Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by michael
 


You have to admit, it was these guys who said 'From all according to ability, to all according to need'. After the Socialists raided the public purse to the tune of $700 Billion, when the public was adamant about not giving it away to the elite, they deserved to get their butts kicked in the election. The public just had no other choice but to go with the Communist Democratic Party. Perhaps in four more years the Constitutional Party will be viable. If the CDNC is smart, they will at least pretend to halt the march to eliminate our Bill of Rights. There is no difference between the CDNC or the SRNC, and Marx once said that the difference between Socialist and Communist is only degree. The American public is very much conservative, and the government is decidedly not. They do not consider themselves 'public servants' but a sentient life form, and we are just bugs. If Obama makes it into office, he will be our last elected president anyways. Interesting times.




posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Tynee
 


Just the fact that the democrats are holding these hearings are enough to make my blood boil.

We all know that the democrats are socialists. We all know the will do anything to take whatever wealth there is and "spread it around".

Add to that all the bailouts.

Then add the fiscal problems of the government.

Then add the desire for the government to have full control of everyone's lives.

I really could care less if the source was the local school newspaper, especially considering that the MSM are sellouts. The problem is that the democrats are actually entertaining thoughts of taking savings to prop of Social Security, probably to delay it's eventual failure. It is maddening. i am already pissed of enough that I probably won't see a dime of the Social Security taxes that I payed into.

What is next, is the government going to go after savings accounts and "promise" to pay later?

Gee they went after gold before in the 1930's when the socialists were in charge then, I guess it is no surprise that they are going after 401k's now.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Oh, thats right everybody panic.
Pull your monies out of all your investments and aid in the collapse.

Remember that the Rockefellers and others like them,Did Not pullout of their investments during"The Great Depression"and...'The Rich Got Richer'!



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
It's a money and power grab. Welcome to 'change' and 'hope'.
And there is no one who can stop them. God help us all.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pyrytyes
reply to post by bdswetty
 




I hear you, and agree. However, in the given situation- IF someone starts to grab what you have , the reaction is to put whatever the grabber wants, out of reach.

By pulling all of my stuff out a few months ago, even with the 10% penalty, I figure that since most have lost 33% value...I gain, simply because they can not take it away. they may try, but they will not find it.

I guess I am just SELFISH... (Hope Mr. Emmanuel does not read this. I shudder to think what would have become of Joe the plumber had he waited til now to ask his question.)


I think you have things right. I admit to being something of a survivalist. It doesn’t help that I used to teach Disaster Preparedness as a firefighter in the DoD. I pulled everything out quite some time ago when I saw things heading south. Having tangible supplies is the real solution in a crash. Sure, the plane hasn’t hit the ground yet, but we can clearly see that the oxygen masks have dropped down already. It’s only a matter of time before that sudden stop at the bottom and the associated pain and suffering that comes along with it.

The fact that the government is looking into seizing these accounts in order to “help the middle class” is unnerving. One thing I’ve learned in my years working for Uncle Sam, it’s that for every one thing you do see going on, there are ten or twenty things going on that you don’t. While the discussion of seizing these accounts is something we can see, we ought to be even more mindful of those steps being taken we’re presently unaware of.

It doesn’t hurt to stock up on supplies. It doesn’t hurt to make sure you have items that may be used in trade. You may want to think about options and if you choose not to act on them, so be it. But at least keep them in mind. I see what’s going on now and think of the frog in water example used many times. If the heat is slowly raised in the water, the frog will remain and be killed. If the frog were to jump into water that was already hot, it would jump back out again. These events are occurring slow enough that they are making people complacent. Sure, people panic for one or two days, but then they go back to their normal ways. I have a sneaking suspicion that these people are going to be the first frog rather than the second.

Finally, what’s the point in seizing the 401k’s when the value of our dollar is plummeting? At that point, it doesn’t matter where your money is. Worthless money is worthless money, regardless of where it’s kept.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo

RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.


Can we stop with the BS...really. I am not in favor of this proposal, but am in favor of stopping the BS.

You wrote in the thread title:
"Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts —"

“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”
www.workforce.com...

** She is proposing stopping the tax breaks or de-incentivising 401ks, NOT CONFISCATING THEM.

Like I said, I am NOT in favor of her plan, but geez isn't ATS supposed to be a place for the accurate truth?



[edit on 7-11-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 7-11-2008 by maybereal11]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Gregarious
 


Can we please make a note from this point on? The bailout was actually more than 700 billion. It was 840 billion i believe. Lets refrain from using the number 700. Also lets keep in mind the amount of tax payer money used to bail out indy mac, fannie and freddie, and all of those other companies prior to the actual bill. Sorry if i am coming off like an @$$hole, but all day I've had a bad gut feeling like something really bad is soon to happen. Maybe its the coffee that I drank today...



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by azureskys
Oh, thats right everybody panic.
Pull your monies out of all your investments and aid in the collapse.

Remember that the Rockefellers and others like them,Did Not pullout of their investments during"The Great Depression"and...'The Rich Got Richer'!


The Rockefellers and others like them set the stage to devalue the investments first then later gobble them all up.

And whoa look what happened. The 401k's and IRA's dropped like a rock during the recent financial meltdown and now the government wants to gobble them up at a cheaper price.It looks like the socialists in the government learned a thing or two from the financial elite. Or maybe they are already owned by the elite financial powers.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Um the proposed "Guaranteed Retirement Accounts" are designed to replace 70% of the the typical pre-retirement earnings. Participation is MANDATORY unless the worker is in a better annuity based system.

Contributions are 5% of earnings that are deducted from payroll taxes and are credited to individual accounts that administered by the Social Security Administration.

Mandatory

+

70% pre-retirement savings

+

5% or earnings deducted from payroll taxes

+

administered be Social Security
------------------------------------------------------
MONEY GRABBING SOCIALISM

Oh and by the way, this Theresa Ghalarducci, is part of the Agenda for Shared Prosperity which is just another think tank promoting more Federal control of my life and money.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by wutone
 


Wutone...Please provide a link... transcript, PDF etc as opposed to a piece written with an agenda, that what she is proposing in Mandatory?

You could be right, but forgive me for not taking your word for it without a sound source.

The phrase "confiscating 401ks, IRAs" etc is not truthful and from what I can find she says this...

“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”
www.workforce.com...

Again...I think this is a lot of hot air and the committe is simply hearing different views...and I oppose her plan, BUT honesty is important when evaluating these issues.

Please direct me to the link where she states "Mandatory"



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wutone
reply to post by Tynee
 


Just the fact that the democrats are holding these hearings are enough to make my blood boil.



You're upset they are holding hearing to come up with ways to fix the economy?? Really? So you'd be happy if they just sat around and wished or prayed (oh wait, I forgot the Democrats are godless according to some) the crisis away?

This is a classic case of people twisting things to fit into their own idea of how things are. The democrats are evil, therefore, just the fact that they didn't exclude anyone from being able to propose and idea, no matter how insane it is, means they must agree with everything that was said.

Like many have pointed out, the article said that the woman's idea drew "the most attention AND critisism".

Translation: They thought her ideas were wacko and couldn't believe she would even bring such an asinine idea to the table.

Most of the people who are so incredibly upset that Obama got elected are the same people who label others as dooms-dayers as if they are wishing for the end of the world. And here these people are warning us all that Obama is going to turn our entire country in the USSA. That the sky is falling, and they are going to take EVERY SINGLE PENNY we have away from us (even the ones stuffed in the abyss of our couches and cars). Then they are going to kill all the babies, let the gays rule the world and bomb all the churches.

Chill out...yo!



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Read the OP article and it comes up with the PDF.

Yes that was a one-liner.

www.sharedprosperity.org...

[edit on 7-11-2008 by wutone]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13


You're upset they are holding hearing to come up with ways to fix the economy??


No I am upset that they are holding hearings on ways to take over the economy.

If you think that it is ok for a group of people to have full control of everyone's lives and that is the ideal fix, then I guess that is where our opinions disagree.

As of now, I don't feel like having money I saved into my retirement being but into the control of the Social Security Administration due to the unpleasant fact that SS liabilities will swallow up 100% of the projected U.S. government budget in about 15-20 years. I don't feel like being force to put my money into something that is doomed to fail.



[edit on 7-11-2008 by wutone]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by michael
Can the fluoride-numbed, chem-trail breathing masses get mad at anything anymore?


In fact, YES!

Unfortunately it's only what their mass media of choice tells them to be afraid of, ie Islamo-Fascist-Mecha-Terrorists, Not wearing a flag pin, Gay marraige, Palestinian refugees with rocks, or people who aren't completely politically correct.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by wutone
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Read the OP article and it comes up with the PDF.

Yes that was a one-liner.

www.sharedprosperity.org...

[edit on 7-11-2008 by wutone]


Okay...I read the link to the PDF. Still CONFUSED how this is "Confiscating 401ks"

I found this in the PDF where she outlines her plans...But nothing about how the 401Ks will be "Confiscated"? Again..this from the OPs own link.

Not a fan of the plan. Just looking for honesty and accuracy here.

These plans will not be abolished, but under the
Guaranteed Retirement Account plan additional contributions
will no longer be tax exempt. We expect that
many 401(k) plans will survive because high-income
employees appreciate the automatic savings feature and
the possibility of an employer match. Accumulations
in 401(k) plans and other retirement plans that exist
before the bill goes into effect will be treated under the
old tax rules.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by VDOG.45



I would like to ask a few questions for those that voted for the Obama...

1. Did you read any of his books?
2. Do you have any clue as to his Radical associations?
3. Name me 1 piece of legislation he wrote in the US Senate?
4. Was he really born in the United States? How do you know?
5. Why do you worship him so much?





Well, I didn't vote for Barak Obama but I most certainly wanted him to win over McCain since I knew that (sadly so) Ron Paul didn't have a chance of winning (but I voted for him anyways).

So I think that your questions somewhat apply to me.

1. No. I didn't read any of his books. What your point though? Is it a prerequisit to read the books of every single politician you've ever supported in order to say you made a good decision?

2. I have many friends who have VERY radical ideas. But I don't buy into them one bit. They are allowed to have the ideas they do and as long as they don't make me feel less of a person for not buying into them (which none of them do) then they are just fine with me.

Some of them have done bad things in their pasts but they have become better people and have been some of the best friends I have ever known. I don't preform background checks on all of my friends and disqualify them as a friend after learning of nefarious things they may have done in the past. In most cases, they have proven that those acts mean nothing since I have experience, first hand, the kinds of people they are now that I know I can lean on in times of need.

3. What does it matter if he hasn't written any legislation? Did Bush write any legislation? Did Reagan, for that matter? Your point is?

But just for fun, I'll name a few:

He wrote the ''Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2005" (S.2125) in the 109th Congress.

He was co-sponsor of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S.2590) in the 109th Congress.

Here's more. This is just a few out of 55 bills he was PRIMARY sponsor of:


In the 110th Congress, Obama has so far been the primary sponsor of 55 bills, including:

* The Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2007 (S.117), "to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism."

* The American Fuels Act of 2007 (S.133), "to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology."

* The Voter Advocate and Democracy Index Act of 2007 (S.737), "to measure, compare, and improve the quality of voter access to polls and voter services in the administration of Federal elections in the States."

* The STOP FRAUD Act (S.1222), "to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development."

* The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007 (S.1977), "to provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology."


Source (with references)

Those are all some pretty noteworthy pieces of legislation. Especially one that could have helped avert the crisis we are in. The STOP FRAUD act.

4. How do you know I was born in the US? Apparently, even if I showed you my birth certificate it wouldn't be good enough proof to you anyway. How do you know Bush was born in the US. McCain? How about Abraham Lincoln?

Fact Check.org has clear photos of the birth certificate itself showing even the raised seal that every one claimed was non existent.

FactCheck.org

5. This last question has a heck of a lot of assumption in it. And you know what they say about when you ASS-U-ME something.

First your question doesn't even leave room for that fact that someone doesn't worship him. You automatically put anyone on the defensive by asking a question like that in such a way. First you should ask, "Do you worship him? If so, why?" Consequently my answer would be, "No, I do not worship him" and there would be no need for further discussion.

However, since you ASSUME that any one who would have the AUDACITY to vote for Obama must have a shrine and a cardboard cutout of the man in a dark room in there house somewhere I will entertain your question.

I don't worship him. Believing that someone is the right person to take the country in the direction that you have been so wanting all of your adult life is not worship. It's called support. He's not perfect by any means. And I can guarantee that he WILL make decisions that I do not agree with but that's life. And that's the presidency, and that our government. He has his ideas. I have mine. Yet, I think that he was the better man for the job than the other choice we were led to believe was pretty much the only other one and therefore, only one of the two had the best chance of winning.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


It sounds like the Democrats are trying to entirely destroy the stock market. If this happened then watch for a Dow 3,000 as everyone tries to cash out at once. This is the stupidest economic idea I've ever heard. Seriously, I've been bashing socialism lately but this is really well beyond any of that in terms of sheer stupidity, as if they are literally trying to destroy our stock market. Maybe they the Democrats are interested in China taking over all our companies if they propose something like that.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by truthquest]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by VDOG.45
 


This is actually a legitmate thread debating a real issue...even if the Thread title is not entirely truthful..Either way please take that BS somewhere else, you are not remotely on topic and looking to derail an actual insightful debate of an actual issue into some kind of scream fest over issues that are now irrelevant. We haven't been able to do much legitimate debating lately on ATS. Please go away.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by wutone

Originally posted by nunya13


You're upset they are holding hearing to come up with ways to fix the economy??


No I am upset that they are holding hearings on ways to take over the economy.

If you think that it is ok for a group of people to have full control of everyone's lives and that is the ideal fix, then I guess that is where our opinions disagree.

As of now, I don't feel like having money I saved into my retirement being but into the control of the Social Security Administration due to the unpleasant fact that SS liabilities will swallow up 100% of the projected U.S. government budget in about 15-20 years. I don't feel like being force to put my money into something that is doomed to fail.



[edit on 7-11-2008 by wutone]

Then why do we have a government at all? We have a very small group of people governing our lives every single day. It's their job to have meetings and hearing in order to get to the bottom of things.

Edited: Because, apparently (as determined by myself alone), I am full of it!

[edit on 7-11-2008 by nunya13]






top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join