BoycottCorruptMedia.org
http://www.BoycottCorruptMedia.org
Dear God in heaven they’re already going after our property.
It’s in The Malden Observer in the Regime Change column. By the way, this would raise everybody’s Adjusted Taxable Income.
As time marches on I begin to wonder if there is actually any way to AVOID another Revolution/Civil War...
This has to be the 10th time this has been posted.
That this will happen, if not now, later, is a given.
Because it’s not real yet being lame Duck congress. We sell this as a tax increase on the other 95%. Bring it on! We need nice juicy issues like this to rally the public against. In fact we need to not spook Pelosi too soon on this crazy stuff(so we dont need the press too soon) , then we start “the Pelosi economy” Talk and how she will give us SS IOUs for our 401Ks. If Pelosi makes it voluntary it wont be an issue that helps us, You see??
Listening? They are "listening" all right. Dems use "hearings" to gin up support for their already predetermined conclusions. They want that cash and they want it now. These "hearings" simply put a patina of wisdom from an "outside" source on the label. If things go awry they can always point to the "person" who gave them the "bad advice." They have drooled over these accounts for more than 2 decades. Now that they are huge and ripe for picking, even at the down market prices, they will rape the retirement accounts in the name of "SECURITY". After all it's not "fair" that you "rich bastards" have an IRA or 401(k) or a Keogh plan and the lazy good for nothings have none................
You changed the title of this news Article from the Carolina Journal, it has already been posted
Dems Target Private Retirement Accounts
carolina Journal ^ | November 04, 2008 | Karen McMahan
Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:39:05 PM by AmericanMade1776
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2126622/posts
What’s ours is theirs!!!!
Let’s not get all hyperventilated over something before we know it’s true. Ric Edelman on his Sunday, November 9th, investment show on WLS Talk Radio (Chicago) discussed this in depth. He went back through the entire scenario including this woman’s (Teresa Ghilarducci) testimony. Folks, they are NOT looking at confiscating our 401k plans. They ARE looking at 401k plans because they historically haven’t preformed as well as expected (they don’t provide sufficient income to retirees). Also, personal investments in 401k plans are far lower than the maximum allowed.
I’ve found Ric Edelman to give pretty good investment advice. I’ve also found him to be fairly conservative and no Obama supporter (he’s flatly stated on air he’s a Repbulican). Unless proven otherwise, this is a non-issue.
MelSmith member
Since Nov 7, 2008
I see you are new here, before posting a new Thread, you have to do a Title Search to see if it has been posted or not. And if you post a News Article, you have to use the EXACT title of the News Article.
Honestly, would we really march on Washington? Would we revolt? How much would it take to get people to respond? Are too far gone? Are we too afraid to take such a course? Would the military revolt with us?
I can just imagine the bloodshed.
bump
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2114880/posts
Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?
US NEWS ^ | 10/23/2008 | James Pethokoukis
Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2008 5:57:14 AM by Grampa Dave
Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans? October 23, 2008 10:47 AM ET | James Pethokoukis |
I hate to use the “S” word, but the American government would never do something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right? This is exactly what cash-strapped Argentina just did in the name of protecting workers’ retirement accounts (Efharisto, Fausta’s Blog). Now, even Uncle Sam isn’t that stupid, but some Democrats might try something almost as loopy: kill 401(k) plans.
House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created “guaranteed retirement accounts” for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since “the savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”
A few respectful observations:
1) McDermott is right when he says the savings rate isn’t going up. But the savings rate doesn’t include gains to money you invest in the stock market. It ignores the buildup of net worth. (If you bought a share of XYZ Corp. in January at $100, for instance, and its value doubled by December, the savings rate measure would still value that investment at $100. In short, the savings rate is a phony number.)
2) So based partly on the above faulty logic, the $4.5 trillion, as of the start of the year, invested in 401(k) plans doesn’t count as savings.
3) Ghilarducci would have workers abandon the stock market right at the bottom of the market. A stupid idea, according to Warren Buffett: “I don’t like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I’ll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: ‘Put your mouth where your money was.’ Today my money and my mouth both say equities.”
4) Ghilarducci would offer a lousy 3 percent return. The long-run return of the stock market, adjusted for inflation, is more like 7 percent. Look at it this way: Ten thousand dollars growing at 3 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with roughly $22,000. But $10,000 growing at 7 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with $150,000. That is a high price to pay for what Ghilarducci describes as the removal of “a source of financial anxiety and...fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets.” Please, I’ll take a bit of worry for an additional $128,000.
5) What effect would this plan have on an already battered stock market? Well, I would imagine it would send it even lower, sticking a shiv into the portfolios of everyone who didn’t jump aboard. But I am sure the Chinese would love to jump in and buy all our cheap stocks to fund the retirement of their citizens.
My bottom line: If you believe in the long-run dynamism of the American economy, then you have to believe in the stock market. Listen to superinvestor Buffett, not the prof from the New School.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2114880/posts
If they go this route, they’ll blow their new majority in no time at all.
bttt
Obama Wins, Economy’s Doomed:
Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of ‘The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets,’ says a big-government Obama administration will lead to an economic collapse on par with the Great Depression.
Sun 11/09/08 04:59 AM EST — Gregg Greenberg
Check the video linked below to really make your day, week, month, year, decade:
It will take about a minute with an ad and a viewing of our new dictator Zer0 celebrating his victory.
They can have my 401K when they pry it from my cold, dead, portfolio.