Democrats Plan to Nationalize Your 401k!

This has been brewing, steeping, and simmering on the back burner for quite some time, best I can tell, since before the elections of 2008. At that time, it was largely dismissed, laughed off as paranoia and those who intimated it, ridiculed as nuts. After all, how could the government ever seize your private 401k accounts? There is a thing called the Constitution, and this would seemingly violate the hell out of it. Well.... that fact hasn't stopped much of what Obama and Democrats have attempted to do, since their rise to power.

According to sources such as the Wall Street Journal and Business Weekly, the Democrats are considering a plan to nationalize all 401k accounts. Of course, this is going to be done under the guise of "helping" you manage the expenses of your retirement, and ensuring you have economic security in your old age. Under the current system, you might blow through your retirement money, and with Social Security in a death rattle, something has to be done to protect you from your own stupidity. Da-ta-da-daaa! Enter the Federal Government!

Now, some will say... but how can the Feds seize your personal property? Isn't that a direct violation of the Constitution. And of course, it certainly is! But that doesn't dissuade Socialist Marxist the least little bit. The initial plan is to eliminate the current tax incentives for 401ks, making them no different than regular income. Once that aspect is in place, they roll out the "government option" which appears to be much more attractive from a financial standpoint, as it will not be considered "taxable income" because it's no longer your money. So your choice will be, keep a 401k and get taxed out the wazoo, or opt into the government plan and be ensured you will have a comfy retirement. Granted, when you croak, all the money in what used to be your personal 401k, will remain in the system for those who haven't yet croaked, and your family is left with the normal $212 from the government to help offset your funeral costs. But what do you care, you're dead!

Needless to say, our Democrat butt lickers here, will jump on this, claiming it's a "scare tactic" from the right... but is there anything that seems far-fetched anymore, with this bunch? Think of all the things you would have never imagined could have happened, that have happened. Do you think this is a "scare tactic" or doesn't it sound just exactly like something the Democrats would legitimately attempt to do, if given the opportunity?
 
Sorry, that should read: Investors Business Daily.
Although, there IS a Business Weekly.

...You can now un-retent your anus!


Oh, Investors Business Daily. Those fucking geniuses. Isn't that the outfit that claimed that Steven Hawking would be killed by NHS death panels if he lived in the UK only to find out that Hawking is British and receives healthcare through the NHS and is doing quite well, thank you?

And can you tell me where I can pick up a copy of this "Business Weekly" publication?
 
Oh, Investors Business Daily. Those fucking geniuses. Isn't that the outfit that claimed that Steven Hawking would be killed by NHS death panels if he lived in the UK only to find out that Hawking is British and receives healthcare through the NHS and is doing quite well, thank you?

And can you tell me where I can pick up a copy of this "Business Weekly" publication?

Okay... pay attention moderate indies... lesson of the day on liberalism... this is what they do! Instead of addressing the topic and issue, they immediately begin to attack the sources, and attempt to discredit them. Then they resort to ridicule of the poster in an attempt to marginalize what they said. You can't have honest dialogue with these people, they aren't interested in it.
 
October 23, 2008
House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit
$600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...8/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html
 
This has been brewing, steeping, and simmering on the back burner for quite some time, best I can tell, since before the elections of 2008. At that time, it was largely dismissed, laughed off as paranoia and those who intimated it, ridiculed as nuts. After all, how could the government ever seize your private 401k accounts? There is a thing called the Constitution, and this would seemingly violate the hell out of it. Well.... that fact hasn't stopped much of what Obama and Democrats have attempted to do, since their rise to power.

According to sources such as the Wall Street Journal and Business Weekly, the Democrats are considering a plan to nationalize all 401k accounts. Of course, this is going to be done under the guise of "helping" you manage the expenses of your retirement, and ensuring you have economic security in your old age. Under the current system, you might blow through your retirement money, and with Social Security in a death rattle, something has to be done to protect you from your own stupidity. Da-ta-da-daaa! Enter the Federal Government!

Now, some will say... but how can the Feds seize your personal property? Isn't that a direct violation of the Constitution. And of course, it certainly is! But that doesn't dissuade Socialist Marxist the least little bit. The initial plan is to eliminate the current tax incentives for 401ks, making them no different than regular income. Once that aspect is in place, they roll out the "government option" which appears to be much more attractive from a financial standpoint, as it will not be considered "taxable income" because it's no longer your money. So your choice will be, keep a 401k and get taxed out the wazoo, or opt into the government plan and be ensured you will have a comfy retirement. Granted, when you croak, all the money in what used to be your personal 401k, will remain in the system for those who haven't yet croaked, and your family is left with the normal $212 from the government to help offset your funeral costs. But what do you care, you're dead!

Needless to say, our Democrat butt lickers here, will jump on this, claiming it's a "scare tactic" from the right... but is there anything that seems far-fetched anymore, with this bunch? Think of all the things you would have never imagined could have happened, that have happened. Do you think this is a "scare tactic" or doesn't it sound just exactly like something the Democrats would legitimately attempt to do, if given the opportunity?

:lies:
 
To bad we didn't skip invading Iraq and used that money to fund the SSI shortfall.

Good idea, ignore National Security so we can transfer wealth from young folks trying to build their dreams to old folks who didn't plan for retirement. :palm:
 
Good idea, ignore National Security so we can transfer wealth from young folks trying to build their dreams to old folks who didn't plan for retirement. :palm:

Maybe your ok with spending 700B a year on department of defense so that other countries in the world dont need to.

History tells us what happens to countries/empires that overextend self on to big a military.

us-military-spending-vs-world.jpg
 
Maybe your ok with spending 700B a year on department of defense so that other countries in the world dont need to.

History tells us what happens to countries/empires that overextend self on to big a military.
We spend more because we have a bigger GDP and more wealth to protect.
 
To bad we didn't skip invading Iraq and used that money to fund the SSI shortfall.

Yes, we'd be so much better off with Saddam Hussein still in power, terrorizing his people, gassing the Kurds, working on a nuke, and being a general pain in the ass of America.

When are you people going to get off the Iraq War thing? It's over, we defeated Saddam Hussein! 30 million Iraqi people now live in a country where they can vote and elect their leaders. We now have an ally in that region, as opposed to another tyrant to have to deal with.
 
Yes, we'd be so much better off with Saddam Hussein still in power, terrorizing his people, gassing the Kurds, working on a nuke, and being a general pain in the ass of America.

When are you people going to get off the Iraq War thing? It's over, we defeated Saddam Hussein! 30 million Iraqi people now live in a country where they can vote and elect their leaders. We now have an ally in that region, as opposed to another tyrant to have to deal with.


We don't care about Iraqis anymore then we care about Sudanese, Mongolians, or any other people in the world. Strategically yes its helpful to have a US client state in the middle east since saudi -client state is turning sour.. but at least call a spade a spade.. we never gave a shit about the iraqi people's freedom to the point that it was a justification of war.
 
We don't care about Iraqis anymore then we care about Sudanese, Mongolians, or any other people in the world. Strategically yes its helpful to have a US client state in the middle east since saudi -client state is turning sour.. but at least call a spade a spade.. we never gave a shit about the iraqi people's freedom to the point that it was a justification of war.

Perhaps we didn't, but we did give a shit about the potential for a madman like Hussein, giving sanctuary, weapons, and WMD technology to radical jihadists who shared his mutual goal to destroy us. But here's the thing, we can drag it all back out of the closet and debate the entire thing all over again, and I suspect we will both still have the same opinion regarding Iraq. Is there a reason to do that? Will it accomplish anything for us to debate this all over again? The war is over, we're outta there! We did what we did, and it's done! How long do we have to keep beating a dead horse? Another decade? Another century? Until you and I croak?

This thread is about Democrat plans to privatize your 401k... how the hell does Iraq have anything to do with that? Isn't it just a DISTRACTION? Isn't this just your way of diverting the conversation because you don't like what has been said? Look, it's worked really well for you, for the past 10 years, you've been able to distract and divert by simply mentioning Iraq and Bush, and turning every debate into THAT debate instead. That time is OVER!
 
Wow I feel funny when I agree with Dixie. Why won't ANY of you just prove him wrong. Show him where this is not a plan being batted around by the dems. Just do it and my bet is he will go away for a while. The fact that no one has indicates to me that you can't prove him wrong. The fact that we have brought up Iraq and military budgets instead of proving or disproving Dixie's claim that the dems want to force us into government retirement accounts leads me to believe that Dixie is correct in his assessment.
 
Back
Top