Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs

Originally posted by Irish M1ck

As for the 401k, I am not sure what I think about this. I do know that "confiscating" isn't the correct word. Last time I heard about it, they were considering a bill where they would offer those with a 401k an OPTION to trade for this new account (and they were going to pay them handsomely for doing so).

They weren't just taking the money.

Oh I see then, it's extortion with the excuse that if you don't, you will lose, if you got with US we will give you more for switching?

When I was a kid, believe it or not , anything having to do with the US Government was solid. I mean if it was a Congessman then you just knew he was a man of honor and they usually were. If it was Government backed like US Savings Bonds you just thought that kind of stuff was terrific a sure thing.

Today I think anything and everything having to do with the government is HIGHLY suspect INCLUDING ANY SO CALLED FAVORS

Originally posted by maybereal11


This cracked me up. This is called removing the referee. When McCain attacked the "liberal left wing media" at the RNC it was saying ...believe what we say and don't trust anyone else..this is when I knew the serious BS was going to start to fly.

Now even FOX is part of some conspiracy with the Democrats to "Confiscate" our 401(k)s?

This is a talking point that has been put out by a wing of the GOP that still wants to continue with relentless attacks on the Democrats based on half truths and spin. The folks that put this out there are the wing of the GOP that the rest of the GOP feels cost them an election. I am not really worried much about this kind of BS anymore, because I believe the GOP will staighten out their own party.

OKAY...Back to your regularly scheduled "Programming" .....

[edit on 9-11-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 9-11-2008 by maybereal11]

No mayberry it isn't your interest in truth, AS I said here and as I said in the last thread where you lost every single argument I had with you and for the same reason you will lose this one. It is your incessant need to take the truth and twist it roll it convolute it with your circular semantics in your undying love and infatuation with this soon to rival Bush in the annals of most hated Presidents.

Like the time you didn't believe their was a 20% earmark included in the bailout bill going to acorn and like the socialist agenda he was involved in in Illinois this too you know very little about because you are either too young to know any better or too arrogant and too in love with the grand obama. The word confiscate is appropriate and is used invariably when ever the Government takes something from you.

Like they did in 1933

On April 5, 1933, the following proclamation, Executive Order 6102, was issued by the President of the United States:


"By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, entitled "An Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes," in which amendatory Act Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do declare that said national emergency still continues to exist and pursuant to said section do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States by individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations..."

"Section 9. Whoever willfully violates any provision of this Executive Order or of these regulations or of any rule, regulation or license issued thereunder may be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in any such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both."


Well, that was that. Gold was now illegal, and anyone who held it or tried to use it faced certain imprisonment or fines.

You say this is NOTHING but BS! You say this is nothing but talk but GUESS WHAT MAYBERRY,, THAT IS EXACTLY whay they said before they did this to us BEFORE! Have you never learned the lessons of History Mayberry???????????????

Now since it is obvious you don't know how these federal subsidies work, then you might want to learn something about them and why this so called discussion is talking about things to come and why I have every right to call it what it is and what it is is the blatant confiscation of my rightful benefit on a contracted investment with the Government.

To Renege on anything the Government has backed is to take away the benefit of that investment and that is EXACTLY what they are "discussing" and if the are talking about it then I better wonder why because this is something so outrageous it would have to be taken very seriously else it wouldn't be brought up at all.

You got a bad habit of thinking ANYTHING said about Obama that is negative is BS when the BS is OBAMA himself

www.urban.org...

[edit on 9-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


The difference is, the original article says that personal retirement accounts will be 'confiscated' and further, elaborates with scary rhetoric about Argentina's nationalization of private monies.

What Teresa Ghilarducci's proposal says, per your quote is "let workers trade", which implies a choice.

Now, I said in my post that I think her idea is baloney, and I'll say it again if that wasn't clear. It is exactly what you say, a way to monkey around with social security. In fact, my first thought was, it's a way that they don't have to deal with SS's problems. "Hey, if the first retirement program isn't up to it, let's convince people into letting us establish a second one!" It makes no sense at all.

But I stand my assessment of the article; it's disengenious and distorting. They say "Democratic Leaders" when, if you look, the committee has both Democrats and Republicans on it. And using 'leaders' is further misleading, unless of course, you want to simply say that any congressment is a party 'leader'. But their use of it is to try and create fear. It's sensationalizing.

It also takes George Miller's comments out of context, in order to make it sound as if he were supporting this particular proposal and as if this hearing was about making this proposal law, instead of the real focus of the hearing.

Originally posted by MAINTAL

......... It is your incessant need to take the truth and twist it roll it convolute it with your circular semantics in your undying love and infatuation with this soon to rival Bush in the annals of most hated Presidents.

Like the time you didn't believe their was a 20% earmark included in the bailout bill going to acorn and like the socialist agenda he was involved in in Illinois ........
..........you are either too young to know any better or too arrogant and too in love with the grand obama.
.....You got a bad habit of thinking ANYTHING said about Obama that is negative is BS when the BS is OBAMA himself

[edit on 9-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

MAINTAL ... I have been trying to endure your long rambling posts because I keep suspecting that there is someone rational lurking behind the BS. But this kinda draws the line. You don't appear to be tethered to reality.

For example...Above I just included the Obama portion of your last rant/post above.....and OBAMA has NOTHING to do with this thread, No one has said he does yet you ramble on as if he is the anti-christ.

What she is proposing is stopping the tax breaks on 401ks....you keep your money...and put your money wherever you want or leave it in your 401k...you would just no longer get a tax break for future deposits and it would be taxed as other investments.

Confiscate...is when they kick the door in and take your money or freeze your bank accounts and not give it back.

One is a tax on an amount of money that is yours...the other is taking all your money..

Get the difference?

MAINTAL...I don't really have the patience to see if your sane self wins the nutty war in your head. I have placed you on ignore so I will no longer get distracted by your nonsensical rants. Best wishes.



[edit on 10-11-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 10-11-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 10-11-2008 by maybereal11]

reply to post by MAINTAL


In that long, drawn-out post, in no spot did you ever prove your assertion.

Originally posted by maybereal11

MAINTAL ... I have been trying to endure your long rambling posts because I keep suspecting that there is someone rational lurking behind the BS. But this kinda draws the line. You don't appear to be tethered to reality.

You are looking for someone rational behind all the BS?
gee mayberry, how rational is that?

For example...Above I just included the Obama portion of your last rant/post above.....and OBAMA has NOTHING to do with this thread, No one has said he does yet you ramble on as if he is the anti-christ.

O RLY!! Gee,, umm care to make a contracted wager on that idea he has nothing to do with this thread? Mayberry, Ill bet you, the Democratic President elect will become a key figure in this and other discussions like it.

And do you know why?

Because HE is the one that has been spouting off like the socialist he is about "Redistributing" the wealth moreover,, he just happens to be the one THAT WILL HAVE TO SIGN THE BILL OR HAVEN'T YOU FIGURED THAT PART OUT YET! Jeeez always making what should be common sense a quagmire of having to explain things so academic, it is a wonder how you don't consider getting your GED, I'd be so tired of having egg on my face all the time if I were you.

Confiscate...is when they kick the door in and take your money or freeze your bank accounts and not give it back.

One is a tax on an amount of money that is yours...the other is taking all your money..

Get the difference?

MAINTAL...I don't really have the patience to see if your sane self wins the nutty war in your head. I have placed you on ignore so I will no longer get distracted by your nonsensical rants. Best wishes.

Awe mayberry,, I'm all broken up about that, and it's really kinda of sad because, like all the other debates we have shared in where you said all this kind of good cheer, you find with every post you lose a little more of that truth and hear more of your own BS.

Before ya go, I'd just like to say how much I'll miss seeing what kind of apology I would have seen coming from you when THIS HAPPENS

Obama, Dems Seek to End 401(k) Plans
By Mark Impomeni
Oct 24th 2008 9:00AM

Sen. Barack Obama's Democratic allies in Congress are looking into a radical new plan that would fundamentally change the way Americans save for retirement. House Democrats recently heard testimony on the idea and, under a potential Obama administration, would likely move to put it in place. Democrats want to seize the money that workers currently invest in their 401(k) plans and replace the popular retirement savings accounts with a one-size-fits-all government sponsored retirement account. Under the scheme, Americans would be forced to transfer all of their hard earned retirement savings from their 401(k) to the government.

The government would contribute $600 a year to fund each account and would pay a rate of return of around three percent in interest. The government would also mandate that each worker contribute 5% of their yearly salary to the accounts. Under current law, workers with 401(k) plans contribute to their retirement accounts and earn interest tax free. The Democrats' plan would end those tax breaks, amounting to as much as a 15% tax hike on each American worker.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) said recently that Democrats had better ideas for the $80 billion that Americans contribute to their 401(k) plans each year. "We have to start thinking about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not doing what we say it should." Sen. Obama would likely sign on to the plan as president.

Obama, McDermott, and Congressional Democrats miss the point that under current law, Americans have control over their retirement savings, where and how it is invested, and when and how much they contribute. The idea to nationalize retirement savings is another example of Democrats' socialist proclivities. They want control of Americans' retirement to reside in Washington DC, not on Main St., all in the name of "retirement security."

news.aol.com...

Wow a whole 3% interest! Take the rule of 72 and see how long it will take to double your money on the $600 and what do you get?

Yeah that's right a guaranteed LOSS because in that time $600 dollars will spend like $300 does now. Then forcing me to invest another 5% of my income! My GOD Democrats are really stupid when it comes to turning a buck. I would do better in a damn whole life insurance policy or a pass book savings account! No wonder why most of them want to share the wealth. It's easy to see how they ruined the economy now.

Democrats want to seize the money that workers currently invest in their 401(k) plans

Gone from confiscate to seize the money,, wow this just keeps getting better all the time.

But the best part of all is the part where they show us how they are finally going to help the middle class and back up all that BS Mayberry thinks rational people are behind.

The Democrats' plan would end those tax breaks, amounting to as much as a 15% tax hike on each American worker.

Yeah,, mayberry ,, you're right, putting me on ignore, because you wouldn't want to know this is going on.







[edit on 10-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

To explain this to those not looking for rational people behind piles of BS the same way our Mayberry does in his search for accuracy and truth, allow me to break this down so you may see that THIS and many other idea's floating around congress where the idea of FORCING us to turn over our money isn't just a maybe kind of thing,, it is something you know you can believe in just like Obama said when he spoke of change you can all believe in. Since the Democrats especially the socialist kind, are so damn ignorant about such complicated matters as compound interest, the rule of 72 and knowing the only way they can fund acorn and other earmarks, is by TAKING your money.

Now the explanation Maybereal gives for OP doesn't do it justice the way it needs to be explained in terms those expecting not to find rational people looking for same behind BS and umm oh yeah "Fear Mongering" (the latest liberal buzz word for us realist republicans)

in its most non threatening form, this proposal looks like I lose BIG TIME for example, say My employer matches at 7%. and I'm in a 28% tax bracket and I make $50000 for example. That means I get 22% of my $50000 in my 401K or $11000. If I didn't have a 401K I'd pay taxes on the $7500 at a 28% tax rate, or $2100. And they want to take that away and give me a $600 credit? And only let me put $5000 in?

They are taking us to the cleaners doing this and this is similar to a bill Obama wanted in 2007. In the end Your 401k contribution goes down by $6000 and your tax bill goes up $1500. So they are taking $7500 from you relative to today. And that's $7500 that could have a 5-10% return each year. even If you're 40 and retire at 65, time and consistency is still going to or would have made you a nice nest egg but now I know I can kiss that good bye because Obama is the money messiah!

Ill be doing my patriotic duty for Biden and helping to finance that tax cut for those earning under $250,000 a year!

My question is just what is 5% of all US wages? Just how many hundreds of billions of dollars a year, in addition to the $80 billion in income taxes does this represent? This is why I hate Democrat Socialists because now they have to find a way to make this new 5% payroll tax look like a tax cut. So anyone angry at the BS that Mayberry says makes up this thread or posts, just wait till he sees the BS we are going to hear when they try to feed us this one hook line and sinker.

[edit on 10-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by MAINTAL

 

In that long, drawn-out post, in no spot did you ever prove your assertion.

Oh RLY!

What part didn't I prove? The part where I show FDR in a simliar economy confiscated your Gold investements making illegal to own any OR

The part Obama is going to prove me right after he signs a bill very much like this one they are "discussing" ( they usually discuss things they have no interest in actually doing, or so people like this would have us believe)

That's ok Irish, I don't expect you would have understood it to see that it is and will be proven just like it was then so will it be in this day and time.

I think what we need to do, is wait and see which, if any, of the 5 proposals that were presented at the committee hearing they will put forward. At that point, if people don't like what is being proposed and voted on, that is when you should contact your representatives. I just hope that they listen better than they did with the "Bailout Bill". Whatever is proposed, will probably be a veiled attempt to replace or partially replace social security. Personally, if Obama is going to raise taxes of the "rich". I would rather see the ceiling of the income raised for FICA taxes, perhaps with a gap, between the current COLA-adjusted limit and say, $250,000, much like Obama has hinted at for income taxes. Everything that I saw indicates that raising that limit would fund SS fully for at least a century.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
I think what we need to do, is wait and see which, if any, of the 5 proposals that were presented at the committee hearing they will put forward. At that point, if people don't like what is being proposed and voted on, that is when you should contact your representatives. I just hope that they listen better than they did with the "Bailout Bill". Whatever is proposed, will probably be a veiled attempt to replace or partially replace social security. Personally, if Obama is going to raise taxes of the "rich". I would rather see the ceiling of the income raised for FICA taxes, perhaps with a gap, between the current COLA-adjusted limit and say, $250,000, much like Obama has hinted at for income taxes. Everything that I saw indicates that raising that limit would fund SS fully for at least a century.

The things is, such discussions including language or words to the effect they will confiscate, expropriate, sieze ANY of our invested money, nest egg, savings etc, should be off limits. History has shown us however that liberals who destroyed the economy in the first place, believe we are supposed to trust them again.

You see what kind of figures they give for an ROI being 3%, , that is pathetic, a real joke when you consider that Warren Buffet endorsed Obama, you would think he would at least have him explain to Obama the rule of 72 and the difference between profit and loss

reply to post by MAINTAL


Yes, in that long post, you had not proven your assertion that democrats want to "confiscate 401ks". In fact, you still have not. Not once have you linked to any sort of legislation.

I look forward to you doing so.

*Edit:

Again, last time I checked, no one was forced to do anything. People COULD transfer their money to this new account, and in doing so, were rewarded by getting paid for their account BEFORE the credit crunch.

However, considering that there is an OPTION, I don't see how anyone's assets are being SEIZED.

If you can correct me on any of that, I'd be more than willing to listen.

[edit on 10-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by MAINTAL

The things is, such discussions including language or words to the effect they will confiscate, expropriate, sieze ANY of our invested money, nest egg, savings etc, should be off limits. History has shown us however that liberals who destroyed the economy in the first place, believe we are supposed to trust them again.

First, it is no secret that I am very conservative, both fiscally and socially.
Personally, I would have NEVER signed on to such a plan, as it is a losing proposition, whe compared to 401K's. The problem with the 401K's, of course, is in the selection that the participant makes regarding how to allocate the funds.

Let's look at the facts now. First, Teresa Ghilarducci didn't say that her proposal was for mandatory participation. I have read the entire proposal, and it does not say that.

What her proposal DOES say, though, is that she proposes eliminating the deferred tax status of 401K's. Once you do that, you basically make the 401K's meaningless. Why WOULD anyone continue them? Just open up a savings account, or stock market account, or whatever you wish to invest in.
Here is the what the proposal DOES do, though, when you analyze it. Since the 401K becomes relatively useless if you remove the tax advantage, people will go elsewhere to invest. Now what THAT does, though, is allow businesses to ELIMINATE employer contributions. This proposal saves CORPORATIONS and BUSINESSES TRILLIONS of dollars. For most people, this proposal, if enacted would give minimal lifetime income, versus a well-managed 401K, or a more traditional retirement plan.
So, although the plan is not mandatory, when it comes down to it, 401K's will go by the wayside. The biggest winner- Corporations. Welcome to the United States of Corporations. Whenever the government tells you it will HELP you, RUN the other way.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by MAINTAL

 

Yes, in that long post, you had not proven your assertion that democrats want to "confiscate 401ks". In fact, you still have not. Not once have you linked to any sort of legislation.

I look forward to you doing so.

*Edit:

Again, last time I checked, no one was forced to do anything. People COULD transfer their money to this new account, and in doing so, were rewarded by getting paid for their account BEFORE the credit crunch.

However, considering that there is an OPTION, I don't see how anyone's assets are being SEIZED.

If you can correct me on any of that, I'd be more than willing to listen.

[edit on 10-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Hey Mick if you think I think this bill has already been passed then you need to read my damn post again and quit acting like you thinkk you know what you are talking about. If this bill gets passed in it's current form YOU WILL HAVE NO CHOICE GOT IT!

That is why no one has given a referance to any bill passed like this yet because it hasn't happened yet hence the comment (they usually talk about things they have no intention of ever doing) that was sarcasm. Sorry you didn't catch that. (among everything else you missed)

Yeah that's right NONE and THAT is why they use words appropriate like CONFISCATE! It isn't because I haven't proved it, it is because you are too much a liberal to know the damn difference.

I don't care HOW they spin this, when you have a democratic base arguing for investment options where I ultimately either lose my tax benefit or apparently YOU think that 3% I'm going to get is the choice then either YOU think the democrats are stupid enough to think that's a competitive choice OR they know something YOU don't seem to understand and I get real clear. This is a choice between two equally distatsteful alternatives and it will be one they are forcing me to make.

This is nothing but a choice between losing and losing real bad.

I think it is terribly naive to think it won't be the American tax payer who ultimately gets screwed www.abovetopsecret.com...

Like I said, Obama will make this patent because when it comes to his pathetic voting record, this so called radical idea fits the radical president elect perfectly.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

So, although the plan is not mandatory, when it comes down to it, 401K's will go by the wayside. The biggest winner- Corporations. Welcome to the United States of Corporations. Whenever the government tells you it will HELP you, RUN the other way.

Well I guess I am concerned about the way it gets packaged for instance the bailout bill having that 20% earmarked for acorn when they tried to sneak that by where we missed one like it already as acorn now gets $400 off every mortgage over $100,000 and that one was buried deep in a bill.

Yes I agree with the last part of your post and have a strong aversion to the ideology liberals have about thinking the Government can do anything to help anyone when they are notorious to screw it up worse.

Basically here is the change Obama represents, we go from being a borrow and spend President to a tax and spend President.

I didn't want change, I wanted improvment and I guess that is just too much to ask these days

reply to post by MAINTAL


So, basically, you have no proof. And you are incorrect in saying that legislation has to be passed to be seen. Usually when voting/discussing a bill, it is already written out.

Do you have a sound byte? Do you have a document? Do you have anything that says that the US Gov will start forcefully taking cash?

If not, I hope you will willingly recant your statements.

What they really need to do is go after all of these crooked 401k fund managers, and the people that have profitted greatly from the theft of 401k money. They need to take all the money that was stolen back from the crooks, and then some extra to show them that crime does not pay, and that they need to pay for their crimes, in addition to being sent to jail.

This type of action would go a long ways towards straightening up our economy.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by MAINTAL

 

So, basically, you have no proof. And you are incorrect in saying that legislation has to be passed to be seen. Usually when voting/discussing a bill, it is already written out.

Do you have a sound byte? Do you have a document? Do you have anything that says that the US Gov will start forcefully taking cash?

If not, I hope you will willingly recant your statements.

Talk about bastardizing everything I said to twist it around till it fits your asinine argument. READ MY POST MICK !

READ IT, GET IT STRAIGHT OR QUIT TRYIN BECAUSE YOU STILL AIN'T GOT IT RIGHT!@

I Said I have no proof a bill has been passed till one passes and last I checked THIS bill HAS NOT! When and if it does, then THAT will be my proof. I won't recant any thing this is typical crap I can expect from socialist democrats and until you can read a post without help, I suggest you just keep practicing without answering them.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

reply to post by MAINTAL


So, again, you have no proof?

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by MAINTAL

 

So, again, you have no proof?

ASKED AND ANSWERED MICK! ASKED AND ANSWERED

Now please try to keep up with the thread

k thanks

(Hint) has this bill been passed? there is your answer

[edit on 11-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

Originally posted by poet1b
What they really need to do is go after all of these crooked 401k fund managers, and the people that have profitted greatly from the theft of 401k money. They need to take all the money that was stolen back from the crooks, and then some extra to show them that crime does not pay, and that they need to pay for their crimes, in addition to being sent to jail.

This type of action would go a long ways towards straightening up our economy.

That should include franklin raines and barney frank too or anyone in a position like they were not held accountable