Why Harvard Professors Shouldn't Be President

Here is Obama's latest "brainstorm."

"He said employers should be required to set up retirement saving plans for workers even if they contribute no money to them. Workers would automatically be enrolled unless they choose to opt out, he said. That way, he said, "most people will save more."

This is just another example of Obama's arrogant and condescending vision for America. Is there any doubt that these "concepts" are cooked up in poly sci classes at Ivy League schools?

What basis does the federal government have to FORCE employers to set up retirement accounts for employees? Does he think Americans are too stoopid to save money on their own unless forced to do so by the federal government?

This is just more government intervention into our private business. How can anybody justify making people, at the point of a federal agent's gun, create a retirement account for a 3rd party? Make no mistake, that's what this is. If employer's fail to comply with the mandate, the end result will be federal agents hauling them into court and prosecuting them for violating federal law.

And this proposal reeks of even more condescension and elitism. Employers now have the *choice* of setting up retirement accounts for their employees. Why does everything Obama proposes involve taking the position that he knows what's better for individuals, and therefore wants to eliminate our choices?

Why are these liberal policies only "pro choice" when it comes to abortion, but anti-choice when it comes to things like allowing a company to decide if it wants to set up a retirement account for it's employees?

Let's let companies exploit their workers and digress back to the Gilded Age!

reply to post by jamie83


im starting to think you're just trolling for replies

*takes deep breath*

This suggests that employers setup an account that is usable for the employees. If the employee doesnt want to contribute to it, then thats up to the employee. But it gives the employee that option.
It never said the employer has to put money in there FOR the employee

not even if you 'read between the lines' on this one can you extract what you consider your opinion on this matter

you have me thourougly confused.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

This suggests that employers setup an account that is usable for the employees. If the employee doesnt want to contribute to it, then thats up to the employee. But it gives the employee that option.
It never said the employer has to put money in there FOR the employee

I realize that the *initial* mandate isn't about making employers give money into the accounts, but the entire premise is so far out of line that I can't believe we've come to this point.

By what Constitutional authority does the federal government have the right to force a private individual (the company) into setting up a savings account for another private individual (the employee)?

This has nothing to do, at this point anyway, with the company being forced to contribute money. It has everything to do with Obama's vision for America -that private companies should be mandated by the federal government to make it "easier" for individuals to save money.

What happened to personal responsibility? It will really be a sad day if the federal government enacts legislation forcing one group of people (company owners) to open up bank accounts for another group of people (employees) because the employees are either too stupid or too lazy to do so on their own.

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
Let's let companies exploit their workers and digress back to the Gilded Age!

My God.... is this really how far we've gone? Now it's "exploiting" workers to expect them to stop by a bank and set up their own savings account or retirement account?

This issue about the mandatory retirement accounts is the perfect example of how Obama really feels about the average American -that they are somehow lacking common sense or initiative and that they "need help" in doing something so simple as setting up their own savings account.

Do you really think Americans are so stupid that they need to federal government to impose mandates to make other people set up savings accounts for them?

This is not only idiotic, it's insulting to the American people that somebody who wants to be the POTUS thinks so lowly of them.

What basis does the federal government have to FORCE employers to set up retirement accounts for employees? Does he think Americans are too stoopid to save money on their own unless forced to do so by the federal government?

Uhhh.....Yes! Some of them at least. There is experience in other countries (Canada, Australia, etc); this is common practice and works reasonably well. People who are already active in their savings won't have to do much.

The underlying reality is that those people who are too stoopid & lazy & greedy and short sighted to save and invest well will still whine and complain when they're old and broke and demand---and get---free money from taxes from the people who did save. There will be plenty of them.

Already, there are experimental studies with 401k's: when the companies set up automatic savings plans simply upon starting employment with a reasonable default investment strategy, actual participation increased significantly. Why? Because people had to do nothing. If they wanted to stop it they could, but most didn't. And the foresighted ones of course maxed out and managed their contributions.

Also the retirement plans are tax-advantaged for contributions and penalize excessively early withdrawl. This is also good, to prevent future demographic screwups and massive taxes taking from the wise to the foolish.

Most companies have 401k's already and it isn't hard to set one up---there are many service firms eager to take this business.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by mbkennel]

[edit on 14-6-2008 by mbkennel]

reply to post by jamie83


Do you have a source???

I'm really tired of this. :shk:

reply to post by jamie83


Do you even know what a 401k is?

im really curious.

and 401k is just ONE example

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Associated Press

I don't think it's a bad idea. It would encourage people to have an extra savings account. Are people too stoopid (Your word, not mine)?

Divided, We Fail

Most people need help saving and investing. Retirement savings plans at work provide financial peace of mind.
...
* Half of all workers are not signed-up for a 401(k) or other employer-provided retirement savings plan.
* People are living longer, requiring even more savings and good investing decisions to make money last a lifetime.
* Financial services and products are often confusing or too complicated.
* Getting good, unbiased financial guidance is often difficult.
* Many people struggle to pay for basic household needs, health care or emergencies and build a nest egg at the same time.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

precisely

jaime is just backtracking
its so easy to pin a button on your shirt that says "i know what im talking about"

but when you meet someone who knwos what the truth is, and can easily shove it in your face, that person backs down really fast.


Im glad you carry a lot of conviction for your ideals, Jaime, but you expend your energy in the form of anger

try evaluating all issues from all angles before taking a political leap of faith

You say "this" because your political party says it, though never researched it for YOURSELF

then someone comes along and refutes your claim with actual evidence, not just some glazed debochery with a political agenda, and you dont know what to do besides change your story and run the other way

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by jamie83

 

Do you have a source???

I'm really tired of this. :shk:

Sorry, I forgot to post the link. What exactly are you getting tired of? Defending Obama's marxist and intrusive, half-baked policies?

Obama's Plan to Impose Federal Mandate On Employers to Make It "Easier" for Employees to Save Money

Originally posted by mbkennel
Most companies have 401k's already and it isn't hard to set one up---there are many service firms eager to take this business.

I appreciate your reasoning and logic, and your examples. But there is a HUGE difference between creating tax incentives for savings and FORCING companies, by federal mandate, to set up accounts for 3rd parties.

It's also nice that contributions to charities are tax deductible, but it would be wrong to mandate contributions to charities wouldn't it?

What you're missing is that if this becomes REQUIRED there will be corresponding legislation that will provide the means necessary for the federal government to verify that companies are complying. Do you really want the federal government to have another excuse to intrude on the operation of businesses and violate the privacy of the employers and employees?

you dont even know what his policies are

you go off of what fox news tells you to think

you have yet to produce any credible opinions on his "policies" and are instead choosing to gossip and delve into rumors because its more interesting for you to do.

There's already a fine thread here, in this very forum, that talkes about POLICIES

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I don't think it's a bad idea. It would encourage people to have an extra savings account. Are people too stoopid (Your word, not mine)?

Divided, We Fail

Maybe Obama's right and people really are too stoopid to be trusted to save money on their own.

And I would suggest that there is a difference between encouraging somebody to do something and FORCING somebody to do something. Obama's plan calls for businesses to be FORCED to open retirement accounts for 3rd parties.

Let me ask you this... if you hired somebody to cut your grass, would you want to be forced to set up a bank account for them so you could give them money for cutting your grass?

How about if you decided to work part time delivering pizzas. Would you want to pizza shop to be FORCED to open up a bank account for you?

This entire concept of Obama issuing government edicts to tell people how to live is incredibly ridiculous. Do we really need our federal government issuing edicts to help us save money because we're that inept???

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
jaime is just backtracking
its so easy to pin a button on your shirt that says "i know what im talking about"

but when you meet someone who knwos what the truth is, and can easily shove it in your face, that person backs down really fast.


Im glad you carry a lot of conviction for your ideals, Jaime, but you expend your energy in the form of anger

try evaluating all issues from all angles before taking a political leap of faith

You say "this" because your political party says it, though never researched it for YOURSELF

then someone comes along and refutes your claim with actual evidence, not just some glazed debochery with a political agenda, and you dont know what to do besides change your story and run the other way

WTF are you talking about???

First, I'm not running away from anything. Where do you even come up with this?

Second, I did research it myself and read it with my own eyes. This has nothing to do with what a political party says.

Third, I have no idea what "claim" I made that's been refuted, or what story I've changed.

Why is it that when confronted with another indefensible Obama plan or proposal, Obama supporters invariably try to focus on the person doing the posting instead of the issue? It's ironic considering how many Obama supporters do nothing but whine "Stick to the issues!"

do we really need federal governmen to tell us how to drive
to wear a seatbelt
to run a business legally

do we need the government to tell us how labor laws are going to go?


Face it, if "big business" was free to do whatever they wanted, nobody would have a damn thing. And we'd all be working for pennies on the dollar

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
you dont even know what his policies are

you go off of what fox news tells you to think

you have yet to produce any credible opinions on his "policies" and are instead choosing to gossip and delve into rumors because its more interesting for you to do.

There's already a fine thread here, in this very forum, that talkes about POLICIES

Yes, I do know what Obama's policies are. You are incredibly far off in this assertion. I never watch Fox.

And my opinion of Obama's plan to force businesses to set up retirement accounts is directly to the point. The federal government has no business in mandating that private business owners set up savings accounts for employees based on the premise that the employees are too lazy and/or stupid to set these accounts up themselves.

And yes, I do know what a 401(k) plan is. Businesses *voluntarily* offer these plans to workers to attract employees. Businesses who do not want to offer 401(k) plans are not obligated to do so. However, Barry O. apparently thinks he knows better than these business owners and wants to force them to create a retirement account for their employees even if they don't want to.

Again, why is pro-choice only applied to abortion? What premise exists that would allow the government to override the choice of a business owner to choose whether or not to set up retirement accounts for their employees, and instead FORCE a business owner to open up such an account?

so... is it safe to assume you're for McCain?


2nd line

reply to post by jamie83


Obama is against rights in the constitution, is inexperienced, has a racist for a wife, and has befriended anti-american radicals for 20 years. This not the record of someone who should be president. If America elects him they deserve him.


[edit on 14-6-2008 by Straight Razor]

Obama didn't say anyone was stupid. That was you. No need to put words in his mouth.

And I'm curious, too, jamie. It's clear you don't support Obama. Care to share who you DO support? Just curious.

Straight razor, care to contribute to the subject of the thread?

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]