RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on
proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts —
including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by
the Social Security Administration.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

badgolferman wrote:
RALEIGH � Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on
proposals to confiscate workers� personal retirement accounts �
including 401(k)s and IRAs � and convert them to accounts managed by
the Social Security Administration.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

How about we add the second paragraph:

"Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings
reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and
retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly."

Doesn't sound so bad anymore does it?

I bet if you were 63, and it was your 401K's value going down the
toilet, you would be first in line SCREAMING for the government to
step in and bail your ass out.

wrote:

badgolferman wrote:
RALEIGH � Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting
hearings on proposals to confiscate workers� personal retirement
accounts � including 401(k)s and IRAs � and convert them to
accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

How about we add the second paragraph:

"Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings
reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and
retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly."

Doesn't sound so bad anymore does it?

I bet if you were 63, and it was your 401K's value going down the
toilet, you would be first in line SCREAMING for the government to
step in and bail your ass out.

How about we add the third paragraph:

"The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy
analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings
Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House
Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the
government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement
accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers retirement plan
accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts
(GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration."

You want your savings confiscated and turned into money that will be
used by the government for their pet pork projects just like Social
Security has become? The SSA "lockbox" concept has become a farce. I
think I know how to manage my own money better than they do.

--
"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as
possible from one class of citizens to give it to the other." ~ Voltaire

On Nov 7, 9:21*am, wrote:
badgolferman wrote:
RALEIGH Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on
proposals to confiscate workers personal retirement accounts
including 401(k)s and IRAs and convert them to accounts managed by
the Social Security Administration.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

How about we add the second paragraph:

"Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings
reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and
retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly."

Doesn't sound so bad anymore does it?

I bet if you were 63, and it was your 401K's value going down the
toilet, you would be first in line SCREAMING for the government to
step in and bail your ass out.

Yes, it still sounds bad, no matter how you try to dress up the pig it
remains a pig.

I happen to be 62 and my 401K's value is going down but it still
remains a better alternative for retirement and represents a less
amount of contribution than social security. Even if it didn't, I am
sick of the burrocraps in the government thinking they know what is
best for me.
Keep you G-damn hands off of my 401K.

-----Original Message-----
From: badgolferman ]
Posted At: Friday, November 07, 2008 8:40 AM
Posted To: alt.home.repair
Conversation: {OT} spread the wealth
Subject: {OT} spread the wealth

RALEIGH - Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on
proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts -
including 401(k)s and IRAs - and convert them to accounts managed by
the Social Security Administration.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

=============================
Already it begins g?

How many 'middle class' Americans have IRA's or 401K's?
"Share the wealth"....
it will hit everyone, at all levels, at some time.

You want your savings confiscated and turned into money that will be
used by the government for their pet pork projects just like Social
Security has become? The SSA "lockbox" concept has become a farce. I
think I know how to manage my own money better than they do.

There never was and never will be a lockbox for SSA. Also, they aren't
spending it because they really can't. The only place it can legally go
is into NON-MARKETABLE treasury securities. Oh, and to hide the REAL
decifict and come up with bogus surpluses.
They were also talking about a whopping 3% return and even that was
all sorts of wiggle words. Never been a time when the Dow failed to earn
at leat 8% compounded over a 20-year period.
Also to the 62 year old. Look at how much your IRA is STILL worth
vs what you put into it. I have had an IRA since they started. If you
look at what I put in in my yearly contribution, one would see that even
after swoon I still have assets more than 10 times higher than what I
put in. Thanks to the magic of compounding interest, etc.
Also, the 62 y/o most likely has at least another 15 or more years
to make it back.
BTW: For most the CURRENT return on your SS investment is less than
3%, for minorities and most of those in their 30s or younger, the ROI is
negative.

On Nov 7, 10:47*am, "Coleah" wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: badgolferman ]

Posted At: Friday, November 07, 2008 8:40 AM
Posted To: alt.home.repair
Conversation: {OT} spread the wealth
Subject: {OT} spread the wealth

RALEIGH - Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on
proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts -
including 401(k)s and IRAs - and convert them to accounts managed by
the Social Security Administration.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

=============================
Already it begins g?

How many 'middle class' Americans have IRA's or 401K's?
"Share the wealth"....
it will hit everyone, at all levels, at some time.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


And the big negative impact on the above 62 year old assumes that
everyone that has an IRA or 401K has it invested 100% in stocks. Any
competent financial advisor will tell you that you should not
necessarily have 100% in stocks. And as you approach retirement age,
more should be in fixed income securities.

My own accounts, I only had about a 20% exposure to stocks. So,
because some other people who don't know how to plan took a 40% hair
cut, we're now supposed to think only the govt can manage our
financial future? If the govt is so smart, how come they are going
deeper into debt each year? You want Barney Frank to handle your
retirement account?

On Nov 7, 10:53*am, wrote:
On Nov 7, 10:47*am, "Coleah" wrote:





-----Original Message-----
From: badgolferman ]

Posted At: Friday, November 07, 2008 8:40 AM
Posted To: alt.home.repair
Conversation: {OT} spread the wealth
Subject: {OT} spread the wealth

RALEIGH - Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on
proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts -
including 401(k)s and IRAs - and convert them to accounts managed by
the Social Security Administration.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

=============================
Already it begins g?

How many 'middle class' Americans have IRA's or 401K's?
"Share the wealth"....
it will hit everyone, at all levels, at some time.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the big negative impact on the above 62 year old assumes that
everyone that has an IRA or 401K has it invested 100% in stocks. * Any
competent financial advisor will tell you that you should not
necessarily have 100% in stocks. * And as you approach retirement age,
more should be in fixed income securities.

My own accounts, I only had about a 20% exposure to stocks. * So,
because some other people who don't know how to plan took a 40% hair
cut, we're now supposed to think only the govt can manage our
financial future? *If the govt is so smart, how come they are going
deeper into debt each year? * *You want Barney Frank to handle your
retirement account?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
________________________________________

A wag on one of the local radio stations said (late on election night)
"OK, now they can take your money, and spend it on wedding cakes for
gay couples!" I suspect you probably can guess I live in a very
conservative area, but I thought it was a funny line even though I
voted for Mr. Obama.

Cheers,
Mark

A wag on one of the local radio stations said (late on election
night) "OK, now they can take your money, and spend it on wedding
cakes for gay couples!" I suspect you probably can guess I live
in a very conservative area, but I thought it was a funny line
even though I voted for Mr. Obama. Cheers, Mark

It wasn't funny. It was just bitter, and wrong.

wrote:

I bet if you were 63, and it was your 401K's value going down the
toilet, you would be first in line SCREAMING for the government to
step in and bail your ass out.

I bet not. People smart enough to set up a 401(k) are smart enough to know
there's ups and downs in the market, and that even when the market is down
it's still better than the government. After all, people could have been
buying T-bills instead of a 401(k) participation.

HeyBub wrote:

wrote:

I bet if you were 63, and it was your 401K's value going down the
toilet, you would be first in line SCREAMING for the government to
step in and bail your ass out.

I bet not. People smart enough to set up a 401(k) are smart enough to
know there's ups and downs in the market, and that even when the
market is down it's still better than the government. After all,
people could have been buying T-bills instead of a 401(k)
participation.


If this plan passes we won't have to worry about being smart
whatsoever. The government will take care of us from cradle to grave.

--
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public
office." ~ Aesop

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
I bet if you were 63, and it was your 401K's value going down the
toilet, you would be first in line SCREAMING for the government to
step in and bail your ass out.

I bet not. People smart enough to set up a 401(k) are smart enough to know
there's ups and downs in the market, and that even when the market is down
it's still better than the government. After all, people could have been
buying T-bills instead of a 401(k) participation.


But the current events aren't normal ups and downs. Investors were
participating in a rigged game without knowing it. I want to see
regulations and oversight that will give transparency. No one will ever
have confidence without that. The current system because so convoluted
and opaque because of greed that most of the big institutions can't even
put their finger on the actual value of assets they control.

The main reason the republicans lost is that none of them stood up and
said they would address such concerns. It was just shrug their shoulders
and when we get elected things will continue as is. Lots of folks are
deeply offended by that.

wrote:
badgolferman wrote:
RALEIGH � Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on
proposals to confiscate workers� personal retirement accounts �
including 401(k)s and IRAs � and convert them to accounts managed by
the Social Security Administration.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

How about we add the second paragraph:

"Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings
reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and
retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly."

Doesn't sound so bad anymore does it?

Sounds bad to me. All I want is *transparency* in the marketplace so
that anyone investing knows they aren't in a rigged game as has been/is
the case. I don't want the government to seize my assets as a total over
reaction.



I bet if you were 63, and it was your 401K's value going down the
toilet, you would be first in line SCREAMING for the government to
step in and bail your ass out.

In article ,
"badgolferman" wrote:

I bet not. People smart enough to set up a 401(k) are smart enough to
know there's ups and downs in the market, and that even when the
market is down it's still better than the government. After all,
people could have been buying T-bills instead of a 401(k)
participation.


If this plan passes we won't have to worry about being smart
whatsoever. The government will take care of us from cradle to grave.

Although they can obviously play any game they want with the tax
deductions (which I know from personal experience since I have made too
much money to actually deduct my IRA since the early 90s), I think
actually moving them from private ownership to government ownership
would set up one hell of a "taking clause" suit.

badgolferman wrote:

RALEIGH - Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on
proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts -
including 401(k)s and IRAs - and convert them to accounts managed by
the Social Security Administration.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

Let me get this straight, because someone testifying before a Congressional
committee makes a proposal, the purpose of the committee is magically
transformed into seeing this one person's proposal brought to reality, is
that about it? And for this I'm supposed to take the word of an article
appearing on a website run by a group led and funded in large part by
Republican party activists? Hmmmm, I can't help wondering if there might
not be just a touch of political spin involved here, I hope that doesn't
mean I'm too cynical.

George wrote:

But the current events aren't normal ups and downs. Investors were
participating in a rigged game without knowing it. I want to see
regulations and oversight that will give transparency. No one will
ever have confidence without that. The current system because so
convoluted and opaque because of greed that most of the big
institutions can't even put their finger on the actual value of
assets they control.

Greed is good. The players didn't make the rules so it's silly to criticize
them for playing by them.

The actual rules which caused this mess started back in 1976 with the
Community Redevelopment Act under Carter. This caused little discomfort in
the equity business because the system was robust enough to absorb the
problem. It started spiraling out of control in 1995 Clinton-era with new
regulations requiring lending institutions to provide mortgages to
non-credit worthy applicants.

This continued to work as housing prices climbed. When the balloon payment
kicked in, people who suddenly saw their house payment rise from $300/month
to $2200 simply re-financed. The Ponzi scheme collapsed when there were no
more poor people who could be enticed.

Still, it was the 1995 re-regulation that lit the fuse and the continued
refusal of (Democrat-controlled) Congress to land regulations to govern the
new policies. In other words, the 1995 regulations requiring low-interest
loans was not accompanied by regulations concerning proper oversight.


The main reason the republicans lost is that none of them stood up and
said they would address such concerns. It was just shrug their
shoulders and when we get elected things will continue as is. Lots of
folks are deeply offended by that.

There was some of that, true. But the Republicans introduced several bills
to provide oversight of Mae & Mac (e.g., McCain was a co-sponsor of such a
bill in 2005), but these bills never got out of committee.

DGDevin wrote:
badgolferman wrote:

RALEIGH - Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings
on proposals to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts -
including 401(k)s and IRAs - and convert them to accounts managed by
the Social Security Administration.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

Let me get this straight, because someone testifying before a
Congressional committee makes a proposal, the purpose of the
committee is magically transformed into seeing this one person's
proposal brought to reality, is that about it? And for this I'm
supposed to take the word of an article appearing on a website run by
a group led and funded in large part by Republican party activists? Hmmmm,
I can't help wondering if there might not be just a touch of
political spin involved here, I hope that doesn't mean I'm too
cynical.

Testimony before congressional committees is known, to the nth detail, long
in advance, before it's offered. One doesn't GET to testify before a
committee unless the committee wants to hear what the witness wants to say.

On Nov 7, 2:01*pm, "badgolferman"
wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
wrote:

I bet if you were 63, and it was your 401K's value going down the
toilet, you would be first in line SCREAMING for the government to
step in and bail your ass out.

I bet not. People smart enough to set up a 401(k) are smart enough to
know there's ups and downs in the market, and that even when the
market is down it's still better than the government. After all,
people could have been buying T-bills instead of a 401(k)
participation.

If this plan passes we won't have to worry about being smart
whatsoever. *The government will take care of us from cradle to grave.

--
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public
office." ~ Aesop

When that happens how long before the government wants us to take an
early grave rather than pay for our retirement. Hell, they have
already backed up the retirement age and are talking about backing it
up some more. At this rate, you will have to live to 100 to see any
of your retirement.

On Nov 7, 9:38*am, BobR wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:21*am, wrote:





badgolferman wrote:
RALEIGH Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on
proposals to confiscate workers personal retirement accounts
including 401(k)s and IRAs and convert them to accounts managed by
the Social Security Administration.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/artic...y.html?id=5081

How about we add the second paragraph:

"Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings
reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and
retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly."

Doesn't sound so bad anymore does it?

I bet if you were 63, and it was your 401K's value going down the
toilet, you would be first in line SCREAMING for the government to
step in and bail your ass out.

Yes, it still sounds bad, no matter how you try to dress up the pig it
remains a pig.

I happen to be 62 and my 401K's value is going down but it still
remains a better alternative for retirement and represents a less
amount of contribution than social security. *Even if it didn't, I am
sick of the burrocraps in the government thinking they know what is
best for me.
Keep you G-damn hands off of my 401K.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I will join you in an armed march on Washington if they touch my 401k.

HeyBub wrote:

Testimony before congressional committees is known, to the nth
detail, long in advance, before it's offered. One doesn't GET to
testify before a committee unless the committee wants to hear what
the witness wants to say.

Oh, I see, and committees only ask people they already agree with to
testify, is that it? Odd, I seem to recall a bunch of such committees
putting the boots to people unfortunate enough to find themselves sitting in
the hot seat. For that matter the members of the committees themselves
often don't agree. But not this time, this time it's a case of them federal
revenoors fixin' to come and grab up our 401(k)s, and we can trust those
non-partisans at the John Locke Foundation to warn us about it, it's not
like they have an axe to grind. Man, the best comedy always comes out in
election years, and nobody does it better than the side that just lost.

BobR wrote:

When that happens how long before the government wants us to take an
early grave rather than pay for our retirement. Hell, they have
already backed up the retirement age and are talking about backing it
up some more. At this rate, you will have to live to 100 to see any
of your retirement.

When SS was established, with retirement at 65, the average age at death of
Americans was like 52!

They need to raise the retirement age to 78 or so to keep with the original
plan.

DGDevin wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Testimony before congressional committees is known, to the nth
detail, long in advance, before it's offered. One doesn't GET to
testify before a committee unless the committee wants to hear what
the witness wants to say.

Oh, I see, and committees only ask people they already agree with to
testify, is that it? Odd, I seem to recall a bunch of such committees
putting the boots to people unfortunate enough to find themselves
sitting in the hot seat. For that matter the members of the
committees themselves often don't agree.

I didn't say that.

You're right that committees often hear conflicting opinions but that's
because an agreement was worked out, in advance, between the committee chair
and ranking member as to what testimony will be offered. Often the majority
counsel will say to the minorty counsel: "We'll have six witnesses, you can
call any four."

In rare cases, the majority will attempt to compel a witness to testify by
issuing a subpoena. This almost never works - at least as far as getting
testimony. The refusal of a witness to honor a subpoena often has great
public opinion value.

A committee hearing is like a symphony concert. For every hour before the
public, there are ten hours of rehearsal and preparation.

HeyBub wrote:
BobR wrote:
When that happens how long before the government wants us to take an
early grave rather than pay for our retirement. Hell, they have
already backed up the retirement age and are talking about backing it
up some more. At this rate, you will have to live to 100 to see any
of your retirement.

When SS was established, with retirement at 65, the average age at death of
Americans was like 52!

They need to raise the retirement age to 78 or so to keep with the original
plan.


When the big tobacco lawsuit was going on, our
state attorney general didn't want to get involved
saying that smokers die early saving the state a
lot of money. I wish the government would stop
protecting stupid people and let natural selection
run it's course. Our country would be a lot better
off. *snicker*

TDD

On Nov 7, 7:59*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Testimony before congressional committees is known, to the nth
detail, long in advance, before it's offered. One doesn't GET to
testify before a committee unless the committee wants to hear what
the witness wants to say.

Oh, I see, and committees only ask people they already agree with to
testify, is that it? *Odd, I seem to recall a bunch of such committees
putting the boots to people unfortunate enough to find themselves
sitting in the hot seat. *For that matter the members of the
committees themselves often don't agree.

I didn't say that.

You're right that committees often hear conflicting opinions but that's
because an agreement was worked out, in advance, between the committee chair
and ranking member as to what testimony will be offered. Often the majority
counsel will say to the minorty counsel: "We'll have six witnesses, you can
call any four."

In rare cases, the majority will attempt to compel a witness to testify by
issuing a subpoena. This almost never works - at least as far as getting
testimony. The refusal of a witness to honor a subpoena often has great
public opinion value.

A committee hearing is like a symphony concert. For every hour before the
public, there are ten hours of rehearsal and preparation.

I would agree that the fact that some extreme whack job that wants to
confiscate IRA's even got to testify before Congress is not a good
sign. They didn't call you or me to testify, did they? Obviously
they call people who's opinions they believe to be credible and
possible solutions. That they would even listen to this shows that
there is obviously enough interest to get this person on the agenda.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

But the current events aren't normal ups and downs. Investors were
participating in a rigged game without knowing it. I want to see
regulations and oversight that will give transparency. No one will
ever have confidence without that. The current system because so
convoluted and opaque because of greed that most of the big
institutions can't even put their finger on the actual value of
assets they control.

Greed is good. The players didn't make the rules so it's silly to
criticize them for playing by them.

The actual rules which caused this mess started back in 1976 with the
Community Redevelopment Act under Carter. This caused little discomfort
in the equity business because the system was robust enough to absorb the
problem. It started spiraling out of control in 1995 Clinton-era with new
regulations requiring lending institutions to provide mortgages to
non-credit worthy applicants.

This continued to work as housing prices climbed. When the balloon
payment kicked in, people who suddenly saw their house payment rise from
$300/month to $2200 simply re-financed. The Ponzi scheme collapsed when
there were no more poor people who could be enticed.



Interesting take on the problem. But, you have drawn a conclusion, without
vital information. The American Dream Downpayment Act, was like throwing
gasoline on a fire, to put it out.

The ARM's started @ various years. The most common are the 1 & 3 year ARMs.
With the loans being started in 2004 for the Dream Downpayment, it puts the
Dream Act right in the thick of the problems.

http://www.whitehouse.gov:80/news/re...0031216-9.html


There was some of that, true. But the Republicans introduced several
bills to provide oversight of Mae & Mac (e.g., McCain was a co-sponsor of
such a bill in 2005), but these bills never got out of committee.

Actually, there was only one bill (S. 190) under the 109th Republican lead
Congress.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190
The bill was sent to the banking committee for an amendment. Rick Santorum
(R) , kinda held this up.
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/s190_amd3.pdf
The bill was then S.1100, under the 110th Congress. Where it was sent back
to the banking committee.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1100

Meanwhile, Democrats introduced a similar bill, and well, you can follow it
here.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...110-1427#votes

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

Testimony before congressional committees is known, to the nth
detail, long in advance, before it's offered. One doesn't GET to
testify before a committee unless the committee wants to hear what
the witness wants to say.

Oh, I see, and committees only ask people they already agree with to
testify, is that it? Odd, I seem to recall a bunch of such committees
putting the boots to people unfortunate enough to find themselves sitting in
the hot seat. For that matter the members of the committees themselves
often don't agree.
Or those that they want to make look bad so they can grandstand for
CSpan and the people back home. Even then they know what the witness
will say ahead of time so that the Congresscritter can work out ahead of
time how to make the fellow squirm. Committee meeting are better
choregraphed than Cats ever was. Independent of the party in power.

In article ,
"Carmen Policy" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

But the current events aren't normal ups and downs. Investors were
participating in a rigged game without knowing it. I want to see
regulations and oversight that will give transparency. No one will
ever have confidence without that. The current system because so
convoluted and opaque because of greed that most of the big
institutions can't even put their finger on the actual value of
assets they control.

Greed is good. The players didn't make the rules so it's silly to
criticize them for playing by them.

The actual rules which caused this mess started back in 1976 with the
Community Redevelopment Act under Carter. This caused little discomfort
in the equity business because the system was robust enough to absorb the
problem. It started spiraling out of control in 1995 Clinton-era with new
regulations requiring lending institutions to provide mortgages to
non-credit worthy applicants.

This continued to work as housing prices climbed. When the balloon
payment kicked in, people who suddenly saw their house payment rise from
$300/month to $2200 simply re-financed. The Ponzi scheme collapsed when
there were no more poor people who could be enticed.



Interesting take on the problem. But, you have drawn a conclusion, without
vital information. The American Dream Downpayment Act, was like throwing
gasoline on a fire, to put it out.

The ARM's started @ various years. The most common are the 1 & 3 year ARMs.
With the loans being started in 2004 for the Dream Downpayment, it puts the
Dream Act right in the thick of the problems.

Not hardly. The Dream Downpayment Act gave GRANTS to help with the
downpayment and closing costs. Did not have to repaid. It was also only
funded for 40,000 families. That was a drop in the bucket.

Tin foil hat republicanism... everything posted on the internet is true!

If you actually read the woman's proposal, she did not recommend seazing
401k accounts. She recommended a voluntary program where people could
exchange their 401k accounts for a equivalent amount of government bonds
at a guaranteed 3% interested rate keyed to inflation. Its expected that
boomers who lost big in their 401k will not have time to recover before
they retire so this is an alternative that at least guarantees them some
income. Long term she wants to end the tax deferral for 401k contributions
and setup a government run retirement program.

I don't agree with her plan but it is not the government seizing your
money.

Its very hypocritical to have a tantrum over this yet happily ignore that
up to 200B of the 700B bailout will be used for executive compensation. I
guess spreading the wealth is okay if its taken from the middle class and
given to the upper class.

Mac Cool, 11/8/2008,1:42:23 AM, wrote:

Tin foil hat republicanism... everything posted on the internet is
true!

If you actually read the woman's proposal, she did not recommend
seazing 401k accounts. She recommended a voluntary program where
people could exchange their 401k accounts for a equivalent amount of
government bonds at a guaranteed 3% interested rate keyed to
inflation. Its expected that boomers who lost big in their 401k will
not have time to recover before they retire so this is an alternative
that at least guarantees them some income. Long term she wants to end
the tax deferral for 401k contributions and setup a government run
retirement program.

I don't agree with her plan but it is not the government seizing your
money.

Its very hypocritical to have a tantrum over this yet happily ignore
that up to 200B of the 700B bailout will be used for executive
compensation. I guess spreading the wealth is okay if its taken from
the middle class and given to the upper class.

Voluntary? Please translate the below paragraphs for me to understand
better:

"Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci
proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and
similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’
retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed
Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security
Administration."

"GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although
later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not
“earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers
now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would
receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For
low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the
government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the
minimum $600 for all participants."

"Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA,
workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their
heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For
workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own
contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and
minus the employer contributions."

"On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean
government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to
fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing
an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the
Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years
ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a
long-term downward spiral."

"In the interview, Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into
the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such
as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says
only what “the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government
can’t do to you,” and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn’t that
radical."

HeyBub wrote:
George wrote:

But the current events aren't normal ups and downs. Investors were
participating in a rigged game without knowing it. I want to see
regulations and oversight that will give transparency. No one will
ever have confidence without that. The current system because so
convoluted and opaque because of greed that most of the big
institutions can't even put their finger on the actual value of
assets they control.

Greed is good. The players didn't make the rules so it's silly to criticize
them for playing by them.

The actual rules which caused this mess started back in 1976 with the
Community Redevelopment Act under Carter. This caused little discomfort in
the equity business because the system was robust enough to absorb the
problem. It started spiraling out of control in 1995 Clinton-era with new
regulations requiring lending institutions to provide mortgages to
non-credit worthy applicants.

This continued to work as housing prices climbed. When the balloon payment
kicked in, people who suddenly saw their house payment rise from $300/month
to $2200 simply re-financed. The Ponzi scheme collapsed when there were no
more poor people who could be enticed.

Still, it was the 1995 re-regulation that lit the fuse and the continued
refusal of (Democrat-controlled) Congress to land regulations to govern the
new policies. In other words, the 1995 regulations requiring low-interest
loans was not accompanied by regulations concerning proper oversight.


You keep on bringing out the ditto head version where the republicans
are as pure as freshly driven snow. From everything I read and heard
nothing could have ever happened without the machine that sliced, diced
and pureed the mortgages by securitizing them. Barney Frank could have
wet dreams about everyone having a house that they couldn't afford but
it couldn't have happened without the crooked banking process.


The main reason the republicans lost is that none of them stood up and
said they would address such concerns. It was just shrug their
shoulders and when we get elected things will continue as is. Lots of
folks are deeply offended by that.

There was some of that, true. But the Republicans introduced several bills
to provide oversight of Mae & Mac (e.g., McCain was a co-sponsor of such a
bill in 2005), but these bills never got out of committee.


There was a *lot* of that. I don't know why the bill never got out of
committee. And I am not aware of McCain or any other republican stating
they were interested in addressing the lack of transparency in the
market. Therefore many people judged this as a republican declaration
that the rigged game was just fine. That really upset a lot of people's
sensibilities.

In article ,
Mac Cool wrote:

Tin foil hat republicanism... everything posted on the internet is true!

That has certainly worked in the past for the (insert pretty much any
affiliation from GOP to the Elks). The "power" of the internet is that
is gives us access to orders of magnitude more things that fit our
preconceived notions.


If you actually read the woman's proposal, she did not recommend seazing
401k accounts. She recommended a voluntary program where people could
exchange their 401k accounts for a equivalent amount of government bonds
at a guaranteed 3% interested rate keyed to inflation. Its expected that
boomers who lost big in their 401k will not have time to recover before
they retire so this is an alternative that at least guarantees them some
income. Long term she wants to end the tax deferral for 401k contributions
and setup a government run retirement program.

Even the lead Boomers (according to the expectancy tables) have 20
years or more to catch up. Actually most of them, if they contributed
every year are still much farther ahead than 3%. Even after the fall my
IRA is still more than 10x what I put in over the years. The wonders of
tax free compounding.

George wrote:
Still, it was the 1995 re-regulation that lit the fuse and the
continued refusal of (Democrat-controlled) Congress to land
regulations to govern the new policies. In other words, the 1995
regulations requiring low-interest loans was not accompanied by
regulations concerning proper oversight.

You keep on bringing out the ditto head version where the republicans
are as pure as freshly driven snow. From everything I read and heard
nothing could have ever happened without the machine that sliced,
diced and pureed the mortgages by securitizing them. Barney Frank
could have wet dreams about everyone having a house that they
couldn't afford but it couldn't have happened without the crooked
banking process.

Right. Being a Republican is the easy way to get to heaven - you only have
to show up somewhere once every two years instead of every Sunday.

You're wrong about the crooked banking process. There was nothing illegal
about what the bankers, lenders, or loan-consolidators did.

But you're right about the "sliced, diced" bit. Regulations were set up to
facilitate home ownership but there were insufficient regulations to oversee
this new facility.

The whole shebang just proves Alan Greenspan's observation that most
problems in society are caused by an upstream liberal 'solution' that has
gone wrong. In the case of the housing market, horribly wrong.

wrote:

I would agree that the fact that some extreme whack job that wants to
confiscate IRA's even got to testify before Congress is not a good
sign. They didn't call you or me to testify, did they? Obviously
they call people who's opinions they believe to be credible and
possible solutions. That they would even listen to this shows that
there is obviously enough interest to get this person on the agenda.

You're right.

Almost always witnesses are called that have credible testimony to bolster
the beliefs of the committee members. It is counter-productive to have
someone spouting off about the secret protocols of the Bilderberg Conspiracy
or what the alien abductors told him.

Still, committee members or even witnesses have been known to game the
system.

In my youth, I was an AA (administrative assistant) to a U.S. Senator. I've
seen letters from loons wanting to testify before Congress (I recall one
regarding the great 'cow conspiracy' where cows were working some sort of
giant master plan to exterminate humans). Usually, though, those who
volunteer to testify are doing so to fluff up their resumes or C.V.s.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
Not hardly. The Dream Downpayment Act gave GRANTS to help with the
downpayment and closing costs. Did not have to repaid. It was also only
funded for 40,000 families. That was a drop in the bucket.

I think this one went right over your head. It's not the money involved in
the Grant, it's what the Grant did.

You certainly do not think these people got their home loans free, do you?
This basically took people who couldn't pay rent, and put them in a payment
they couldn't pay.

You may want to read Bush's speech, and see what he was fluffing his
feathers over since 2001. Especially the part of $2.5 TRILLION, and 1
MILLION homeowners.

"The reason that is so is because there is renewed confidence in our
economy. Low interest rates help. They have made owning a home more
affordable, for those who refinance and for those who buy a home for the
first time. Rising home values have added more than $2.5 trillion to the
assets of the American family since the start of 2001."

"Last year I set a goal to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners in
America by the end of the decade. That is an attainable goal; that is an
essential goal. And we're making progress toward that goal. In the past 18
months, more than 1 million minority families have become homeowners.
(Applause.) And there's more that we can do to achieve the goal. The law I
sign today will help us build on this progress in a very practical way."

In article ,
"Carmen Policy" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
Not hardly. The Dream Downpayment Act gave GRANTS to help with the
downpayment and closing costs. Did not have to repaid. It was also only
funded for 40,000 families. That was a drop in the bucket.

I think this one went right over your head. It's not the money involved in
the Grant, it's what the Grant did.

Yeah, it paid less than half of the downpayment for people who had
already qualified for the loan but was having problems coming up with
the closing and some of the down. OH THE HUMANITY
This was certainly a few orders of magnitude better than getting a 0
down loan.
BTW: Do you have any evidence that those participating in the plan
are defaulting at all, let alone even with the general population? I did
not think so .


You certainly do not think these people got their home loans free, do you?
This basically took people who couldn't pay rent, and put them in a payment
they couldn't pay.
You took people who had already qualified for the loan based on
income but may have had a little trouble with the down. YOU have
absolutely no idea that all the people who got the grants fit your
scenario. If so, produce the stats.


You may want to read Bush's speech, and see what he was fluffing his
feathers over since 2001. Especially the part of $2.5 TRILLION, and 1
MILLION homeowners.

I am not sure the point. He was spouting stats of the overall
outcomes, no idea of how much of that was government related and I cann
assume little of this was related to ADPA

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Carmen Policy" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
Not hardly. The Dream Downpayment Act gave GRANTS to help with the
downpayment and closing costs. Did not have to repaid. It was also
only
funded for 40,000 families. That was a drop in the bucket.

I think this one went right over your head. It's not the money involved
in
the Grant, it's what the Grant did.

Yeah, it paid less than half of the downpayment for people who had
already qualified for the loan but was having problems coming up with
the closing and some of the down. OH THE HUMANITY
This was certainly a few orders of magnitude better than getting a 0
down loan.
BTW: Do you have any evidence that those participating in the plan
are defaulting at all, let alone even with the general population? I did
not think so .


You certainly still do not get it. We're talking about default of loans,
they qualified because the government said minorities must qualify. If I
were a Bush supporter, I would want to close my eyes on this one also.

You obviously do not know how ARM's work. I seen the President Carter &
Clinton mentioned. I seriously doubt any loans from the Carter era are in
default, if they are any loans left. The ARMs are/were the problem.




You certainly do not think these people got their home loans free, do
you?
This basically took people who couldn't pay rent, and put them in a
payment
they couldn't pay.
You took people who had already qualified for the loan based on
income but may have had a little trouble with the down. YOU have
absolutely no idea that all the people who got the grants fit your
scenario. If so, produce the stats.


Use common sense. The problem is not from the Clinton or Carter era. I'm
not about to do your homework for you. Do yourself a huge favor, and learn
about terms on an ARM loan. It's crazy to attempt to explain them over
Usenet, it's utterly insane to want someone to explain them to you. AGAIN,
do your own homework.




You may want to read Bush's speech, and see what he was fluffing his
feathers over since 2001. Especially the part of $2.5 TRILLION, and 1
MILLION homeowners.

I am not sure the point. He was spouting stats of the overall
outcomes, no idea of how much of that was government related and I cann
assume little of this was related to ADPA

Again, we're talking about default loans. Do try to keep up.

In article ,
"Carmen Policy" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Carmen Policy" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
Not hardly. The Dream Downpayment Act gave GRANTS to help with the
downpayment and closing costs. Did not have to repaid. It was also
only
funded for 40,000 families. That was a drop in the bucket.

I think this one went right over your head. It's not the money involved
in
the Grant, it's what the Grant did.

Yeah, it paid less than half of the downpayment for people who had
already qualified for the loan but was having problems coming up with
the closing and some of the down. OH THE HUMANITY
This was certainly a few orders of magnitude better than getting a 0
down loan.
BTW: Do you have any evidence that those participating in the plan
are defaulting at all, let alone even with the general population? I did
not think so .


You certainly still do not get it. We're talking about default of loans,
they qualified because the government said minorities must qualify. If I
were a Bush supporter, I would want to close my eyes on this one also.

I certainly get the fact that you have nothing other than bluster to
back up your idea that this program of less than 44,000 had ANY kind of
impact on the problems we are having now. Find me the stat that says
these are failing at ANY level, then we can talk.


You obviously do not know how ARM's work.
You8u would obviously be wrong since I have had ARMs in the past.
Also, there is nothing in any of your cites that indicates ANY of these
were ARMs.

I seen the President Carter &
Clinton mentioned. I seriously doubt any loans from the Carter era are in
default, if they are any loans left. The ARMs are/were the problem.

Some but again you cited the Downpayment program as being a
contributor to the crisis, without showing any kind of stats from any of
the "issues: you*raised. I am not going to agree with you merely because
you are you. In fact, so far, I am thinking I may need a higher level of
cooboration from you.




You certainly do not think these people got their home loans free, do
you?
This basically took people who couldn't pay rent, and put them in a
payment
they couldn't pay.
You took people who had already qualified for the loan based on
income but may have had a little trouble with the down. YOU have
absolutely no idea that all the people who got the grants fit your
scenario. If so, produce the stats.


Use common sense. The problem is not from the Clinton or Carter era. I'm
not about to do your homework for you. Do yourself a huge favor, and learn
about terms on an ARM loan. It's crazy to attempt to explain them over
Usenet, it's utterly insane to want someone to explain them to you. AGAIN,
do your own homework.

I never said anything at all about the Clinton or Carter era.
Especially the Carter era was an entirely different kettle of fish
economically.
You haven't done your homework, so I have nothing to refute.





You may want to read Bush's speech, and see what he was fluffing his
feathers over since 2001. Especially the part of $2.5 TRILLION, and 1
MILLION homeowners.

I am not sure the point. He was spouting stats of the overall
outcomes, no idea of how much of that was government related and I cann
assume little of this was related to ADPA

Again, we're talking about default loans. Do try to keep up.

Which has what to do with these stats?
do try to be coherent.

In article 7c578fcc-ee6c-4603-8131-
,
) says...
"Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings
reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and
retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly."

Doesn't sound so bad anymore does it?

The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!

Seriously, it's like those people just fell off the turnip truck.
Didn't they own any stocks or mutual funds in 2001? In the last 30
years, there have been three market downturns where stocks lost 50% of
their peak values. We have another 15% to go until then. I have a
bunch of money sitting in a cash fund, ready to invest when we hit that
mark. When the Dow hits 7060, I'm buying, just like I did in 1982 when
the Dow hit 860.

Meanwhile, only a fool would sell. I suppose it is the same fools who
retired without moving their assets into bonds. The trick with stocks
is to buy low and sell high. You have to do both. That's why I have a
bunch of money sitting in a cash account. I sold when the Dow hit
13,000, and gritted my teeth all the way to 14,000. However, when you
invest, it pays not to get greedy. Trying to squeeze out that last 5%
can cost you a pile. It's the same deal now. Trying to save that last
5% can cost you a bundle also.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

In article ,
) says...

That is what they did with my FICA, now my SS is just part of that $10
TRILLION dollar debt.

If you are counting social security, the debt is now $42 trillion. They
don't count money owed to the SS trust fund as debt.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

In article ,
lid (George) says...

But the current events aren't normal ups and downs. Investors were
participating in a rigged game without knowing it.

Whenever you let someone play with other people's money, they become
corrupt. It has happened before, and will happen again. The current
drop in the stock market is actually pretty moderate compared with
historic downturns. Of course, it may go lower. It probably will.

What is unusual is the magnitude of the government intervention to prop
up the banking system. The USA has effectively nationalized the whole
banking system. Their stated plan is to sell it back to investors.
We'll see. That won't happen any time soon.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.