UMD Libertarians

With Dems having majority in the house, senate, and with the Messiah at the helm, this is what we have to look forward to. Unbelievable! Since social security has been such a "great success", I’m sure this will work out well.

and to think that these types of schemes are just the beginning. Obama, Pelosi and Reid are gunning for a legislative bonanza.
It really scares me when people advocating these things use possessive nouns and phrasing that clearly indicate their belief that people don’t own their earnings, but that the government does as guardian of collective wealth.

Can’t wait for the Democrats to have control of everything and have a veto-proof majority in the Senate.
I cant wait for everyone who votes for Obama to cry once all their taxes go up

Well I see how they plan on paying for SSI’s ious.

Force everyone to buy govt bonds instead of investing in the stockmarket.
well we knew this was coming. Poor people dont have 401ks so we all need to be put on equal footing

it’s a damn shame. i dont have an 401k since the university doesn’t match — i have CalPERS, but i have a Roth as well as a 403b
So it was Joe Biden who said just last week that evil CEOs would be the first to see their pensions go. Are you ready for the full scale attack on privately held pensions and 401K plans once Obama and Biden are in the White House?

Something the mainstream media isn’t reporting is the fact that changes will be coming to your 401(k) … they have already been proposed in House hearings in Washington. Earlier this month, the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor Rep. George Miller (a Democrat) says that sweeping changes must come to the 401(k) system. One of the main changes would be eliminating $80 billion in tax savings for higher-income people enrolled in 401(k) retirement savings plans. Miller says, " what we have to start to think about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that is not generating what we … say it should?"

What "we" say it should? By "we" do you mean that the government should be able to determine how much I can put away for my retirement?

Is there a motivation here? Well, try this. Let’s look at health insurance. For decades the government has favored government-provided or employer-provided health insurance over privately-acquired plans. If your employer bought you the policy - deductible. If you bought it yourself - not deductible. The goal here was to make it easier for you to depend on someone else for health insurance than on yourself, and in fact to punish you if you tried to employ a bit of individual responsibility.

Are we moving to the same scheme for retirement savings? Get your retirement from the government and you’ll be favored. Try to set up your retirement plan on your own and you’ll be punished. Self-sufficiency, punished. Dependence, rewarded.

So where do we go from here? Government guaranteed retirement accounts. Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor, proposed this plan. Here’s Teresa’s explanation: "The way the government now encourages 401(k) plans is to spend $80 billion in tax breaks, which goes to the highest-income earners. That simply results in transferring money from taxed savings accounts to untaxed accounts. If we implement automatic [individual retirement accounts] or if we expand the 401(k) system, all we’re doing is adding to this inefficiency."

Do you smell a plan to make you dependent on government for your retirement? Talk about having you by the short hairs …..

In the meantime, let’s get back to Joe Biden’s "their pensions will be the first to go" comment. The more savvy among you know that a large part of the current economic crunch can be blamed on Washington action or inaction. Are their pensions in jeopardy because of their malfeasance? Hardly. Just yesterday, Yahoo Finance reported that lawmakers in Congress may turn out to have the "sweetest" pension plan. This is because lawmakers are offered a defined-benefit pension plan that is backed by the US Treasury and insulated from Wall Street fluctuations. But keep in mind, when it says that they are backed by the US Treasury, it means your tax dollars. The article says that lawmakers like George Miller are in an "increasingly privileged category" because they are guaranteed retirement benefits thanks to you, the tax payers.

What exactly do they get? Well their benefits start earlier and accrue faster than the average private company worker. Lawmakers also get cost-of-living increases, which is extremely rare in the private sector. George Miller, for example, if he were to retire tomorrow would take away an annual pension of about $122,000. In other words, "lawmakers’ retirement benefits are out of step with most ordinary Americans." And at a time when Joe Biden wants to take away the pensions of CEOs, Congress has made no effort to revisit its own retirement plan.

Robyn Credico, the national director of an employee benefit consulting firm, says, "The government plans are certainly very rich even if you compare them to the pension plans in corporate America … I certainly believe it affects policy … If you’re not impacted yourself it’s very easy to make different rules."

One other item to take away from this is the fact that private employers do have the option to offer these defined benefit pension plans. But what happens to a private company if it offers this type of plan, and the value of that plan drops … it has to make up for the extra cost in other ways … like layoffs, cutting other benefits or freezing the pensions. When government defined pension plans lose value – the taxpayers make up the difference.

So what can we take away from this? Federal lawmakers in Washington have secured pension plans that are affected little by this financial crisis … and they have your tax dollars to thank for it. Meanwhile, they want to target evil CEO pension plans first. Then they want to target private pension plans and eliminate any tax breaks you may currently enjoy. Where does it stop?

How do these people get in office? You’ll notice they don’t think the government should "subsidize" 401K’s. Their twisted thinking is that if they can’t tax it, then they are somehow subsidizing it. No where do they even consider people’s money as actually belonging to those who earned it. I guess the prospect of people taking care of themselves and not sucking on the public teat where they can control who, when, where and how much, pisses them off.

Unless you pay 100% in tax, they think you are getting a subsidy. Unbelievable.

If your tax rate is 55%, then in those nitwits minds, you are enjoying a 45% government subsidy.

Spoken with true Marxism in mind. Everything belongs to the government. The government decides who gets what.

I can’t believe that the press has tilted so far that nobody is challenging communistic remarks like that any more. This is really sad because it looks like the Democrats will be able to pass every looney idea they can come up with if BHO gets elected POTUS and that could very well mean an end to our economic and personal freedoms.

I guess the silver lining will be that the long lines of illegal immigrants will subside because there is no more reason to come here when things are just like in Venezuela or Cuba…

I have a 401k

And even being from tx where i know my vote doesnt counted i sentit in vor McCain anyway

It’s the same way with people here. Tax cuts = corporate welfare.

Eliminating 401k’s removes probably the best path for a working-class family to build wealth.

Oh Sorry, I forgot. Wealth is a dirty word. Can’t let people have that — they might become republicans!

I fear that we are at a tipping point in our country and if some reasonable and adult dialog doesn’t soon start to occur in DC, we’re screwed. The fact that McDermitt said through his press secretary that this idea has merit is only more reason to fear if total control of the Whitehouse, Senate and House is given to the Dems , we’re utterly fucked.

in the ass.

without lube.

in fact, with fucking sand and gravel for lube.

I bet you listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity all day. When Obama wins they should push through some sort of fairness law that would require the radio (and only the radio, not TV or newspapers, because radio is where all of these hate mongering assholes reside) to have equal representation from the other side. That’ll be awesomely fair.

For a second I thought you were being serious

No. No, man. Shit, no, man. I believe you’d get your ass kicked sayin’ something like that, man.

This article illistrates what the financial difference.

I’m no expert, so i’m not sure it is accurate.

Me too. Moves us 1 step closer to finally having an armed revolution again to remove the dictators in DC.

(well at least those who hide their guns, the rest of you can all dial 911)
you have to cut spending before you can give tax breaks or reduce taxes.

This is the part of plan that really just doesn’t make any sense [to me] and I don’t know how the Dems [or anyone] can justify it. How is this any different then social security? Now on top of SS tax, they want to mandate that I invest 5% of my income into this system with a MASSIVE payout of a $600 inflation adjusted stipend.

Let’s think this through. If I make 100K per year, now I will not only have to pay into SS (don’t forget that with BHO and his merry men now running the show there will be no cap on SS taxes), I now need to add another $5000 per year in this new program.

So I work 35 years, and pay into the plan (in addition to SS) another $175,000 but will receive an additional measly $600 ANNUAL (L-O-FUCKING-L) payout for this “added” security that the government is going to give me. If you are invested into any retirement program now that only gets you this kind of return, you need to fire, and possibly kill, your financial planner.

This stuff is getting scary. We have hit a perfect storm. A Republican president with historically low approval ratings, a Democratic candidate that is historic in his selection combined with a media that is fully supportive of him, now add a period in the stock market that is resulting in people seeing their 401k drop 30%+ in value. All of this screams CHANGE and this gives the Dems their marching orders on imposing these sort of socialist ideas.

I did some reading and digging on this, and realized how big of a change we’re in for with the Obama administration.

For the last 8 years, there has been a very narrow discussion around any given issue. Iraq, Social Security, whatever. No dissenting ideas were allowed, so if you heard the government doing anything at all, you knew it as a position they agreed with and were getting ready to execute on.

But it’s going to get crazy soon because of this insane idea:

- Bring in lots of opinions, listen to them, and then make a decision.

What are you talking about?

They had hearings on the issue. It even says in the title "contemplate". I "contemplate" punching my brother in the law in the face but I dont’ do it.

That’s what I mean. Even the idea that the government would dare to bring people into Congress to hear different ideas is crazy.

You are so full of crap. Here i was thinking Congress has been doing that for years. Guess it is only "hear[ing] different ideas" if it is Dems doing it? Perhaps you need to reread the article?

now here’s a question…I understand why people may be voting for him, but what exactly do you think will actually CHANGE with Obama as POTUS?

Do you think black people and white people are going to join hand in hand walk down the street and sing we shall overcome together?

Because I have news for you. Doug Wilder got elected Governor of Virginia 20 years ago in the old capital of the Confederacy and not a damn thing changed. Not race relations, not black on black crime, not 70% pregnancy rates among unwed mothers, not unemployment rates……nothing.

So what do YOU think will change?

Thought for this election: given the candidates, would you rather see a president with a hostile or cooperative congress?

The more obstructions to government, the less they can fuck things up.

Well, I can tell you that Obama has inspired me and a lot of my friends to do more for this country and try to make it a better place. So I can’t sit here and engage your argument directly, but I can promise you that I personally will be more engaged in making this country the place that I think any American would be proud to be from.

If I have to do that by taxing a tax hit, working harder, volunteering, or whatever. I’m willing to step up to the plate a bit to get this country back on track, and I’m happy that Obama will be at the helm.

Don’t waste your breath

They are under the assumption that everyone who votes for Obama are unproductive members of society who sit on park benches all day.

You won’t.

You won’t have to.

MINUS WHALE BE

Typical Obama supporter - can’t name one damn thing you think Obama will do

Obama just tingles your ball sack.
It’s ok, only 5% of Americans will have their taxes raised, amirite?

Hostile congress.
Then nothing in Washington would get done.

If you ask me, I think most of our countries problems are the result of Washington DOING things.

Give me 4 years of deadlock so we can recover from this shit please.

And what have you done to make this country a better place?
I mean… you said yourself that you and your friends where inspired by Obamma to make this country a better place. What did you do?
another good reason to vote for obama…this country is fucked the next 4 years

the 5% that pay more than half of all taxes in the U.S., yes.

.

Yep, successful bastards need to pay more. Tax credits for all

Especially if you don’t even pay taxes!!!

So far? I dunno, fought in a war, am an active volunteer at the sierra club ico in my town. Nothing really.

But those things don’t count.
You said that Obama inspired you to make this country a better place.
Obama inspired you to fight in a war?
That must be an interesting story. Do tell?
Obama inspired you to join the Sierra Club?
Another interesting story. Do much hunting with Barrack Hussein?

Actually he did inspire me to become a volunteer with the sierra club ico program. I’d recommend it for anyone who wants to help out inner city kids and spend time in the outdoors.

As far as my military service, that spanned different administrations, but to be sure a reason I got out was because the reasons I signed up were not the reasons I was fighting. So the Bush administration certainly had a heavy hand in convincing me to leave the armed forces. If Obama was in, and he follows his policies as outlined, I probably would have stayed in.

I don’t go hunting with Obama; nor do I understand your attempt at humor.

and you signed up for what, exactly? something _other_ than serving your country in whatever capacity is needed? I respect your service, but i’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here.

I signed up because I wanted to "defend freedom and democracy around the globe". I wanted to protect America, and to be a force for good around the globe. Maybe it’s naive, but it was my reasoning, and the reasoning of many people I know.

Instead we found ourselves fighting wars that didn’t help ourselves, or anyone in the nations we were fighting.

I was on a submarine in the north Arabian Gulf, and watched as a US built Iraqi destroyer was trying to engage a cruiser in our battlegroup. So there we are, all the way around the world, being chased by people using one an American built warship, from the naval yards in Norfolk, VA.

During the Anfal campaign in the Iraq-Iran war, the chemical strikes against Halabja were carried out on US built and sold helicopters, the day after Donald Rumsfeld had a closed door meeting with Saddam Hussein.

There’s sketchy evidence to show that Saddam Hussein was helped into power by the CIA, and he was certainly kept there by the US to aid as a proxy during the Iran-Iraq war. After the Anfal campaign, where he killed off so many of his farmers, we put Iraq second in agricultural subsidies under Mexico.

I had a friend who died on the USS Stark, after someone from Al Queda hopped in a skiff loaded with explosives and attacked the ship while it was moored. There’s spotchy-at-best evidence that Bin Laden was trained or funded by the CIA, but the Taliban certainly was on diplomatic terms with the US.

So, by the time you get down to it and spend some time in country, it becomes really clear that as a member of the military you are a tool to exercise the will of the President’s foreign policy agenda. That can or cannot be a far cry from "defending freedom and democracy around the globe", depending upon the President. For me, the Bush administration was horrendously off the mark. The Clinton administration had its issues as well; the inaction in Rwanda was unpardonable.

Under an Obama administration, I have hopes that his foreign policy will resemble "defending freedom and democracy around the globe" much more closely than his predecessors.

Iraq is getting their vessels from Italy and doesn’t currently have a destroyer. They do have some Predator Class Patrol craft, but they aren’t anything even remotely similar to even our old DDGs 37s.

If you were in a battle group, you wouldn’t be having a Tico out interdicting traffic, it would be a Burke or a Frigate. Hell, the air wing would have eyes on WAY before it could get even remotely close to a Tico. What was the tactical situation? Where you guys on joint maneuvers?

Honestly, you need to get on the ground in Iraq to see that there is a ton of good that the Military is doing. You can disagree about the war and ongoing conflict, but all you need to do is talk to some SeaBeas and ask them what they have been doing for the last few years.

It’s a bit of a technicality, but that article is slightly wrong. It mentions that the government would "seize" your 401k, but that’s not entirely correct. A 401K is a DBO. The government already owns it outright, and you are merely a beneficiary of that account.

All 401k are DBOs?

Related posts:

1. Death Tax/Estate Tax - If either canidate made a stance to abolish they’d win. but nooo, no one does. It would solidify that mess. Hell I'd even vote Obama if he said he could...
2. Does the Idea of a Democratic 60 seat senate 218 seat house, white house bother you? I am nervous about one party having control of the Congress and White House at the same. In this election,...
3. Senator Obama’s proposed ‘tax cuts for the middle class’ Senator Barack Obama declared recently that he wants to reform our tax code so that it rewards work and not...
4. Democrats launch new website. Lol at the quiz about tax breaks, isn't McCains plan to reduce corporation tax to 25% so of course oil...
5. Do you admit Obama will have a lower tax burden for the vast majority of americans? When compared to the burden most Americans would have under McCain's tax plans. Yes, I know that is a repost,...