House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks

[Photon1001]

^You mean the thread where I showed y'all how much better Clinton's economy was. No, actually I'm ont upset at all, I rarely tend to get upset over things arguments I win, hehehe.

Anyway, to get back on to the point, the us vs them mentality, is exactly why so many in the world don't like us. The other thing about Iran, which is still not, the rest of the world, is that most of their anti-Israel, anti-American vitriol is political in nature, fear and hate mongerings of the Iranian right-wing. They have elections there, Ahmadinejad uses these methods to attract the religious conservatives. There's a liberal movement that may oust him in '09, btw.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

^You mean the thread where I showed y'all how much better Clinton's economy was. No, actually I'm ont upset at all, I rarely tend to get upset over things arguments I win, hehehe.

Umm..ok.

Anyway, to get back on to the point, the us vs them mentality, is exactly why so many in the world don't like us. The other thing about Iran, which is still not, the rest of the world, is that most of their anti-Israel, anti-American vitriol is political in nature, fear and hate mongerings of the Iranian right-wing. They have elections there, Ahmadinejad uses these methods to attract the religious conservatives. There's a liberal movement that may oust him in '09, btw.

I dont' really care if the rest of the world "likes" us or not. Have you seen them turn away our money or aid? Almost never. It's a double standard. So, I say protect the citizens of the USA first, be friends with the other countries second.

[Photon1001]

So, shoot first and ask questions later then?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

So, shoot first and ask questions later then?

No, just have the best guns and the best trained soldiers and special forces ready to shoot.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

^You mean the thread where I showed y'all how much better Clinton's economy was. No, actually I'm ont upset at all, I rarely tend to get upset over things arguments I win, hehehe.

Not to but in but....

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Umm..ok.

I dont' really care if the rest of the world "likes" us or not. Have you seen them turn away our money or aid? Almost never. It's a double standard. So, I say protect the citizens of the USA first, be friends with the other countries second.

But the U.S. puts "make enemies" above everything else.

[Photon1001]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

No, just have the best guns and the best trained soldiers and special forces ready to shoot.

That's not the issue, its where we put those soldiers and guns, and our disregard for who may not want them there, and more importantly, our refusal to talk to our enemies, to use diplomacy instead of invasion.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

But the U.S. puts "make enemies" above everything else.

Originally Posted by Photon1001

That's not the issue, its where we put those soldiers and guns, and our disregard for who may not want them there, and more importantly, our refusal to talk to our enemies, to use diplomacy instead of invasion.

Both of these posts, while valid, have nothing to do with the size of the military.

[Photon1001]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Both of these posts, while valid, have nothing to do with the size of the military.

I disagree with this one being valid:

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

But the U.S. puts "make enemies" above everything else.

I think he's confusing Bush and Cheyney with the rest of the country.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Both of these posts, while valid, have nothing to do with the size of the military.

They do if the military is placed in other countries (as it is).

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

I disagree with this one being valid:



I think he's confusing Bush and Cheyney with the rest of the country.

Yeah, its just Bush and Cheney, Clinton didn't bomb other countries, Bush I didn't either, nor Reagan, nor...
The U.S. military has long been an imperialist's wet dream.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

They do if the military is placed in other countries (as it is).

I really think having bases in other countries helps to keep us safe. It may spurn some unrest in other countries, but it gives us a tactical advantage in many situations to be able to respond in the same day, rather then several days later.

[Photon1001]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

I really think having bases in other countries helps to keep us safe. It may spurn some unrest in other countries, but it gives us a tactical advantage in many situations to be able to respond in the same day, rather then several days later.

There is some logic in your statement, but I should point out, 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and their reasoning was because of our bases on their "holy land".

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

I know Akmadinajad isn't the leader of Iran, but he is a major part of the leadeship and heates Israel and America.

Actually, no. I presume when you said Obama's foreign policy, you were referring to him meeting with Ahmadinejad (which he wouldn't). There's two problems with this assumption:
1. Meeting with preconditions is a specific plan endorsed by the guru of foreign diplomacy, Henry Kissinger (self-proclaimed).
2. We wouldn't be meeting with Ahmadinejad in the first place. In the Iranian government, the president has very little power. The Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khomeini) holds sway over every branch of the government there, and is the person with whom we'd be meeting (and is generally west-friendly).

Now, to Ahmadinejad's "hating Israel/America." While it's true he is not generally western friendly, nor is he necessarily Israel friendly, he doesn't hate Israel. He does, however, claim Israel is a false form of government since it represents only the Jewish population and not the Palestinian population in Israel. Because of this, the Iranians (and most Arabic countries, Iraq included) have a very large problem with the perceived oppression of the Palestinians.

I would next not be too presumptuous to say that you would probably quote Ahmadinejad saying he would like to see "Israel wiped from the map," or something to that effect. It's interesting that his comment actually corroborates the point I am making. He isn't calling for the destruction of Israel as a state, but is rather calling it a farce since it only represents a single portion of the population. His view is that the Palestinians ought to have more sway.

Ahmadinejad is a fiercely intelligent man, and is not in the habit of making misgivings about what he says. However, his views, and the misinterpretation they've been given in our western society are not representative of the Iranian sentiments, nor would the next commander-n-chief have a problem on their hands with his being in office.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks

Another interesting tidbit that I've mentioned before, but will mention again for those that missed it: A 401K is a DBO. The government owns it outright, and you are merely a beneficiary of that account. How's that feel?

Good post...

Interesting no one mentioned, that I could tell, what happened in Argentina where the govt. confiscated private pension plans recently (they're still trying to get some funds that have been frozen here in the U.S.):

Argentina seizes pension funds to pay debts. Who's next?

Argentine Pension Fund Investments in U.S. Are Frozen

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

The latest on this (Nov. 4th):

Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts

“The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said.

Will be interesting to follow...

Fed Up

[Fed Up]

This was written during the last tie a Democrat was coming to the White House (before ROTH IRA conversions were allowed):

If Clinton wins the 1996 election and if there is a shift back to a Democratic majority in both houses, I would regard that as a serious "fire alarm". The plans to raid pension assets that were put into the "deep freeze" after the 1994 election would most certainly be put back onto the "front burner". If the Democrats regain control of the Congress and the Administration, it would be time for prompt action to preserve your retirement assets.

The Government Pension Grab

Fed Up

[Photon1001]

Not that any of this is going to happen, but why do we have tax breaks on pensions again? Should we give tax breaks to all ppl with savings accounts too?

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

Not that any of this is going to happen, but why do we have tax breaks on pensions again? Should we give tax breaks to all ppl with savings accounts too?

I concur with the fact it "may" not happen, but technically the government can confiscate anything they wish in times of economic crisis.

Some history on pension plans: History of Pension Plans

I'd rather we have no tax breaks on anything and people take individual responsibility for their own retirement. However, many people won't do it. So should I be held responsible for their lack of planning?

There's always going to be people in need, but I'd rather freely give my wealth to other causes via charitable donations, or local contributions, not via government confiscation via taxes or otherwise.

Fed Up

[Fed Up]

Karen DeCoster tells it like it is, but will the U.S. population be too complacent in allowing Congress to enact such legislation? Well....they elected many who voted "yes" to the bailout right?

Fed Up

"Saving" Your Retirement by Spreading Your Wealth

Posted by Karen DeCoster at November 11, 2008 06:58 AM

Always, it's some government-connected elite who swoops in and convinces everyone that he (in this case, she) has the one great plan that will save us all. It's always for our benefit - they get the limelight and thunderous applause and we get the shaft. Step 1 would be to mandate savings - 5% of each check, across the board, for everyone. Because we're all the same, we all have the same goals, the same financial status, the same savings needs, the same time to "retirement." We're all equal now.



So, while some people are struggling and can't afford to save much - think of a single person making $30k/year - that's less cash flow for them to pay today's bills.


It's bad enough that Teresa Ghilarducci is an ideological Communist, but she even looks like a creepy Communist. This interview is completely softball; it's more like free advertising for the hideous witch. Here's a recent CV of hers; she cuts a clear path. She has wanted to be a "retirement" guru for a long time. Here is an interview with her with Kirby Wilbur of KVI 570 AM in Seattle.


There is one person out there implying "nah, they aren't going to confiscate your 401K. Ghilarducci didn't say that." The what is more important than the who, so stop defending her. The first step is mandating this savings plan under the management of social security in Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs). Think of it as an ATM for the government. Part two would be confiscating current 401Ks and IRAs and rolling them into the GRAs.



Knowing that could be very politically unpopular (riots, perhaps?), Ghilarducci said, "Short term, I propose that since 401(k) accounts and the like are financial institutions -- the bank about where 38% of the workforce can intend to save for their retirement -- Congress let workers trade their 401(k) and 401(k) - type plan assets (perhaps valued at mid-August prices) for a Guaranteed Retirement Account composed of government bonds (earning a 3% return, adjusted for inflation)." ---- "Short term" ? And surely, we'll all "retire" on 3% (or less) returns.


So the battle will be to allow "voluntary" rollover or not, to confiscate or not. You know what a democratic congress and its left-wing, academia elites want to do, but what will they be able to get away with doing? I suppose that depends upon peoples' reaction and their ability to make enough noise to make any confiscation or mandatory savings too unpopular to jam down our throats.


Here is a link to the piece by Karen McMahan in the Carolina Journal.

Emergency Retirement Rescue Plan

Posted by Karen DeCoster at November 11, 2008 07:17 AM

Here is an archived webcast of the committee hearing where legislators, along with the elite intelligentsia and social progressives, will decide what to do with your money: Full Committee Hearing: "The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers' Retirement Security." Listen to the crazed crisis-mongering. Everything is an emergency. We need something done now. Listen to the creep George Miller blame Wall Street for our poor-performing 401Ks and then claim that government is needed to protect our money and safeguard our ability to "retire."


Warning - listening to this may be dangerous to your health. If you should feel dizzy or suffer shortness of breath ......

Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/

[Photon1001]

Well, I for one cannot wait until that coming point in the future where retirement is fully a thing of the past, just like death and taxes.