Obama, Dems Seek to End 401(k) Plans

To be fair, the AOL blog writer opens with

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.

I would objectively say that that is the writer's opinion

The hearing was a House hearing with 5 different people offering ideas
source

The Senate wasn't even involved.

Is it a possibility that this ONE idea would be implemented in the future? yes

Is it a probability? I don't know, and neither does anyone else at this point.

Still the idea of a plan that ultimately eliminates welfare and food stamps is not a bad thing

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
It is a blog, the link is to a blog. This is speculative opinion, not hard news. Typical right-wing desperation in the face of a lost election.

As a document archivist, I would have expected a higher level of examination of the facts from you.

The second piece is an editorial, or blog as you mentioned, but there is solid reason to be concerned if you read the material instead of dismissing it at face value, like you apparently just did. Please read my previous post.

Originally posted by sos37
The rest of the article goes into the symantecs of her suggestions, not why the House Democrats are discussing this in the first place, though at the beginning of the article it does mention this:

So, because this Teresa person suggests some wild idea, you think a thread titled "Obama, Dems Seek to End 401(k) Plans" is appropriate???

In the Breaking News Forum??? Is there ANY integrity in this forum anymore?

Where do you get that Obama seeks this plan?



[edit on 24-10-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by redhatty
In that blog there is a link to the NEWS Story

And that news story asks, "Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?" but provides NOTHING to support the idea that Obama would support killing the 401(k)s...

In fact, other than the title, Obama isn't mentioned at all...

Where's the news here? Where is Obama's plan to steal all your money?

Yeah, there's no mention of Obama anywhere in that U.S. News piece except for the title. The body itself talks about a House Democrat subcommittee meeting and Obama is on the Senate, so I'm not sure where he's looping in Obama to this.

My original title as "Look out for what's left of your 401ks" somehow the title got changed. For the record I support neither Obama or McCain.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sos37
The rest of the article goes into the symantecs of her suggestions, not why the House Democrats are discussing this in the first place, though at the beginning of the article it does mention this:

So, because this Teresa person suggests some wild idea, you think a thread titled "Obama, Dems Seek to End 401(k) Plans" is appropriate???

In the Breaking News Forum??? Is there ANY integrity in this forum anymore?

Where do you get that Obama seeks this plan?

[edit on 24-10-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

You need to fault the authors of the articles for that, not the OP. Both blog authors looped in Obama in their titles, though it's not clear why, as I mentioned in my last post.

Is it a possibility that this ONE idea would be implemented in the future? yes

Is it a probability? I don't know, and neither does anyone else at this point.

Still the idea of a plan that ultimately eliminates welfare and food stamps is not a bad thing

You hit the nail on the head.

Although anyone willing to think outside the blog box would realize this story has no basis in fact as far as OBAMA is concerned.

Originally posted by sos37
I'm not sure where he's looping in Obama to this.

Neither am I. Yet here we are with a brand spankin' new thread putting Obama smack dab in the socialist camp. McCain would be proud.

McCain's Home Stretch Strategy: Paint Obama as a Socialist

The Republican's home-stretch campaign strategy is focusing on the idea of Obama as a socialist. Meanwhile, some Democrats feel Obama leans too much to the center.

McCain Suggests Obama's Tax Policies are Socialist

Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Saturday accused Democratic rival Barack Obama of favoring a socialistic economic approach by supporting tax cuts and tax credits McCain says would merely shuffle wealth rather than creating it.

Palin: Obama Experimenting with Socialism

Sarah Palin on Sunday levied some of her toughest attacks to date against Barack Obama, accusing him of experimenting with socialism...

Originally posted by sos37
You need to fault the authors of the articles for that, not the OP.

Oh, no! The OP is responsible for what he or she posts. He is responsible for reading the sources he links and posting responsibly.

I can find NOTHING in Obama's 401K plan that even remotely suggests what the OP suggests. It's a blog. An opinion piece, A fear tactic.

Case closed, IMO. Have fun discussing this fantasy.

US News and World Report

Here is the US News & World Report article which cites more actual information.

This would be absolutely devastating if it were to happen. It is the nest-egg that many of us are depending upon to sustain us through old age, and the government wants to confiscate it, control it, make it an inefficient and wasteful government program, complete with its own bureaucracy, then dole it back to us in small increments, as they see fit, as an entitlement program. The total worth of the monies would be reduced by the cost of administration and the system would eventually go bankrupt.

Hey, wait a minute, we already have this! It's called Social Security and it didn't work! Remember?

I don't necessarily think Obama "plans" to implement this. However, I see evidence that government (specifically Democrats) is/are toying with the idea, and it scares me! I believe this is in the works for our future, but there is no saying when. If they decide to revamp the entire financial system and introduce the Amero or even the One World Currency, then this might be implemented as a part of that program. Probably sooner than we think. Scary!

[edit on 24-10-2008 by OuttaHere]

reply to post by sos37


The typical right-wing desperation part wasn't aimed at the article, or blog, but at the OP. The fact that this idea was floated in a House sub-committee meeting only underscores the speculative nature of the piece.

As a document archivist, I know crap when I see it.

if your up to snuff, you already know that the massive Redemptions from many Mutual Funds by people casing in what remains of that accounts' past worth .... are going to be taxed, ->>


when the people file by 15 April '09 deadline.
They will pay an additional 10% penalty on top of the 'ordinary income' disposition of the 401k money thay cashed out during the recent (elongated) crash...


not every mutual fund account is a 401k, but 99% are IRAs where the growth of the account is 'deferred' until some or all of it is redeemed.
If the rumor is true... that a 401k may be redesignated into a portion of one's 'private social security account'...
Then the gov't will be losing out in the long term for a short term profit..


think about it, when a SEP, 401k, IRA, of whatever type of hybrid structure
is accessed...you will owe the govt money in 'gains'...
then if the account loses a bunch of value -> the 'benchmark value' is re-set...and all new growth in value is then taxable...
to confiscate all these money-making-tax-generators is stupid reasoning.

the law says your house is tax-exempt if you sell it...
no wonder that the housing markets got snipered to death... a great source of tax revenues for the govt is negated when 50% of the homeowners have to get foreclosed instead of 'selling'
I
401k's going down by 70%, thus causing many to try & take some cash out of the 401k...takes away the 'deferred' status of the 401k & the govt wants to tax the savings device every year as the market goes back up...
because the 401k has lost its IRA/derfrred tax status.


these guys are shrewd... it takes a heap of pondering to see-through the twisted machinations.


thanks

reply to post by OuttaHere

Hey, wait a minute, we already have this! It's called Social Security and it didn't work! Remember?

Wrong. Social Security works, it is our government that doesn't. They have diverted the funds destined to pay Social Security benefits into their own pockets for decades, and are now faced with a disaster of their own making, which they have no intention of taking responsibility for.

I'm glad to see that SOME of us have retained the ability to think critically. As others have stated, the original source of this is a BLOG in as RIGHT WING publication.

It is very important that those who do not understand the difference between "news," and "opinion," quickly educate themselves. This should NOT be in the Breaking News forum since there is nothing here that constitutes a news report.

This is not to say that there are Democrats who would favor doing just as the blogger suggests but he supplies nothing...not even flimsy evidence to support his claim that Obama favors such a plan.

The right nows this election is likely lost and they will be pulling out all the stops over the next 11 days. It is important that the voting public be able to separate solidly researched and supported NEWS stories from partisan attempts to fool them.

And I mean this with regard to both campaigns and supporters. They think we are stupid.

Let's start proving them wrong.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sos37
You need to fault the authors of the articles for that, not the OP.

Oh, no! The OP is responsible for what he or she posts. He is responsible for reading the sources he links and posting responsibly.

Completely disagree with you on the point of the author posting exactly what was posted on the referenced page. It's not up to the author to draw conclusions and re-post their own headline based on what THEY think, that's what the forum is for, which is where we are discussing the issue.

The OP did right by posting the article AS IT WAS POSTED, including the headline, by the original author, even if one or some of the facts are nebulous. That's the whole reason WHY we have the discussion forum, to discuss the veracity and the content of the material posted.

reply to post by Kords21


The BAN rules state the original title of the article must be used in the posting. That's probably why it got changed. Good on you for seeing the difference and trying to avoid the mudslinging.

I hesitantly retract my comment about you being a right-wing desperado facing a lost election.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
reply to post by sos37

 

The typical right-wing desperation part wasn't aimed at the article, or blog, but at the OP. The fact that this idea was floated in a House sub-committee meeting only underscores the speculative nature of the piece.

As a document archivist, I know crap when I see it.

Wait, so why are you attacking the OP? They were only posting the headline as the original author posted on their site? The OP has admitted they don't have affiliations either way.

Weird double post thing happening ...

[edit on 24-10-2008 by sos37]

Thanks for the comment retracting. I came across the information and I thought it was interesting given the economic climate today. With the bailout bill passing against the wishes of the majority of America, I don't put anything past these people in gov't anymore.

reply to post by sos37


See my previous post regarding rules of BAN and the title change scenario painted by the OP, as well as my retraction of said right wing desperado label. Thanks.