Democrats eye juicy 401K's (Again)

[Robor]

The search tool is available. If you expect me to put forth that much time to defend some random drive by claim of yours you are sadly mistaken.

Even during the Bush years I expressed my disdain for the endless tap of social programs and budgets problems.

Sorry, but I don't believe you. Why? Because I know too many people who voted for GWB - usually twice - and never said a peep about his deficit spending but are now alleged fiscal conservatives. They didn't care about the deficit when the money being spent was where they wanted and the tax breaks benefited them. Now money might be spent in a direction and it's suddenly the end of the world. Tell it to a teabagger because I don't care.

 

[Specop 007]

Trusting everything the govt says and does? Um, I don't think I said anything like that but feel free to beat up that straw man.

As far as this topic, I don't believe what is alleged in the OP will come to pass.

I would be somewhat surprised if it came to pass in the near future. But the fact that it is even being discussed should give you pause as to what the long term goals here are.

 

[Specop 007]

Sorry, but I don't believe you. Why? Because I know too many people who voted for GWB - usually twice - and never said a peep about his deficit spending but are now alleged fiscal conservatives. They didn't care about the deficit when the money being spent was where they wanted and the tax breaks benefited them. Now money might be spent in a direction and it's suddenly the end of the world. Tell it to a teabagger because I don't care.

Then keep on with your baseless claims. I too do not care. At least we agree on something.
We dont care.

 

[Extelleron]

Sorry, but I don't believe you. Why? Because I know too many people who voted for GWB - usually twice - and never said a peep about his deficit spending but are now alleged fiscal conservatives. They didn't care about the deficit when the money being spent was where they wanted and the tax breaks benefited them. Now money might be spent in a direction and it's suddenly the end of the world. Tell it to a teabagger because I don't care.

Very few people liked GWB as far as I know, they just liked the alternative even less.

Just like with McCain or whoever runs Republican in 2012. I can almost guarantee I won't agree with them on a large number of issues, but it's better than Obama.

People in this democracy will not vote for a fiscally conservative President. They will vote for the guy that promises them the most. And Ron Paul & Co. definitely don't fit that category.

 

[boomerang]

You just whine and bitch all the time, and don't really provide any thoughtful, considerate or interesting alternatives.

In short...you are soooooooo boring!

Who the hell would ever miss a person like that if they got the hell out of America?

Well thanks for your honesty. So basically, you're saying I just piss you off. That's fine. My suggestion would be to just ignore my posts.

I suppose I may be blind to it, but I feel that I often contribute interesting alternatives. Here's a recent one. I was going to type it out, but it's probably just better to post a link. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29162818&postcount=120

I think that should be a link directly to the post. If you don't find that considerate or interesting, then I guess I'm just boring. No response to that post BTW. Maybe you could explain why so I can learn from it.

On a related note, a few post down in that thread, Sandorski says "Fail again". Is that considerate, or interesting? I'm trying to determine if you really find my posts boring, or if you really just don't like my point of view.

I'll spill the beans, I'm thinking the latter.

 

[Robor]

Then keep on with your baseless claims. I too do not care. At least we agree on something.
We dont care.

If you didn't care why did you post this thread?

 

[Robor]

Very few people liked GWB as far as I know, they just liked the alternative even less.

Just like with McCain or whoever runs Republican in 2012. I can almost guarantee I won't agree with them on a large number of issues, but it's better than Obama.

People in this democracy will not vote for a fiscally conservative President. They will vote for the guy that promises them the most. And Ron Paul & Co. definitely don't fit that category.

You could say the lesser of two evils might have been the reason for GWB's election in 2000. I'll disagree he was the lesser but you can say it. You can't say that in 2004. GWB was so bad a blow up doll would have been a better option and still he was re-elected. People realized what a mistake they made in 2006 and the D's won in huge numbers. That carried over to 2008.

Obama got handed a shit sandwich. He hasn't even passed the one year mark and already you're going to vote for an unknown from the (R) party in 2012. Um, ok. Reminds me of 2000 but it's your vote.

 

[boomerang]

Trusting everything the govt says and does? Um, I don't think I said anything like that but feel free to beat up that straw man.

As far as this topic, I don't believe what is alleged in the OP will come to pass.

Interesting that you took a statement in which I was referring to myself and assumed it was directed towards you - but whatever.

We're sort of in agreement actually as I'm reasonably sure it will never come to pass. However, it has been done numerous times before. But not in this country. So, being a skeptic, I get concerned.

Now, the greater question is why do I get concerned and you don't. I am making an assumption that you don't so correct me if I'm wrong.

It comes down to my first statement about trusting the government - I don't.

So, back to my question to you. If the government were to enact this legislation, would you be OK with them dictating to you how your money will be invested? Would you have a problem with that money being available through those very means for the government to use as they see fit?

 

[bfdd]

Robor, you are making accusations then telling the person who you're accusing of shit that you pulled out of their ass to show proof they aren't what you are accusing them of? You realize how fucking retarded you look right now? It's up to the ACCUSER to present evidence against the accused, not vice versa. Been taking lessons from Glenn Beck lately?

Also, this is one of the reasons I haven't started a Roth IRA yet. Sounds to good to be true and hey it looks like I might of been right. I'll just keep my money under the mattress for the time being. As for the fight or flight thing, why are you guys calling bs on it? I've already been looking at where I can go overseas to a job and leave if things keep going down hill. Better to abandon a potentially sinking boat early than to get stuck going down with it and if I'm wrong oh well I can always come back.

 

[Specop 007]

If you didn't care why did you post this thread?

I mean I dont care that you are wasting your time trolling my threads and posting personal attacks.

Be my guest.

 

[woolfe9999]

The simple fact is the .gov is spending more than its making, by a large margin, and this isnt going to change anytime soon. The 2 options, realistically, are to either start taxing the everloving shit of out the productive members of society or let the bottom feeders fall on their asses.

If by bottom feeders, you mean senior citizens, then you're right. Programs for the poor are cumulatively about 20% of the federal annual budget. The three big ticket items are social security, defense, and medicare. After war appropriations are taken into account, it's defense, social security, medicare, in that order.

- wolf

 

[Robor]

Interesting that you took a statement in which I was referring to myself and assumed it was directed towards you - but whatever.

We're sort of in agreement actually as I'm reasonably sure it will never come to pass. However, it has been done numerous times before. But not in this country. So, being a skeptic, I get concerned.

Now, the greater question is why do I get concerned and you don't. I am making an assumption that you don't so correct me if I'm wrong.

It comes down to my first statement about trusting the government - I don't.

So, back to my question to you. If the government were to enact this legislation, would you be OK with them dictating to you how your money will be invested? Would you have a problem with that money being available through those very means for the government to use as they see fit?

Sorry, I thought you were inferring I had 100% faith in our government. I do not. I am concerned with who Obama has chosen to correct the economy. I am more concerned about the lack of regulation to prevent another collapse. To answer your question, no I do not think the government should be allowed to dictate how people invest in their retirement so we are in agreement there.

 

[Craig234]

Sorry, I thought you were inferring I had 100% faith in our government. I do not. I am concerned with who Obama has chosen to correct the economy. I am more concerned about the lack of regulation to prevent another collapse. To answer your question, no I do not think the government should be allowed to dictate how people invest in their retirement so we are in agreement there.

I've got a bias against telling people how to invest their money *in government retirement programs*, but I'd listen to arguments. If it was found that people are investing it in bad risk things and losing so much that the purpose of the program, their having the money for retirement, was being defeated making the massive tax loss investment by government a waste, I'd consider saying that if the government is gong to provide the tax incentives, then the investment options are limited to ones that result in accumulation. I'm not saying that's the case, just that if it were, it makes sense for the government to consider such restrictions.

 

[Extelleron]

You could say the lesser of two evils might have been the reason for GWB's election in 2000. I'll disagree he was the lesser but you can say it. You can't say that in 2004. GWB was so bad a blow up doll would have been a better option and still he was re-elected. People realized what a mistake they made in 2006 and the D's won in huge numbers. That carried over to 2008.

Obama got handed a shit sandwich. He hasn't even passed the one year mark and already you're going to vote for an unknown from the (R) party in 2012. Um, ok. Reminds me of 2000 but it's your vote.

I agree about 2004, but would Kerry have done anything differently? The Democrats haven't shown (now that they have been given control) that they will do anything different in terms of foreign policy than Bush did. Obama has done little/nothing to end the war in Iraq that wasn't already being done, and he's looking to escalate the war in Afghanistan. The only right decision was to not go to war at all, but that is a decision that Bush, the Republicans, AND the Democrats got wrong back in '03.

I don't know about you but I don't like the direction the country is headed under Obama. Unfortunate as it may be, the less that goes on in Washington, the better....the more "reform" and new legislation you pass, the more f'ed up everything seems to get.

The Republican Party, if it takes control of the Presidency and/or Congress, will not have enough power to ram through crap legislation on social issues and the like. Of course they also won't do anything to help the country: reduce the size of government (particularly military/foreign spending), reduce taxes, balance the budget, keep the country out of useless wars. Everything should stay pretty much the same. But it'll be better than a huge Democratic majority that has greatly increased the size/power of government in only around 12 months.

 

[Robor]

Robor, you are making accusations then telling the person who you're accusing of shit that you pulled out of their ass to show proof they aren't what you are accusing them of? You realize how fucking retarded you look right now? It's up to the ACCUSER to present evidence against the accused, not vice versa. Been taking lessons from Glenn Beck lately?

Also, this is one of the reasons I haven't started a Roth IRA yet. Sounds to good to be true and hey it looks like I might of been right. I'll just keep my money under the mattress for the time being. As for the fight or flight thing, why are you guys calling bs on it? I've already been looking at where I can go overseas to a job and leave if things keep going down hill. Better to abandon a potentially sinking boat early than to get stuck going down with it and if I'm wrong oh well I can always come back.

Meh, all I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy. I know damned well specop wasn't posting frequent rants on GWB's spending and budgets and so does he. I'm tired of the convenient timing of these all-of-the-sudden fiscal conservatives since 1/20/09.

 

[theevilsharpie]

I agree about 2004, but would Kerry have done anything differently? The Democrats haven't shown (now that they have been given control) that they will do anything different in terms of foreign policy than Bush did.

What? Obama is pushing for an end to the Iraq war and shifted resources to the war in Afghanistan. That's a clear change in priorities from the Bush administration.

 

[Robor]

I agree about 2004, but would Kerry have done anything differently? The Democrats haven't shown (now that they have been given control) that they will do anything different in terms of foreign policy than Bush did. Obama has done little/nothing to end the war in Iraq that wasn't already being done, and he's looking to escalate the war in Afghanistan. The only right decision was to not go to war at all, but that is a decision that Bush, the Republicans, AND the Democrats got wrong back in '03.

I don't know about you but I don't like the direction the country is headed under Obama. Unfortunate as it may be, the less that goes on in Washington, the better....the more "reform" and new legislation you pass, the more f'ed up everything seems to get.

The Republican Party, if it takes control of the Presidency and/or Congress, will not have enough power to ram through crap legislation on social issues and the like. Of course they also won't do anything to help the country: reduce the size of government (particularly military/foreign spending), reduce taxes, balance the budget, keep the country out of useless wars. Everything should stay pretty much the same. But it'll be better than a huge Democratic majority that has greatly increased the size/power of government in only around 12 months.

Had Kerry won in 2004 I think we would be 4 years closer to being out of Iraq. Who knows about Afghanistan? Like the Iraq war, I originally supported it. The more time that passes my support fades. It seems like Afghanistan may be Iraq2.

I would be happy to see someone come in and cut spending and the size of government but everyone knows that isn't going to happen. Didn't defense spending actually go up with Obama? What scares me about the (R) party is the hard-on for war. Iran is often discussed and now we've got elected officials talking about Yemen? WTF?!!!

 

[boomerang]

Sorry, I thought you were inferring I had 100% faith in our government. I do not. I am concerned with who Obama has chosen to correct the economy. I am more concerned about the lack of regulation to prevent another collapse. To answer your question, no I do not think the government should be allowed to dictate how people invest in their retirement so we are in agreement there.

Great - truly!

I read nearly all of your posts and I knew that we had more common ground that not. We have some philosphical differences but that's fine.

 

[Craig234]

I agree about 2004, but would Kerry have done anything differently? The Democrats haven't shown (now that they have been given control) that they will do anything different in terms of foreign policy than Bush did. Obama has done little/nothing to end the war in Iraq that wasn't already being done, and he's looking to escalate the war in Afghanistan. The only right decision was to not go to war at all, but that is a decision that Bush, the Republicans, AND the Democrats got wrong back in '03.

I don't know about you but I don't like the direction the country is headed under Obama. Unfortunate as it may be, the less that goes on in Washington, the better....the more "reform" and new legislation you pass, the more f'ed up everything seems to get.

The Republican Party, if it takes control of the Presidency and/or Congress, will not have enough power to ram through crap legislation on social issues and the like. Of course they also won't do anything to help the country: reduce the size of government (particularly military/foreign spending), reduce taxes, balance the budget, keep the country out of useless wars. Everything should stay pretty much the same. But it'll be better than a huge Democratic majority that has greatly increased the size/power of government in only around 12 months.

Correcting the error yet again:

The Democrats on 2002 voted for a resolution put forth by Bush to *give him the leverage to get WMD inspectors back in to Iraq*. Bush said it was only for that, NOT a vote for war, he'd ask again before war.

The inspectors got back in - and then *Bush*, not Democrats, unilaterally decided to start the war, ordering the inspectors out. If you want to blame Democrats for then paying the cost for a war in progress that had something like 90% public support after it started, blame them for that, but not for voting for getting the inspectors back in, not for starting the war that Bush did on his own.

As for your 'expanding the government' BS, they're fixing the mess the Republicans (and some Dems) caused. How many wars have they started? How have they skyrocketed the deficit outside of the crisis bailout programs? How many tax cuts for the rich have the passed to increase the deficit? How much of the corrupt spending the Repiublicans shot up have they done? Medicare Part D was an unfunded gift to big pharma. Demoncrats' Healthcare is estimated to cut the deficit $130 bill the first decade IIRC.

 

[Robor]

Great - truly!

I read nearly all of your posts and I knew that we had more common ground that not. We have some philosphical differences but that's fine.

I voted for Obama but it doesn't mean I'm going to blindly support his every decision. As I said, the biggest complaint I have is who he's put in charge to fix the economy. I understand he did get passed a horrible mess but he chose some (to put it nicely) controversial people to correct it. He/they will be judged on how they handle it from the point they took over. I hope those he chose can prove me and the other critics wrong. If not, it's on him/them. Sadly, even if they turn out to be a miserable failure they'll still be filthy rich and it will be 'the little guy' who pays the price (as always).

 

[Fern]

I've got a bias against telling people how to invest their money *in government retirement programs*, but I'd listen to arguments. If it was found that people are investing it in bad risk things and losing so much that the purpose of the program, their having the money for retirement, was being defeated making the massive tax loss investment by government a waste, I'd consider saying that if the government is gong to provide the tax incentives, then the investment options are limited to ones that result in accumulation. I'm not saying that's the case, just that if it were, it makes sense for the government to consider such restrictions.

Think about this a minute......







Since when does our government tax losses? They only tax gains. Losses in retirement plans don't cost our government any tax revenue loss.

Also, don't feel to bad our government. What many people do not realize is that investing through a qualified plan converts otherwise LT capital gains into ordinary income taxed at a much higher rate.

More importantly we already have many mnay limitations on what those funds can be invested in. E.g., gold is off limits, but how much better off would those retiring this year be if they were invested in gold?

IMO, politicians have no business micro-managing peoples' investments. FFS, they're the ones responsible for this economic mess (I mean Congress).

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Think about this a minute......
Since when does our government tax losses? They only tax gains. Losses in retirement plans don't cost our government any tax revenue loss.

You misunderstood my point. I'm saying, if the governent gives big tax breaks for the benefit of people having retirement money, but people are high risk and lose it all much of the time and are broke anyway, then the purpose of the tax breaks was not met - they may as well not have had the program. I'm saying the government has an interest in the retirement programs is subsidizes actually accumulating money.

[/quote]Also, don't feel to bad our government. What many people do not realize is that investing through a qualified plan converts otherwise LT capital gains into ordinary income taxed at a much higher rate.[/quote]

Overall, it's still a lot better for the person - lower taxes - with the plan. Or they woudn't do it. And the 'much higher rate' is relative to how much they are making later after a long time of tax deferment.

Tax me at 35% after decaes instead of 15%.

More importantly we already have many mnay limitations on what those funds can be invested in. E.g., gold is off limits, but how much better off would those retiring this year be if they were invested in gold?

IMO, politicians have no business micro-managing peoples' investments. FFS, they're the ones responsible for this economic mess (I mean Congress).

Fern

I've been meaning to look into that, I heard the rules were loosened. Can you invest in gold stocks if not gold?

Anyway, the cheap shot at Congress is wrong. It's the old "if Senator Smith can' tbe trusted not to sleep with his aide, can you trust him to vote right on war?" type nonsense.

 

[Zebo]

No Jobs, No Hiring, No Money, major debt we are all Joint and Severely liable for as US citizens .....hmmm wonder where money is....

Y'all really didnt think you'd get your 401K back did you? Anyone could see this trajectory years ago.

 

[CPA]

Unfucking believable. Is it not enough that have our social security money to "help" us get "a steady payment for life"? Oh, that's right, they squandered that money. And you can rest assured that if this is done it will not be long that they will then pass laws to include all americans to receive "a steady payment for life" from 401K annuities regardless if the person even has a 401K. That's right, people plowing monies into their 401Ks will then have to pay for others retirements. Don't laugh, it's not as farfetched as you think.

 

[Craig234]

No Jobs, No Hiring, No Money, major debt we are all Joint and Severely liable for as US citizens .....hmmm wonder where money is....

Y'all really did think you'd get your 401K back did you? Anyone could see this trajectory years ago.

Gore in 2000. Kerry in 2004. Kucinich in 2008. We've had our choices. I don't think bailing on 401(k)s is the answer. Fix the real problems. Put people in office who will fix the financial corruption, for example.