view & elevate the witnesses that support their point of view. While some actual information/ideas are in the room, the congress"people" are not listening they're posturing. Any actual gathering of information is done by the staff & they mirror & support the political bias of their boss. The witnesses that testify are known quantities to the politicos & are selected to support or oppose the pre-chosen position. Both parties do this & the number of witnesses are in proportion to the committee party lines. No attempt is made to hear "the voice of the People", or even the facts.

[Ron61]

Originally Posted by VRM

Ron,
Maybe you should do some research before posting stuff like this. This is a total distortion of what actually happened. The person mentioned in the article talked about changing around the tax benefits for 401Ks. There was no discussion of confiscating them, or eliminating them.

We already have CDC, Perry, and Warren posting all kinds of 'sky-is-falling' nonsense.
We have plenty of things that are wrong with this country that are factual, we should focus on those before worrying about the fake ones.

Steve

Steve,

That is why I posted that you can take it as it is or leave it. And why didn't you post a link that shows it is a total distortion of the truth. And where in my post did you read that I said they were going to do away with them. Perhaps you should read the posts a little closer. The article said confiscating retirement plan accounts.

I apologize to the moderators for this cut and paste but to me this is a mention of confiscation or doing away with retirement accounts.

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.

Ron

[Jamo]

Gents...it is what it is. Though I agree with Clay (having given testimony in more than a few legislative hearings myownself and none of the Demos every adopted what I said ), every now and then something buried in the literally tons of submitted written material gains traction (the most obvious lately was the idea of safe harbor provisions for Social Security Mismatch letters which are now tied up in court).

I think Ms. Ghilarducci is an Enemy of the State and should leave the planet forthwith, but that's just me.

[VRM]

Ron,
Sorry - I didn't write what I meant.
That Theresa G.... talked about confiscating them, but she has been squawking about this for years. Congress is not going to confiscate them. Your headline 'Dems target 401Ks' was what set me off. That is more of the sky is falling type of stuff that I expect to see from CdC or Perry.
Your title is a leading emphatic statement rather than one questioning whether anybody on the Forum thought the stuff mentioned in the article would actually happen.

And with a headline like that it is inevitable that somebody like 392Cobra would jump on board because he wants it to be true so he can show how bad the DNC is.

Steve

[VRM]

Oh, and as Clay and Jamo said, just because some whack job like Theresa gets up in front of Congress and starts running her mouth does not mean it will be made into law.

[Ron61]

Steve,

The headline was just copied from the article. I never even made that up. There were over 100 stories on that particular page and that one just caught my eye. None of them are all true and none are all false.

As for Theresa G., Jamo put it very well. Just some of the stuff that gets crammed in among the piles of sh** I feel we should keep a close eye on before Congress manages to slipsome of it through and make it law before we have any chance of stopping the bad stuff. In my limited and humble opinion, anything the Govt. decides to take over and manage is going to be a disaster. Justlike in the Gay Marriage thread. It seems the Govt. wants to run everything in our lives now. By the way, I can get you a great deal on the video cameras that you will have to have mounted in your houses in a few years.

Ron

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by 392cobra

Good post Ron.

It sure gives an insight as to just how Socialist the Liberal Demos are.
What I see as frightening is how well they can sell this chit by tying it to a "fairness" bandwagon.

This is not the America I grew up in.
The irresponsible have nots are starting to run amuck.

Even after reviewing all the comments since my first post on this thread,I see no reason to revise my comments.

[Ron61]

Fred,

I think that there was just a post or so that didn't come out the way they were meant to. I just picked one off the page of over 100 news links that looked interesting to me, especially since Theresa G. was involved. And though none of this is likely to happen, I feel that we should keep an eye on what is even being talked about. Not that they would pay any attention to us if we called in to complain.

Oh why wasn't I a politician so I wouldn't have to know anything and could live off the people.


Ron

[bomelia]

I hesitate to mention this. Perhaps it is a coincidence. Clay has been gone from this particular forum for sometime (and I respect and like him, so go easy on me Clay). Yet I wonder at the recent reapearance so close to the election. Some time ago, Clay blasted me for slamming McCain as a not so true conservative. I was reminded (by Clay) that McCain was a true American hero (I agree). But to this day, though I voted for him, I never felt he had a true conservative's heart. It is, I believe, why he lost. So, after all of Clay's support for McCain then, I wonder who he really supported in this last election.

OK, as Freddie would say, duck & cover, I'm heading for safer ground.

Adios,

Mike

[VRM]

Mike,
I'll back you on this one. McCain looked to be a continuation of the last 8 years, and with an approval rating for Bush of around 22% running on coattails was not going to be a good idea.
The GOP has not been conservative for years. The GOP has been taken over by a bunch of religious zealots who think they can spend without taxing. The DNC has done a better job of living within their means the the GOP has of late. Palin got it right when she said:
"I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a 10 trillion dollar debt in a Republican administration? How have there been blunders with war strategy under a Republican administration? If we're talking change, we want to get far away from what it was that the present administration represented and that is to a great degree what the Republican Party at the time had been representing. So people desiring change I think went as far from the administration that is presently seated as they could. It's amazing that we did as well as we did."

The GOP screwed up big time, and has been doing so for a while. Time to figure out where they went wrong and fix it. Maybe in time for the next election, maybe not.
But I do have to say that you were one of the ones who defended a lot of the policies that got us where we are now - and that is not conservatism either. The GOP needs to go back to its roots - personally, I think Freddie would be a good place to start!

[clayfoushee]

Originally Posted by bomelia

I hesitate to mention this. Perhaps it is a coincidence. Clay has been gone from this particular forum for sometime (and I respect and like him, so go easy on me Clay). Yet I wonder at the recent reapearance so close to the election. Some time ago, Clay blasted me for slamming McCain as a not so true conservative. I was reminded (by Clay) that McCain was a true American hero (I agree). But to this day, though I voted for him, I never felt he had a true conservative's heart. It is, I believe, why he lost. So, after all of Clay's support for McCain then, I wonder who he really supported in this last election.

OK, as Freddie would say, duck & cover, I'm heading for safer ground.

Adios,

Mike

LOL Mike. Ok, I'll go easy on you.

Mike, I don't recall the exact post you're referring to some time ago, but I am quite sure I wouldn't have "blasted" you for rationally pointing out that Senator McCain's record does not reflect "pure" or "true" conservative positions, whatever that means. If you'd only said that, I would have agreed with you. About the only reason I would have blasted you is if you mixed it in with some sort of character attack.

I have a great deal of respect for Senator McCain, and he is, indeed, a true American hero. That is not the same as believing that he was the right choice for President. I did not for numerous reasons. I tend to be a what some would call a "centrist," and I always try to keep an open mind. In this election, I did strongly support Senator Obama.