Quote:
Originally Posted by noncom23
Ah, got it. Your opinion is fact enough that there is no need to heed any information you don't agree with.
Though you lend no fact to call it gibberish.
Self defined point that I make.
|
Not self-defined in any way. Following is the information I posted previously in support of my position that the original article didn't make sense or stand up to scrutiny.
Post 3 above:
There is no campaign to nationalize existing 401k accounts
The hearing that is referenced was held was two years ago, but this was conveniently ignored as it didn't support the notion of a campaign. The author misled the reader.
No action has been taken since in terms of nationalizing accounts, thereby demonstrating that there is no active campaign (since campaigns consist of a series of actions, not a single action).
Various speakers from that hearing presented their own views, but that doesn't necessarily make those views the opinion of the government of the day. That was the nature of the hearing, to hear from interested parties. As an aside, if you want to show that the government had a preconceived plan, just quote them instead of shadowy left wing interveners at the hearing.
Post 9 above:
There is no forced contribution. There is a mandatory enrollment, but this is imposed on the employer, not on the individual. If the individual doesn't want to contribute, they don't have to. This is from your own link. The budget paper has been misinterpreted. At this point the premise that
everybody has to contribute to a 401k so that the government can raid all 401k accounts pretty much falls apart. I don't see any evidence of the government wanting to raid those accounts. We are discussing the US government, not the government of Hungary, Bulgaria, or Ireland. Also, the requirement to establish retirement accounts for employees is an equal right of opportunity issue, not an equal division of the pie issue. The US is pretty big on rights for citizens, so this is not a surprise move. Furthermore, this concept is supported by far right economists like Friedman, so to call it communism is confusing. It is important to separate the concepts of equality of opportunity from equality of outcomes. The first says all should have a chance. The second says that all should get the same. You are taking a budget proposal that says all should have a chance to contribute to their own pensions, and concluding that all will therefore get the same share, ie communism.
When an argument is based on links and points that prove the opposite, not much more information is required. The original argument defeats itself.
Other posters have supported the points above.
So I don't understand how can you call it self-defined.