Obama Begins Push for New National Retirement System


#1

[TABLE=“class: contentpaneopen”]

Obama Begins Push for New National Retirement System
http://www.republicanoperative.com/templates/js_earthblog/images/pdf_button.png
http://www.republicanoperative.com/templates/js_earthblog/images/printButton.png
http://www.republicanoperative.com/templates/js_earthblog/images/emailButton.png

[/TABLE]
[TABLE=“class: contentpaneopen”]

A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRA’s and 401k plans, NSC is warning.
The hearing, held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, was monitored by NSC staff and featured a line up of left-wing activists including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans.
“This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could,” explains National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone, “However, it is clear that this is the first step towards a government takeover. It feels just like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up.”

Obama Begins Push for New National Retirement System

[/TABLE]


#2

I dont agree with the approach Obama is taking for a number of reasons. However, what he should do is simply reallocate ones 401k contribution from the employer to the government who would then leverage private brokers to do what private brokers would do for the employer anyway. Employers I think would be in favor of such a system as that would be one less benifit they have to provide the employees. The employer would also save money. not only on administraitive costs but they would no longer be compelled to provide any employee contribution matching up to 3-5% of 401k contributions.

This is also a good reason why employers would actually benifit from government universal healthcare. Strictly from a job-creater standpoint, it would be a great way to save on employee expenses. If the government provided nationalized healthcare as well as retirement investment accounts. the employer would no longer have to deal with the expense of providing either one of those benifits to thier employees. They would then have more money to expand thier business and hire more employees.


#3

Obama should keep his grubby fingers off it altogether!


#4

Such things are promoted by socialists and communists. He means punish those that have invested properly for their own future by taking it from them and give it to people that are too selfish or irresponsible to have done such a thing for themselves.

I am a law abiding citizen. The government has no right to garnish or transfer my retirement account.


#5

#6

Whether you like to admit the obvous or not we like all other nations have a mixed economy it only matters where the needle lands between both philosophies at any given time (socialism—USA—capitalism.) I am saying there are some stratigic benifits to businesses big and small to allow the government to take on roles usually reserved as a "expense to employers. The role is 401k managment and healthcare. If you take the administrative expenses away from the business owner, they can use that money to expand thier business and hire new people, rather then managing and paying for healthcare insurence and managing and paying for 401k retirement and employer matching of employee contribution of 3-5% of employee contributions into thier 401k.
Free business of the burden and expense of providing benifits to employees and instead spend that money to increase thier bottom line.

I am tempted to respond to your selfish, lazy, and irresponsible point you are trying to make concerning the majority of the middle class earning 50k per year and raising kids and not having enough left over to invest enough to meet future retirement needs but lets stay on point.


#7

Well folks you MUST understand the END GAME!

GOVERNMINT CONTROL.

Now lets say you have IRA/401k etc, ALL of which YOU control, retirement is YOUR choice in life. BAD, govt want to control your retirement, how much you have and if you have too much then lets give it to some folks that were too lazy and too stupid LibTards to do it for themselves.

UNDERSTAND how communism works: The transfer of an individuals loyalty and allegiance from God, Family, Country to Governmint and its LEADER. When this occurs you beging to elect a dictator, thru the establishment of a Democracy in which 51% of the vote is the determining factor, remember LibTards HATE GOD, FAMILY, COUNTRY and the Electoral College.

If the Govt and its DICTATOR as in Obama controlls YOUR retirement then who is PULLING YOUR STRINGS? Who will you vote for?

What if Obama get this among his other communist goals, then in 2016 he runs again as a WRITE IN and gets 51% if the vote on a 3rd party? Obama for 8, ain’t it Great!


#8

Most people do not “control” there IRA’s, 401k’s or mutul funds. The majority of people chose among 2-3 limited options provided by there employer that is based upon risk and simply have auto withdrawls from there pay check every month placed in it. Its the fund managers that control the 401k’s and mutual funds not the individual contributer. So I don’t see what the difference would be if we opted to let the government manage the administration of these programs instead of the employer.

Free up small and large business from the expense of managing these programs and contributing into these programs and paying for healthcare. Then small and large business will redirect that money back into thier business and hire more people. As far as Godly versus none godly government. So long as govt doesn hender religous expression I don’t see where there is a issue. I think one gets themselves in teh weeds of reason to assume all government leads to Marxism. I dont see all other mroe socialized developed (first world) countries burning churches or restricting religious beliefs.

Finally, the USSR which everyone wants to point ot as a symbol of communist failure was not communist in the purist sense it was a one party dictatorship. Such a system is not equality of all classes it was a celebration of a very small class that had most and everyone else starved. A one party dictatorship that used rationing as a form of power over their people. The reason why the USSR was athiest had more to do with Stalin’s fear of the threat of the 1500 year old Orthodox church challenging his authority more than anything else. So he inforced Athiesm to destroy the Orthodox church in Russia.

The Amish, Puritans, and monistaries (monks) were and are more communistic then the USSR or China ever was.


#9

NOPE! I control my IRA/401k etc just like all do, we MAY chose to hire a FUND MANAGER, they do not control, they manage, BIG difference. I call him him and tell him what to do, I can move it, cash it, divvy it up among many fund mangers etc etc.

You clearly do not understand how the govt and ACLU has removed God from govt, schools etc, in order to REPLACE with GOVT and its leader!

Pure form of communism, there are none, all govts are a form of something of which groups and individuals put their SPIN on it, your point is MUTE! and YES govt does hinder religious expression, just in case you have not noticed…

Are the Amish, Puritans, Monks etc more or less communistic than USSR or China…sorry, I first heard that back in the 60’s and its STILL a DNC talking point. And the argument solely depends upon who you are talking too not knowing about either China or the USSR and how those gov’ts function. It clearl you do not or you would never make such a foolish statement…Toss the talking points and head down to your local library to do some serious study on the subjects. You did not have the luxury (if you can call it that) of spending most of your adult life preparing for war with the communists and fighting them across this world, nor have you ever stood in the Fulda Gap ready to defend Europe against the USSR and understanding WHY!


#10

It helps to read the Communist Manfesto by Karl Marx:
Communism requires that there be a classless society, no on is richer or more privileged than anyone else. Everyone earns the same from doctor to maid, to govt official. Everyone works to the common good not to the individual self interest per say. The individual self interest “is” the common good. He was ardent atheist that is true he believed any philosophy other then his own was weak that of course would be religion.

He wrote the Communist Manifesto because of the terrible conditions he observed men, women, and children had to work in. They worked seven days per week 16 hour days. No brakes, no holidays. They had almost no access to medical care and you died rather early in life from disease, injury or starvation. This was not so for the factory owners, banker, political elite or the royals. This was a dark time in the the history of the Industrial Revolution.

The Bolshevik Revolution attempted to bring forth the utopia Marx and Lenin were promoting as a counter to the terrible conditions of starvation and over-work the people had to work under during the industrial revolution. Once Lenin died the likes of Stalin took over and the communist “utopia” died when Lenin died. Stalin was a power hungry dictator that desired wealth and power above all else he did his best to try to destroy his major rivals, the 1500 year old Orthodox Church being one of them. He and his henchman had all the wealth and all the power. Stalin used rationing and starvation as a tool to retain power and break the will of the people.

So communism died and was replaced by a ruthless dictator and his henchman. Stalin and his single party took on the name of communism and even quoted Marx but that was as far as communism went in the USSR. If Marx and the “so-called” communist party really wanted to adopt the utopia of communism they would had earned no more and no less than the lowest farmer. They would have no more or no less food then the street sweeper. The communist party would simply fulfill their function in a society where everyone was equal and no one had more power or authority than anyone else. As we know that was not the case when looking at the single party dictatorship of the so called communist party of fat cats and starving peasants.

So ya I did a little reading on the subject and none of that reading involved pamphlets of any political party.

The USSR may have been our enemy up to 1991 but that does not mean that they were “communist.” I might “call myself” superman but that doesn’t mean that I am. As far as the 60’s and 70’s are concerned, not all knowledge in and of itself from that time is corrupt just because it didn’t fit a nice clean; us and them narrative.

Amish and monks are communist as they are a society that works for the common-good. The self interest of the individual is fulfilled in meeting ones obligation to thier society. The glue holding their society together is Christ. Communism works on a small scale but tends to not work at all on a large scale as people in general are selfish and look for ways to look down on others and gain dominion over others at others expense. The main tool of choice in our society is money. Finally, I agree with you, the usa is headed down athiestic, left leaning society, under govermental control. I’m Eastern Orthodox Christian so I share your concern as far as the forced secularism is concerned.


#11

Fixed that for you.


#12

Nobody is stupid enough to let obama manage his money, not even liberals.

NOBODY will invest in these. I’d rather pay ridiculous tax rates than lose all of my money, and so would anybody smart enough to save. I will continue investing in foreign companies as much as possible.

The government already screwed everyone with a 401k with automatic target date funds… which all crashed and have performed worse than the market.


#13

It’s difficult enough for an individual to make stock, bond, or fund picks. Hell, even fund managers are stymied a lot of the times.

That small print says it all, "Past performance is no (blah, blah, blah) . . . "

So, considering BHO’s administration track record for making sound decisions (and offering me which funds to pick from IS an investment decision), and as far as that goes, considering ANY government’s track record for making sound decisions, would I want the government making my investment decisions? I think not.

If something is going to screw up my future, it’s likely the government will do it if THEY have control of my future. With accoutability comes responsibility. Investments under a government clontrol scenario, especially BHO’s, have very little, if any, accountability OR responsibility (BHO’s administration being totally irresponsible.)

I want to control MY OWN future! And as bad as I might be on stock, bond, or fund picks, the government would be a lot worse. Do I have proof of that? Of course not, but I have more confidence in myself than I do in the government.