• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Gov Considering Seizing Private Pension Funds

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Perhaps the Reps are remembering when they allowed ruining millions of people when Reagan prevented legislation which forbade the of raiding pensions then purposefully running the company into the ground for a quick profit. When people complain about the elderly making no provision for retirement, they ought to keep that fact in mind.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,308
14,520
136
You remind me of the people who were screaming "just see what happens" about healthcare. "Wait until they pass it to see if you like it!".

Yet ANOTHER example of "progressives" not looking into the future.
Not one shred of actual evidence has been presented to show that Dems intend to perform the specified action. Not one, Not anything. Zero. Zip. Nada. But you believe it anyway, carry on as if there were legislation pending to that effect.

I'll grant it's a remote possibility, kinda like a formation of flying pigs coming over my house towing a banner proclaiming that Saddam's long sought WMD's have finally been found...
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Not one shred of actual evidence has been presented to show that Dems intend to perform the specified action. Not one, Not anything. Zero. Zip. Nada. But you believe it anyway, carry on as if there were legislation pending to that effect.

I'll grant it's a remote possibility, kinda like a formation of flying pigs coming over my house towing a banner proclaiming that Saddam's long sought WMD's have finally been found...
That is not true and you haven't been paying attention. Now I don't think they would go this far because the armed population of this country would rise up when you just stole a few million from them they worked their whole life for, they're not stupid. But many of the "enlightened" on obama's admin have publically stated and written that this should be a primary goal to "protect the people from the evil wall street".

This threat pops up every now and then when an obama insider opens their mouth because they honestly believe this is what should happen. I don't give it much credence but it's a grave concern that it is even suggested, shows the kind of people obama wants to "advise" him on. It is obama after all, no communist idea is too crazy for him.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,308
14,520
136
You're sooo lame, Spidey.

Link that up for us, OK? In Dems' own words, of course, not in your fevered imagination or in the fearmongering communiques of the Right...
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,123
126
You remind me of the people who were screaming "just see what happens" about healthcare. "Wait until they pass it to see if you like it!".

Yet ANOTHER example of "progressives" not looking into the future.
You remind of the target market of the FUD peddlers. Yet ANOTHER example of someone being part of the problem and not part of the solution.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Brilliant idea.

I for one would like to thank the republican congress for standing up to fantastical fascism.

If it wasn't for the GOP congress people's...we might have been overrun by Obama and his evil puppeteer..Ming the Merciless! Evil ruler of MongO!!!

I hear next week the GOP congresspeople will be submitting a letter to Obama denouncing this Administrations plan to imprison all American first borns and force them to work in labor camps in Montana...of which I hear Obama personally signed an Executive Order to initiate just the other day...I swear!!
 

bruceb

Diamond Member
Aug 20, 2004
8,874
111
106
Be ready for the next uprising against government. It happened once against England and their oppressive taxation and I see it happening again, perhaps in as few as 10 years. Get your weapons and ammo stocks while you can.
 

Kappo

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2000
2,381
0
0
You're sooo lame, Spidey.

Link that up for us, OK? In Dems' own words, of course, not in your fevered imagination or in the fearmongering communiques of the Right...
Oh, its "fearmongering" when someone conservative warns of something but "The entire economy will collapse without this stimulus package" is just being "caring".
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Oh, its "fearmongering" when someone conservative warns of something but "The entire economy will collapse without this stimulus package" is just being "caring".
There is strong evidence that statement regarding the stimulus was reasonably accurate. (To the extent it was wrong, you can actually argue the mistake was in that the stimulus was actually not sufficiently big to have a greater impact, and that some other bailout measures also avoided things being worse.) The obvious problem is proving what would have happened otherwise, since its not like we can easily test things both ways. The clear point is the economy certainly was in allot of trouble, and the stimulus measure did do quite a few things to create and preserve jobs. Something that commonly gets neglected in this discussion is it did also do things like give a new payroll tax credit and boost the earned income tax credit for those below its income cutoff, and without these sorts of things many Americans would have had even less money to spend on goods and services in the US economy.

The contrast is the claim as presented in this thread is indisputable nonsense with the Democrat Party very obviously not interested because actually seriously trying to pass such a thing would be CLEARLY political suicide. (At least in anything remotely vaguely resembling taking pensions to pay for other government costs.) The actual electoral impact on healthcare reform can be debated, with there being a strong argument Democrats were better off passing something when it came down to it than ultimately failing to pass anything. By contrast, as noted there would be essentially universal opposition to a plan actually involving seizing private pensions like that.

(Merely providing a government option may be discussed among some Democrats, although its clearly not going anywhere very soon. There is solid evidence behind those advocating for some options though. The government Thrift Savings Plan for Federal Employees is clearly better than most private 401k plans, and this is mostly through simply providing a better option rather than the government really having greater costs per employee for providing this plan.)
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,618
19
81
There is strong evidence that statement regarding the stimulus was reasonably accurate. (To the extent it was wrong, you can actually argue the mistake was in that the stimulus was actually not sufficiently big to have a greater impact, and that some other bailout measures also avoided things being worse.) The obvious problem is proving what would have happened otherwise, since its not like we can easily test things both ways. The clear point is the economy certainly was in allot of trouble, and the stimulus measure did do quite a few things to create and preserve jobs. Something that commonly gets neglected in this discussion is it did also do things like give a new payroll tax credit and boost the earned income tax credit for those below its income cutoff, and without these sorts of things many Americans would have had even less money to spend on goods and services in the US economy.

The contrast is the claim as presented in this thread is indisputable nonsense with the Democrat Party very obviously not interested because actually seriously trying to pass such a thing would be CLEARLY political suicide. (At least in anything remotely vaguely resembling taking pensions to pay for other government costs.) The actual electoral impact on healthcare reform can be debated, with there being a strong argument Democrats were better off passing something when it came down to it than ultimately failing to pass anything. By contrast, as noted there would be essentially universal opposition to a plan actually involving seizing private pensions like that.

(Merely providing a government option may be discussed among some Democrats, although its clearly not going anywhere very soon. There is solid evidence behind those advocating for some options though. The government Thrift Savings Plan for Federal Employees is clearly better than most private 401k plans, and this is mostly through simply providing a better option rather than the government really having greater costs per employee for providing this plan.)
who had this "strong argument Democrats were better off passing something when it came down to it than ultimately failing to pass anything"? the cbo can only go off of numbers they are given, and even when the dems gave them "happy" numbers things didn't look good, then after they rushed it through more numbers have come out that are much, much worse. so in this sense they would have been better off passing nothing, but when you have a pres like we currently do who stands in a corner and stomps his feet if he doesn't get his way, and acts like an infant, this is what you are left with.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Not one shred of actual evidence has been presented to show that Dems intend to perform the specified action. Not one, Not anything. Zero. Zip. Nada. But you believe it anyway, carry on as if there were legislation pending to that effect.

I'll grant it's a remote possibility, kinda like a formation of flying pigs coming over my house towing a banner proclaiming that Saddam's long sought WMD's have finally been found...
They've had congressional hearings on such plans:
http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-10-07-TeresaGhilarducci.pdf

You never know what these "progressives" are capable of doing to get their agenda through - why did Obamacare transform the way student loans are given out? They find all sorts of creative ways to bundle bills together. Congressmen don't read the bills, we know that for a fact. Yes, preemptive action is absolutely necessary with this government.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,308
14,520
136
Oh, its "fearmongering" when someone conservative warns of something but "The entire economy will collapse without this stimulus package" is just being "caring".
That's right- deflect when possible, be sure to avoid addressing the subject at hand in a direct way.

You could have said "Look, there's a bunny!" with the same effect....

Bailout and stimulus? Shee-it, Sherlock... even the Bush Admin realized the necessity- they started it, remember? Kinda like the stimulus package they instituted in 2001- taxcuts for the wealthy and pissant refunds for everybody else, along with a huge deficit at the time...

Having trouble keeping the facts straight? undoubtedly, because what you apparently believe isn't fact based at all.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,308
14,520
136
You're reaching rather desperately, cubby1223. Any body with more reading comprehension than a 3 year old can tell the difference between voluntary actions and "seizing private pension funds". It's like the difference between joining the military and being drafted- anybody not beating a dead horse is support of a fearmongering fantasy can easily tell the difference.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
who had this "strong argument Democrats were better off passing something when it came down to it than ultimately failing to pass anything"? the cbo can only go off of numbers they are given, and even when the dems gave them "happy" numbers things didn't look good, then after they rushed it through more numbers have come out that are much, much worse. so in this sense they would have been better off passing nothing, but when you have a pres like we currently do who stands in a corner and stomps his feet if he doesn't get his way, and acts like an infant, this is what you are left with.
The argument was certainly articulated in a number of places and I explicitly remember hearing it discussed on NPR. The point was the Republicans may have been successful to that point in the health care debate in getting out there message, but they would use earlier votes against Democrats in the campaign season regardless of whether anything was passed, so Democrats were better off passing the bill so they could show what it actually accomplishes. It also helps avoid the accusation that the current Congress was a "do nothing Congress", and probably is a particularly important action in terms of motivating the Democratic base. When you look at the actual polling on what issues impact the way people will actually vote, there is definitely evidence that the issue will pretty much be a net wash and not really effect the November elections. (How the economy is doing by then by contrast will.)

The fundamental situation in question was certainly vastly different than the one being discussed in that there was and remains plenty of support for health care reform, with most of the opposition being against the specific reform rather than being in favor of leaving everything the way it was. (There is no measurable public support for a pension reform which would force everyone to put their pensions in the hands of the federal government

Of course the point you made isn't exactly much of an argument against the idea at all. The primary argument for the health care reform was never simply to save the federal government money, but to fix a broken system.

I.E. one in which insurance companies avoid paying anything if you get seriously sick by arguing you technically failed to disclose a health condition on page 22 of your application. It also was for instance about making health insurance more affordable to many of the self employed for instance.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
The other obvious point to make to Cubby is there a vast difference between someone merely articulating their ideas in a hearing, and Congress actually proposing legislation doing what they advocate. (You should also be wary about about potentially failing to distinguish a single member of Congress proposing legislation to provoke thought rather than legislation which has a remote change of going anywhere for the record.) In many situations, at most Congress will consider some aspects of what someone giving testimony proposed in different legislation which will greatly differ from what the individual advocated.
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,618
19
81
The argument was certainly articulated in a number of places and I explicitly remember hearing it discussed on NPR. The point was the Republicans may have been successful to that point in the health care debate in getting out there message, but they would use earlier votes against Democrats in the campaign season regardless of whether anything was passed, so Democrats were better off passing the bill so they could show what it actually accomplishes. It also helps avoid the accusation that the current Congress was a "do nothing Congress", and probably is a particularly important action in terms of motivating the Democratic base. When you look at the actual polling on what issues impact the way people will actually vote, there is definitely evidence that the issue will pretty much be a net wash and not really effect the November elections. (How the economy is doing by then by contrast will.)

The fundamental situation in question was certainly vastly different than the one being discussed in that there was and remains plenty of support for health care reform, with most of the opposition being against the specific reform rather than being in favor of leaving everything the way it was. (There is no measurable public support for a pension reform which would force everyone to put their pensions in the hands of the federal government

Of course the point you made isn't exactly much of an argument against the idea at all. The primary argument for the health care reform was never simply to save the federal government money, but to fix a broken system.

I.E. one in which insurance companies avoid paying anything if you get seriously sick by arguing you technically failed to disclose a health condition on page 22 of your application. It also was for instance about making health insurance more affordable to many of the self employed for instance.
and has thus far failed bcause of the timeline for which it goes into effect - more than enough time for another law to more than likely get passes to nullify this area of the "reform". trust me, i am all for reform, but that is not what was in that bill. you and i both know this.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
and has thus far failed bcause of the timeline for which it goes into effect - more than enough time for another law to more than likely get passes to nullify this area of the "reform". trust me, i am all for reform, but that is not what was in that bill. you and i both know this.
Arguing it has failed because there is a timeline to implement is not a very good argument.

I would frankly view the chance of this being repealed as very remote, because there will be limits to the degree Republican success this election time, (remember right now Democrats control 59 Senate seats for instance) and in the longer run repealing this aspect of the legislation will become clearly significantly unpopular politically. (I.E. even if Republicans actually did so, they would subsequently get killed in the next election and Democrats would add it back.)
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,942
126
Be ready for the next uprising against government. It happened once against England and their oppressive taxation and I see it happening again, perhaps in as few as 10 years. Get your weapons and ammo stocks while you can.
hahahah. kooks.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
The day they do that is the day the pitchforks come out. Not even Obama is dumb enough to do that, is he?
They aren't dumb enough to just come out and seize your 401K but they can rather easily get a large portion of the populace to "voluntarily" hand them over by using the right incentives at the right time.

Just off the top of my head:

Market crashes (nothing doomsday, lets call it 50%), people still haven't recovered from the last crash so now they are really down.

The .gov steps in to "help" and offers a program that gives you pre-crash value of your 401K with the catch being you have to move all of the money into their new "retirement plan" that has a guaranteed rate of return (basically instead of buying stock your buying .gov debt).

Throw in a few taxes to hurt 401Ks and a few tax breaks for the new .gov retirement plan and voila a whole slew of new money for the Federal Government to spend.

Social engineering, it is flat out retarded for them to "force" people to do something that will likely result in the pitchforks coming out when they can simply offer enough incentives to get you to willingly hand it over especially if the people lose even more faith in the market due to another crash and the bullshit computers fucking over people.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
They aren't dumb enough to just come out and seize your 401K but they can rather easily get a large portion of the populace to "voluntarily" hand them over by using the right incentives at the right time.

Just off the top of my head:

Market crashes (nothing doomsday, lets call it 50%), people still haven't recovered from the last crash so now they are really down.

The .gov steps in to "help" and offers a program that gives you pre-crash value of your 401K with the catch being you have to move all of the money into their new "retirement plan" that has a guaranteed rate of return (basically instead of buying stock your buying .gov debt).

Throw in a few taxes to hurt 401Ks and a few tax breaks for the new .gov retirement plan and voila a whole slew of new money for the Federal Government to spend.

Social engineering, it is flat out retarded for them to "force" people to do something that will likely result in the pitchforks coming out when they can simply offer enough incentives to get you to willingly hand it over especially if the people lose even more faith in the market due to another crash and the bullshit computers fucking over people.
Of course you're making the assumption of another extreme stock market crash in the reasonably near future to even make your idea start to seem remotely viable.

The reality is new taxes to hurt 401k plans are likely to bring out the pitchforks right then because it would negatively impact so many people in what they perceive as an unfair way. Far more problematically though, people would still take time to decide move their 401Ks over to the new plan, which ties into the other massive problem with it. The people with the greatest incentive to switch would all be those who are closest to retirement since they lost the most amount of money and have the least amount of time to recover so the government plan looks the most attractive.

This leads to the obvious glaring problem in your scenario that the government would actually rather quickly end up paying out more than they take in as people retire and take out money from their 401ks, so the scheme would NEVER actually achieve your hypothetical goal of giving the government more money to spend for a reasonable time period.

This doesn't exactly fit with your argument that there is a plausible threat Democrats would do this is a way anything remotely like you were claiming.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY