My Eggs. My Basket. Back Off.
By Johnny Roosh
Whether you are a conservative, liberal or independent, or can’t find it with both hands, I can’t imagine anyone outside Democrats in Congress thinking highly of this proposal, highlighted in the Most Viewed Story of 2008 on InvestmentNews.com.
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.
Powerful? Maybe so. Smart?
Well now, we know they wouldn’t be Democrats if they were smart, would they.
And here’s proof:
the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.
A poor, certainly intentional and patently alarmist choice of words. I can’t corroborate my suspicion, but I’m convinced Orszag is a prodigy of Al Gore.
The market drops, like it does from time to time, and this one was a big one, but certainly no precedent, and $2 Trillion is “lost“. Someone with Orszag’s book-learnin’ credentials should know the difference between a presumably temporary (and albeit severe) fluctuation in the market, and a permanent loss.
The sky is not falling. The market will recover from the cluster of liberal social engineering and corruption that caused this crisis; this despite the fact that those culpable are still at the helm or advising the Occupant of The Office of the President Elect.
Orszag is on a mission.
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.
Liberal Democrats have uncovered yet another avenue for government to invade our lives, confiscate our hard-earned dollars, and throw them down the same rat-hole that is the soon-to-be-insolvent Social Security Administration. It’s not the “nation’s 401k system.” It’s my 401k. It’s your 401k.
Under Ms. Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5% of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3% a year, adjusted for inflation.
The reason prudent investors choose to diversify into equities and bear their inherent risk is that historically over time that risk has returned a premium over “safer” investments that may have less volatility but don’t keep pace with inflation and therefore lose purchasing power.
In the mean time, these dollars are invested back into our economy unlike the dollars that would be “invested” by the government on your behalf. Most likely they would be stolen by greedy liberals with a penchant for spending other peoples’ money.
“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ms. Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”
The colossal arrogance of Ms. Ghilarducci is beyond comprehension. Teresa, you ignorant slut. It’s not a subsidy. It’s our money.
401k’s will be a boon to federal coffers as most of the dollars invested in “the nations 401k system” will be taxed once distributed to the retiree. True to form, liberal democrats’ myopia prevents them from waiting that long. They want your money. They want it now.
401k’s have been a boon to future retirees and may be the sole source of retirement income for many hard-working and deserving Americans who will never ever come close to recovering their mandatory contributions to the mismanaged Social Security Administration.
Most people understand this simple concept.
Apparently Democrats don’t, or are counting on the fact that we’re too stupid to get it or too uninvolved to do anything about it.
As the bumper sticker says, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”
January 8th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Haha, silly wingnuts! Your attempt to pretend the current economic disaster is somehow the fault of Democrats after 8 years of Republican rule, ain’t selling beyond your wacky little circle of Bush dead-enders. You remember Bush’s awesome idea to privatize social security? And that’s only #25 on the list of stupidest ideas of the Bush Residency.
And that money is lost, you giant goof. If I have $10 today and $5 tomorrow, I’ve lost $5. I may well make it back, sometime in the indefinite future. But that does dick for me right now. And for anyone who needs to retire right about now on a suddenly devalued portfolios is screwed. It’s no fluctuation. It’s the market’s verdict on a bad economy, record deficits and the 8-year failure to police financial crime and fraud.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:40 am
How about if I invest $3, it goes up to $10, then drops down to $5. Then goes back up to $8.
How much did I lose?
January 8th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Oh, and Barry Obama is 100% encomonic illiterate. He and his AC sized ego think that the Obamainator is another Deleno Roosevelt. In a way he is right. He could put us in a decade long depression.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Chuck fantasized: “How about if I invest $3, it goes up to $10, then drops down to $5. Then goes back up to $8.”
You’d be returning 267% and investors would be standing in line to invest in your hedge fund, Chuckwagon. Cause there’s not a lot of investors out there whose holdings have increased at all, rather than dropping drastically.
But I’m guessing you’re not that bright.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:16 am
But AC, prices are at rock bottom, and with the economic miracle that the “O” is getting set to perform, wouldn’t now be the best time to privatize Social Security, or at least encourage people to invest in the market through their 401(k)?
January 8th, 2009 at 10:17 am
No and yes.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:28 am
So AC think 401(k) good? Agree with Mitch AC does?
January 8th, 2009 at 10:34 am
AC think anybody who not take advantage of tax-advantaged investment, with employer contribution, at time of low share values, stupid.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:40 am
AC want that opportunity taken away?
January 8th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Angryclown no pretend him tax policy expert. But Angryclown think enough middle-class subsidies in tax code as is.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Angryclown also think: fire bad, seltzer good.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:13 am
enough or too many?
January 8th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Yes.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Over a decade or so, gains over 100% are hardly unlikely, AC. And remember your rule of 72; over an ordinary period of time, it also won’t get investors lined up for your hedge fund, either.
One correction for Johnny; if the Democrats do convert 401Ks to government debt funds, then for sure we WILL have a permanent loss of that two trillion bucks and more. You take trillions in capital away from business, that WILL show up in markets and (ahem) taxable income that would back up that government debt.
Not that we would expect democrats to figure out that government doesn’t produce any useful goods and services.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:19 am
which?
January 8th, 2009 at 11:31 am
There’s a big difference between Social (in)Security and the 401(k): the 401(k) is mine, I can screw it up or keep it going, but it’s mine until the Democrats pass a law nationalizing it. The money I put into the
Ponzi schemegovernment’s care for my retirement hidden from my view, the rate of return purposely obscured, and the whole thing regularly raided for other governmental functions.Cause there’s not a lot of investors out there whose holdings have increased at all, rather than dropping drastically.
Depends, clownie, on how long they’ve been at it. I’m still far ahead in my 401(k) over the far larger contribution I’ve made to Social Security. For that you’ve gotten hit with mandatory 12.5% contributions your entire working life. It wasn’t until recently I could put more into my 401(k) than was taken out to put into the government’s care.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Bike Butthead raved: “Not that we would expect democrats to figure out that government doesn’t produce any useful goods and services.”
Not unless you count cops, teachers, the military, firefighters, roads, air traffic control, postal service…
Fucking idiot.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Sure Bike Butthead, it’s all about the time frame. If Angryclown had the good sense to invest in Manhattan real estate in 1720, he’d be rolling in dough right now. But that doesn’t do Angryclown much good in real life. Nor does the fact that the stock market’s sunk to 2002 levels much help current retirees. Parroting right-wing talking points isn’t the same thing as knowing what you’re talking about, Bike Butthead. Go read something. Maybe “A Random Walk Down Wall Street” to start. Or “The Complete Half-Wit Idiots’ Guide to the Economy. For Morons.”
January 8th, 2009 at 11:47 am
By the way, JRoosh, Angryclown has no intention of going anywhere near your shriveled eggs or the droopy basket you carry ’em around in. Just sayin’.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
That’s a lot of comments for “no intention of going anywhere near”.
Just sayin’. 😉
January 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
“Not unless you count cops, teachers, the military, firefighters, roads, air traffic control, postal service…”
And coming soon . . cars! Home mortgages! Porno flicks!
And believe me, there isn’t anything like a government issue porno flick. Postal employees afterhours!
January 8th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Bike Butthead raved: “Not that we would expect democrats to figure out that government doesn’t produce any useful goods and services.”
Not unless you count cops, teachers, the military, firefighters, roads, air traffic control, postal service…
I think what BB meant was that government can’t produce wealth, it can only transfer, tax or destroy it.
January 8th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Nonsense. The government produces goods and services, employs millions. And if you had your money in Treasury bills the last couple of years, you’d have lots more wealth than if it was in a mutual fund.
January 8th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Doesn’t understand the definition of wealth, AC obviously.
January 8th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
‘And if you had your money in Treasury bills the last couple of years, you’d have lots more wealth than if it was in a mutual fund.’
AC, you are out of your depth. Issuing T bills is printing money. You don’t create wealth by printing money, you create debt.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Please, Volcano Boy. Angryclown knows T-bills. He was making the point that your personal wealth would have been much better served by investing in them than in the stock market.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Heck, if you’d cashed out your inflated home equity three years ago & then started buy carbon offsets you’d have done better than the stock market or T bills.
I think you better lay off the Krugman for awhile, AC.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Nonsense. The government produces goods and services, employs millions.
I doesn’t surprise me that a liberal would think otherwise but the government doesn’t create wealth because it can’t; by definition.
I happen to be studying this very topic for a credential and have the textbook right in front of me.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:44 am
Johnny Roosh-
I bet Krugman’s name does not appear on the title page. Unless it’s called ‘Keep drilling holes in the bottom of the boat! We’re still sinking!’
January 9th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Master of Wingnut Studies, Roosh?
January 9th, 2009 at 5:58 am
AC, if economic credentials translated to actual knowledge about how to make money we’d all be millionaires.
People with PhD’s in economics are first cousin to stock salesmen.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:11 am
Sorry, I crunched words again (RickDFL keeps track of these things).
By “If economic credentials translated to actual knowledge about how to make money we’d all be millionaires.”
I mean that if it was true that economic credentials meant something, all we’d have to do is find a guy with a PhD in economics, give him a million bucks to invest, and rake in the cash every quarter.
The fact that we can’t do that, and that even economists can’t do that, says something about the science of economics.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:15 am
angryclown said:
“The government produces goods and services, employs millions”
Yes, it produces goods and services, typically in the most inefficient manner possible.
And the “millions” of employees? I think those are defined as ‘overhead’: not pulling the cart, but in the cart.
January 9th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
OK, AC, I’ll give you the (narrow) category of public goods, as defined by Smith. Keep in mind, though, that the high quality and efficiency of those “public goods” in most large cities is a key contributor to the success of private security firms and so on.
And air traffic control? You are aware that the FAA’s failure to implement GPS in airplanes for a reasonable cost results in the waste of billions of gallons of jet fuel annually, right? That EMC experts agree that the worst EMC environments they’ve ever seen are ATC towers, right?
This is the example you’d hold up for us as an example of how to do things? This is the kind of thinking you’d suggest is going to rescue our retirement portfolios?