House Democrats contemplate abolishing 401(k) tax breaks

[ConnieB]

Now they want to get their hands on more of our money...Who do these people think they are?????? This is MY hard earned money that I have sacrificed to save, and if I want to give it away, I will do so myself. My hubby and I put in almost 20% of every pay check into our 401K...(and right now with the market down, we are buying almost double the stocks which will be worth almost double as it recovers in the future).

Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation's $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive. House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

"I want to spend our nation's dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered" if the plan were adopted, Ms. Ghilarducci said.our nation's dollar is OUR hard earned money.... our nation has no money unless we give it to them through taxes. So they want to take our money to make sure EVERYONE is covered. How about let everyone defend themselves????? It's worked for 200 years, now. People are just getting more and more lazy because our government is now willing to GIVE them things.

This all equals Socialism....GIVE AND GIVE AND GIVE SOME MORE until everyone has what they want and are happy.

Here's something to think about "A government that is large enough to supply everything you need is large enough to take everything you have"


http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081012/REG/310139971

[db44]

:rolleyes:

In the vein of what I was saying to Murrican earlier, let's take a second to talk about unbiased reporting.

As soon as a story uses the word "powerful" to describe something, it's editorializing. This article editorializes on the first word.

[Murrican]

:rolleyes:

In the vein of what I was saying to Murrican earlier, let's take a second to talk about unbiased reporting.

As soon as a story uses the word "powerful" to describe something, it's editorializing. This article editorializes on the first word.

Or is describing with accuracy whether the "House Democrats" are wingbats or influential. As two committee chairs, it would appear that "powerful" is not an inaccurate descriptor.

So, on that point, not biased.

Later interpretations in the text of the article may reflect bias (I haven't looked) but the word "powerful" doesn't, by any fair reading.

[db44]

The Deomcrats have more people in the House, but not enough to break a filabuster. Therefore the use of "powerful" is nothing more than a scare tactic. If they had the ability to pass laws regardless of the Republican view, then I'd accept the use of the word "powerful." But at this point, they need bipartisan cooperation to get things passed. That's not being powerful in the scheme of American politics.

[Incident]

The Deomcrats have more people in the House, but not enough to break a filabuster. Therefore the use of "powerful" is nothing more than a scare tactic. If they had the ability to pass laws regardless of the Republican view, then I'd accept the use of the word "powerful." But at this point, they need bipartisan cooperation to get things passed. That's not being powerful in the scheme of American politics.

What special kind of ignoramus believes that in the House of Representatives they even would need to break a filibuster? Joe Biden? The Senate not the House, is subject to Filibusters.

[db44]

The party in general doesn't have the power to get things done without cooperation. Things don't go through just the House to become law. I guess therefore it's the same kind of ignoramus that can only contemplate things one small step at a time.

Baby steps Paul. Maybe you too will be able to handle complex thoughts one of these days.

(sits back and waits for the post from Paul that I should ban myself for bringing myself down to his level)

[Richard Tafoya]

Having an economics professor testify before a subcommittee and drafting legislation are very far apart on the reality scale.

[Murrican]

Legislation has an interesting number of mothers, fathers, midwives, hospitals, clinics, lobbyists, and public consumption circuses in its lineage.

Trial balloons need to be popped or allowed to soar. That is why they put them out there, and why surrogates run them up media flagpoles around the country...