Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs
Re: Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs
While my gut instinct tells me to be against it, as people should be responsible for moving/taking care of their own finances, that title is misleading and of kneejerk caliber.
In the opening two paragraphs, it says it would convert them into other accounts, which then would be managed by the SSA. This would be in an effort to plug the ever bleeding hole that the economy has on people's current retirement plans. Not "Tha Gob'ment is taking our monies, ma!"
Originally posted by chithappens
Obama gets elected and KR suddenly is a research machine.Where was this earlier?
The Repub/Conserv machine is on full standing to take anything, even a hint of a rumor and spin it into a negative about Obama and the coming four years. The "I TOLD YOU SO!" has begun and the guy has yet to be inaugurated or make a single executive decision.
Get used to it, it will be like this the next four years.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
Here it's really hard to get amo and also I believe you must pay 500 to get your gun and many are hard to get now.
Kidrock has yet to make the "Clinton took away our guns in '94; Obama is going to be ten times worse about gunlaws!" thread.
So WTF are you talking about guns and ammo in here?
Re: Re: Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs
Originally posted by Robtard
While my gut instinct tells me to be against it, as people should be responsible for moving/taking care of their own finances, that title is misleading and of kneejerk caliber.In the opening two paragraphs, it says it would convert them into other accounts, which then would be managed by the SSA. This would be in an effort to plug the ever bleeding hole that the economy has on people's current retirement plans. Not "Tha Gob'ment is taking our monies, ma!"
How is the title misleading? The government wants to confiscate your IRA's and 401k's and manage the money.
And can anyone read why the Democrats want to take your money, managed by you, and put it in their hands? Anyone see any reasons in the article? From what I got was "things are unfair for the poor" and money will be taken and redistributed to accounts for the poor while the rich earn less of a percentage.
Unless someone sees something else.
Originally posted by chithappens
Yet the Republicans claim to want to help the poor but don't want to "spread the wealth."It's insulting. Just stop.
Yeah, because there are no other ways to help the poor except give them a check from the rich. Stupid them for actually trying to help the poor become somewhat productive. Who do they think they are?
Re: Re: Re: Democratic leaders in the U.S. House discuss confiscating 401(k)s, IRAs
Originally posted by KidRock
How is the title misleading? The government wants to confiscate your IRA's and 401k's and manage the money.And can anyone read why the Democrats want to take your money, managed by you, and put it in their hands? Anyone see any reasons in the article? From what I got was "things are unfair for the poor" and money will be taken and redistributed to accounts for the poor while the rich earn less of a percentage.
Unless someone sees something else.
The writer used "confiscate" so a knee-jerk reaction would initially be set up. They're not taking it away and not giving it back, more like "reinvest."
Like I said, my guy instinct tells me it's not a good thing. Less government intrusion in our lives, not more, imo. If the government wants to set up optional programs and do this for people, sure. They shouldn't just do it in an attempt to hold our ignorant little hands.
Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, because there are no other ways to help the poor except give them a check from the rich. Stupid them for actually trying to help the poor become somewhat productive. Who do they think they are?
In the case of No Child Left Behind, a school that is failing has money taken away.
A failing school has its funds taken away meaning less instruments, books, and extracurricular activities.
Break it down for me. What am I forgetting?
Originally posted by chithappens
In the case of No Child Left Behind, a school that is failing has money taken away.A failing school has its funds taken away meaning less instruments, books, and extracurricular activities.
Break it down for me. What am I forgetting?
But No Child Left Behind actually encourages work and rewards those who succeed..not fail, which is my point. While certain other groups see helping the poor as "give them more money, not opportunity".
Originally posted by chithappens
How the hell can someone succeed if you take away what they need to succeed in the first place?
They are given what they need to succeed in the first place..if they fail, why should we continue giving more money that is obviously doing nothing? It would be the states job to ensure the schools do well.
Originally posted by chithappens
I'm done. You are an idiot.
Says the genius using ugly women and make up as an analogy for NCLB..goodbye.
Back on topic.