Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Politics
  3. Republican

Democrats eyeing 401k takeover


AP Photo/Susan Walsh

As a kind of bailout for bankrupt union retirement schemes, Democrats are considering yet another Constitution-trampling government takeover, this time, of private 401k retirement accounts.

The idea would be to create yet another entitlement program through which government would dictate the terms of everyone's retirement--while making it so difficult and costly to have a private 401k that everyone is forced into it.

Under Obama, the federal government has now illegally taken over the auto industry, the banks, housing, health care, student loans...and coming soon, apparently even private retirement accounts.

But don't worry. It's not like history is jam-packed full of warnings against continuously surrendering freedoms and nationalizing all power into the hands of the few.

Enjoy this article? Receive email alerts when new articles are published by clicking on "Subscribe" above.

Comments

  • Laughing Chimp 4 years ago

    more disinformation from the illiterate? try reading the actual request for information from the department of labor, which you conveniently failed to provide for your readers.
    www.dol.gov/federalregister/PdfDisplay.aspx?DocId=23512

  • Tom 4 years ago

    Good info, Laughing Chimp. That RFI is interesting reading. Maybe if Robert had read it first he might have not posted his rant?

    Yeah, right.

  • lg 4 years ago

    Any involvement by the Federal Government regarding 401K is in response to the $2Trillion lost in the financial meltdown. Further, govt. has been involved in 401Ks since 1974 with the establishment of the Employment Retirement Security Act establishing procedures that defined the role of a 401K. It is different than just speculating in the stock market for profit in that the GOVERNMENT does not tax income used to participate. How is government involvement new - it is the premise of a 401K as opposed to individual investment in the stock market. Invest away, but if you want a tax break for doing it then the government already calls the shots.

  • Robert Moon 4 years ago

    Ig: "How is government involvement new?"

    INVOLVEMENT isn't new. Forcing everyone onto a completely government-run setup is.

  • Robert Moon 4 years ago

    LC,

    Hilarious. Click on the link to the word "considering." There's the information you are illiterately claiming I failed to provide...while calling me illiterate.

    Try again. And re-posting the link I already provided in no way refutes what has been claimed. Let me know if you form something vaguely resembling a counterpoint.

  • BS Detector 4 years ago

    Chimp .... You are correct in stating that it is only fair that the DOL request be included. I would warn against calling the article disinformation. I have re-read the article and compared it to the request and while some subjective, yet common sense conclusions are drawn in the article, I see no evidence of dishonesty. I have read the request and still believe that this is yet another arrogant attempt by the Federal Government to fool the People into believing that they will "come to the rescue" of the American People. This mentality is dangerous. As lg has stated there has been “government involvement” in this issue in the past but there is a difference between limited regulation or moderate oversight as opposed to complete governmental control. As much as I do genuinely care about retirees, (My father, for example) it is not the job of the Federal Government to determine what is so called “fair... (continued in next post)

  • BS Detector 4 years ago

    Nor is it their job to assure that EVERYONE have the equal desired results in life, including results from our choices in employment. No one is forced to take a benefits package from an employer. They are given that option. If they don’t like the retirement benefits provided by a particular employer they are free to seek employment elsewhere. We are Constitutionally granted ONLY the right to the PERSUIT of happiness. We are not guaranteed that we will all be happy and not face any hardship. Would I love to believe that all retirees could somehow not have to worry about their retirement benefits? Sure, but I value our true liberty above all else. Giving over the broad powers of control to “Big Government” in hopes that they will take care of us steadily erodes that liberty. Perhaps on this issue you feel that it would be beneficial for the Government to intervene but what would you feel if the government wanted to enforce something that you disagreed with. (Continued in next post))

  • BS Detector 4 years ago

    . Once we set the precedent that government intervention in our personal lives and choices is necessary and acceptable it is difficult to come back from. Next time it may be your right that you feel are infringed upon. The concept that Government has a responsibility to ensure “fairness” and all-encompassing “protection” has been tried numerous times in numerous countries throughout history and EVERY TIME it has failed. At times with dire consequences. Such as the case with Mao, Hitler, and Mussolini. It is simply the difference between what seems fair and just , versus the reality that in order for a government to provide us with all we feel is fair without destruction is reliant upon EVERY person in the government to be completely uncorrupt and altruistic. I don’t know about you but I see that as nearly impossible, and history backs that up.

  • BS Detector 4 years ago

    I should clarify that the article I am speaking of includes that which is linked to by the word "considering" above. Since he did include that link I feel that it is fair to consider the linked article as part of his position.

  • BS Detector 4 years ago

    By the way... I acknowledge the right to free speech but hurling insults in no way strengthens one's stance on any issue. I am not saying that I have not ever taken a cheap shot at someone but it is something I try to avoid unless provoked, because I want people to listen to my position rather than focus their attention on what name I may have called them.

  • Tom 4 years ago

    Robert - What part of the RFI implies anyone being forced into anything? Just because you can dream up something scary doesn't mean it exists.

  • Laughing Chimp 4 years ago

    linking to a spin article that has a link to the rfi buried in it is hardly the same as linking to the actual source document.
    and bs, if you don't like it, talk to congress about ERISA; that's the underlying law that makes this not only possible, but mandatory.

  • BS Detector 4 years ago

    Chimp...The fact that you have to click on two links to get to the RFI document or that you found the linked article to be "spun" does not refute my assertions below. I am not talking to Congress. I am talking to you right now, so why don't you educate me on "the underlying law that makes this not only possible, but mandatory." Why do I need to talk to Congress when you obviously feel as though you have a better grasp on the subject than I do...and perhaps you do, so please share. The fact remains that our Government for far too long has been reaching for powers far beyond what it was ever intended to have.

  • Laughing Chimp 4 years ago

    as i already pointed out, it's called ERISA, bs. and if you read the rfi, you'd see that it's about complying with ERISA.
    considering entire books and thousands of pages of regulations have been written concerning the ins and outs of ERISA, attempting to explain it within the 1,000 character limit would an exercise in futility.
    google ERISA when you have a few weeks to spend.

  • BS Detector 4 years ago

    Sorry Chimp, I just made the assumption that if you were citing "the underlying law that makes this not only possible, but mandatory." That you might be able to at least give some specific examples of how. If you don't have the time or ability to do so, that is fine but making an argument and then telling someone else to go find out how to prove your own point is a bit backwards. To use the "1000 character limit" excuse is a bit telling as well. Either you are incapable of tying this all together with your point or it just isn't important enough to you to take the time to explain yourself. Not trying to be an a**hole. I just simply can't figure out where you are comming from.

  • Laughing Chimp 4 years ago

    then obviously, bs, despite your harangues, you didn't bother to actually read the rfi. it gives a nice summary of why this is required under ERISA.
    now, if you ever learn enough to argue that ERISA is fundamentally flawed, we could have a discussion.

  • BS Detector 4 years ago

    Chimp... As I expected. Rather than cite the specifics, you choose to refer me back to the request AGAIN and then imply that somehow I was less than truthful about having read the request You still fail to make any argument of your own, I guess it is just easier to let someone or something else do it for you. It is obvious that I am chasing my tail here so I am just done trying to get anything other than what you have repeated over and over again. It might be time to start thinking for yourself rather than just regurgitating everything you read. Good day to you and good riddance!!

  • BS Detector 4 years ago

    On second thought, I guess you didn't regurgitate what you read... you read something and then rather than use it as a springboard for conversation, you just insisted that I go re-read the same thing over and over AND OVER again!! *LOL*

  • BS Detector 4 years ago

    Let me return the favor. I disagree that the RFI is singularly and strictly about complying with ERISA. The wording of much of the RFI supports this. Go re-read the RFI and study up on ERISA. I am not going to support my own argument. I'll leave it up to you to do that inconvenient bit of work. Of course this is sarcastic and rhetorical but it is my final statement to you and I see no way to continue discussing this with you. I am sorry if I am being overly snarky but I am just frusterated. I just feel that I am wasting my time, when my original response to you was in regards to the power shift to the government that has been going on for so long and continues to grow at an exponential pace.

  • Anonymous 3 years ago

    So this is why Obama KEEEEEPS spending...He is planning to replenish the Gov coffers with our IRA's, 401K,403b accounts. After all the trillions of dollars we have all saved all of our working lives can be utilized SO MUCH BETTER by the Goverment!

    I guess the Gov is going to be the primary beneficary of this money when we die!!!!

    Will we wake up before it is too late?

  • American Worker 3 years ago

    Robert,

    I agree with your concerns and have issue with telling half the story. Replican laedership is just as bad as Democrap leadership. Under bush we have 2 wars entered into through deciet (WMD's) and flag waving (If you don't agree with me it means your not a true American and you support terrorist). The financial colapse was adminsitered by both parties and the banks are who got bailed out. The politician's are grocery clerks delivering just what their told to by the money pigs. Replicans cry about the auto bailout (which should not have happened) and are mute on the bank bailout.,AIG, Goldman, etc...20 billion of the AIG bailout went to Goldman. The only firm that recieved 100% payout. Wheres the outrage. Goldman "agrees" to pay 500 million dollar fine and does not have to do full disclosure on how much they abscounded with. Wheres the outrage. Bush pushes through a 727 billion dollar increase to Medicare/Medicade in 2003 in a pandering for re-election votes and there is no crying about "socialism". The illusion of a two party sysrem is what we have. It's still the best country in the world in my opinion and voting every incumbent out ever time may be the only way to break the grip of big goverment

  • A Proud Obama Voter 1 year ago

    The conservatives and liberals will never agree on these things so it is ludicrous to go back and forth when each opinion clearly differs and both have compelling arguements. At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves is America better off today than it was when Obama took over?? I say yes. We collapsed in 2008 under Bush's leadership. This was not something that Obama "caused" it was wwhat he was inherited. Has he done everything he promised? Of Course not...could you? Has he made great strides and brought change that many Presidents have tried to accomplish before him?? Absolutely. now if both parties can compromise, we can do great things. He won by a huge margin...let's move on folks!!

Advertisement

News

  • Sterling loses Clippers
    Donald Sterling loses big in court with no option for an appeal
    Video
    Video
  • Russia violating arms treaty?
    Russia is testing a long-range missile which violates an INF arms treaty
    World News
  • Ebola outbreak
    The Ebola epidemic in West Africa has proven to be quite difficult to contain
    Health News
  • Virginia same-sex marriage
    The ban on same-sex marriage is ruled unconstitutional in Virginia
    US News
  • Abigail Hernandez suspect
    A suspect is in police custody for the disappearance of Abigail Hernandez
    Crime
  • Bachelorette finale
    'The Bachelorette' is in the books, which lucky guy got Andi's final rose?
    TV