TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.nationalseniorscouncil.org/i ... &Itemid=62

It's not the first time this kind of plan has been suggested but the election makes the context unique. Most relevant is the attitude expressed in the quotes below. Take it for what it's worth.

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.

A representative of the liberal Pension Rights Center, Rebecca Davis, testified that the government needs to get involved because 401k plans and IRAs are unfair to poor people. She demanded the Obama administration set up a "government-sponsored program administered by the PBGC (the governments’ Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation)." She proclaimed that even "private annuities are problematic."

Deputy Treasury Secretary J. Mark Iwry, who presided over the hearing, is a long-time critic of 401k plans because he believes they benefit the rich. He also appears to be one of the Administration’s point man on this issue.

Eliminate employee pension plans. Replace pension plans with 401K. Use class warfare rhetoric to justify government confiscation of 401K. Use confiscated wealth to placate your entitlement base. If nothing else, the rhetoric is a further demonstration that the Obama administration is not liberal, but radical Marxist.

Car dealers are unfair. They charge a poor person one year of wages for an automobile, but will sell the same exact car to a Hollywood actor for one week's earnings.

This is all pretty clear to me. The problem that the Obama Administration really wants to solve is this one:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/19/ ... bt-crisis/

GM, Kali and many others have unfunded pension liabilities which are owed to union members. By nationalizing 401Ks, the bailout of all of those pension funds will be covered at the Federal level.

The poor are just the usual excuse.

Speaking only for myself, nationalization of my 401K that I have been building for 35 years, that would start a ruckus that would make Tea Party gatherings look like afternoon tea.

Rex B wrote:Speaking only for myself, nationalization of my 401K that I have been building for 35 years, that would start a ruckus that would make Tea Party gatherings look like afternoon tea.

By rights it should make the late 1770s look like afternoon tea.

nothing new...

(Originally posted 10/13/10)

I can't imagine something like this happening, but then again, these are different times.

chasfm11 wrote:This is all pretty clear to me. The problem that the Obama Administration really wants to solve is this one:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/19/ ... bt-crisis/

GM, Kali and many others have unfunded pension liabilities which are owed to union members. By nationalizing 401Ks, the bailout of all of those pension funds will be covered at the Federal level.

The poor are just the usual excuse.

I was going to mention unions, like also the SEIU, but decided not to get into that. Absolutely, none of these Marxists care about poor people, that's just the rhetorical tool they use to get their way, because they know that decent human beings, which they are not, are concerned about the welfare of those who are truly disadvantaged or can't help themselves. One of the problems in combating these insidious authoritarians is that decent people tend to assume that since they have genuine concerns about unfortunate people that those who are so vocally touting the interests of the poor share at least this common human inclination: and they have trouble understanding that many of these Marxists are, at best, merely opportunists who don't care a whit about the poor, or more likely, outright sociopaths and psychopaths, whose greatest desire is to impose their will on the proletariat --an imperative ordained by self-proclaimed superior intellect and transcendent virtue.

pbwalker wrote:nothing new...

(Originally posted 10/13/10)

I can't imagine something like this happening, but then again, these are different times.

It's been talked about in various forms for some time....the only thing new is that we have a share-the-weath president who doesn't have to be concerned about reelection, and is quite nefarious in illegally using his power to get his way.

There s a big difference between people that can't and won't help themselves.

And how would government-run 401k be any different than Social Security, which is a miserable failure?

They'll start by talking about 401(k)'s. Once they take those, then it will become 'investment accounts' and ROTHs.

The current model is unsustainable. SS and the gov't pensions a a huge black hole. There's NO WAY that the feds and the states (esp CA & IL) can pay for their public employees pensions. It's only a matter of time until they go bust from that obligation. At that point, the choice is to default (and leave the pensioners with at best ten cents on the dollar, or look for other monies to take. Of course, once they start the market will totally collapse.

I have to agree, mine is not near as big as Nancy Peloi's and that just ain't right. She should share her geetus with ME....the rest of y'all find somebody else to share with.

VMI77 wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:This is all pretty clear to me. The problem that the Obama Administration really wants to solve is this one:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/19/ ... bt-crisis/

GM, Kali and many others have unfunded pension liabilities which are owed to union members. By nationalizing 401Ks, the bailout of all of those pension funds will be covered at the Federal level.

The poor are just the usual excuse.

I was going to mention unions, like also the SEIU, but decided not to get into that. Absolutely, none of these Marxists care about poor people, that's just the rhetorical tool they use to get their way, because they know that decent human beings, which they are not, are concerned about the welfare of those who are truly disadvantaged or can't help themselves. One of the problems in combating these insidious authoritarians is that decent people tend to assume that since they have genuine concerns about unfortunate people that those who are so vocally touting the interests of the poor share at least this common human inclination: and they have trouble understanding that many of these Marxists are, at best, merely opportunists who don't care a whit about the poor, or more likely, outright sociopaths and psychopaths, whose greatest desire is to impose their will on the proletariat --an imperative ordained by self-proclaimed superior intellect and transcendent virtue.

This is so true. I have known several Marxists and socialists in my profession (college professor) and most of them are the most egotistical, hubris-filled, narcissistic people I have ever met. History shows that such people are capable of absolutely ruthless brutality in the furtherance of their goals. Folks like the leftists assume that they are the only people who really think, the only people who are intellectual, and the only people who know what is best for everybody else. Basically, they hide a mind full of vicious intentions behind a facade of benevolence. Disgusting!

Mind you, I doubt this will happen in the next year or so. But the meetings and sham 'hearings' are only to begin to set the narrative and frame the debate on the Marxist terms. It's the start of the drumbeat.