Its 10:00, do you know where your 401k is?

[motordavid]

I'm confused...that proposal would require employers with 10+ employees to establish a pension plan. While an administrative process that some smaller employers may not need/want, there are credits to cover some/most of the admin costs.

I don't quite understand the leap to Obama or the the current administration is coming to force today's workers to run their 401ks fueled by T Bills/bonds or, existing IRAs for that matter. Or that the 'govt' is taken our dough and turning it into buying up those current crummy T Bills...

And, it's a proposal...dunno what the Rep Congress will do with it, if anything.

[noncom23]

So far all I can see is that they can't
force too much on a small group.If they
get the majority of th US on the mandated
pensions it is the more Equalatarian and
uses the Liberal excuse of equal parts for
all.
Then with a mandated pension they can
begin to regulate it with more incentives
like the credits. "We will give you this,
if you do that". So they can incentivize
treasury bonds as a preferable investment.

The rest is easy. Americans have so far
shown their willingness to rely, all too
easily, on the government for handouts.

[JCL]

The proposal is for employers to make pensions available to their employees. There is no requirement for the employees to participate if they don't want to. So I don't understand the use of the word "mandated" to describe the IRA contributions.

By equalatarian I presume you mean egalitarian.

It would appear that this is a promotion of the concept of the economic equality of opportunity, something supported by Milton Friedman, vs the concept of the economic equality of outcomes. I think your characterization of this as communism would be a surprise to Friedman, who is pretty much in the free enterprise camp.

[noncom23]

Originally Posted by JCL

The proposal is for employers to make pensions available to their employees. There is no requirement for the employees to participate if they don't want to. So I don't understand the use of the word "mandated" to describe the IRA contributions.

By equalatarian I presume you mean egalitarian.

It would appear that this is a promotion of the concept of the economic equality of opportunity, something supported by Milton Friedman, vs the concept of the economic equality of outcomes. I think your characterization of this as communism would be a surprise to Friedman, who is pretty much in the free enterprise camp.

No. I mean Equalatarian. The new buzz term for Socialistic Forced Equality. Mandate came from the hearing.
Communism came from articles, not me.
I am only trying to show the other side here. That your
defense of obama "may" not so warranted. Automatic enrollment doesn't sound involuntary to you?
We can argue this all day. I just hope at some point anyone will see a not so rosey side of your faith
in this guy. No fight from me. Just showing the other side.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by noncom23

No. I mean Equalatarian. The new buzz term for Socialistic Forced Equality. Mandate came from the hearing.
Communism came from articles, not me.
I am only trying to show the other side here. That your
defense of obama "may" not so warranted. Automatic enrollment doesn't sound involuntary to you?
We can argue this all day. I just hope at some point anyone will see a not so rosey side of your faith
in this guy. No fight from me. Just showing the other side.

I am not clear on your definition of equalatarian. I had always associated that word with equality related to gender and similar issues, not economics. I always figured the word egalitarianism worked just fine for the economic equality issues. Maybe I need to get a copy of the Tea Party Dictionary. (edit: I found one on line)

Communism came from the articles posted by you. If you don't believe the ideas in the article, you could perhaps say so when you post, otherwise people may interpret the opinions expressed as matching yours.

What led you to believe that I have faith in Obama, or that I am defending him? The only way I can see that from my posts in this thread is if you believe that Obama is a Communist, which is, incidentally, a view I don't share. I was illustrating the logical inconsistencies in the argument, and pointing out that calling political opponents Communists doesn't do much to advance the debate.

Automatic enrollment doesn't sound evil to me. I think you have the same concept for your social security cards, if people are going to work and pay taxes. It isn't going after the individual, it is ensuring that the businesses impacted offer pension opportunities to their employees. See my comments above on equality of opportunity (to have a pension, in this case), a decidedly right-of-the-spectrum concept.

I just find it interesting the degree to which US politics are being polarized and poisoned by inflamed rhetoric. IMO.

Unlike you, I don't have any dog in this fight, directly, as I don't even live or vote in your country. I am impacted indirectly, seeing as how our economy is so closely tied to the US, and that Canada is your largest foreign oil provider. So I don't get to have a say every four years, but we as a country prosper or not based largely on the health of your economy. That causes me to be interested.

So maybe that is a third side?

[noncom23]

Originally Posted by JCL

I am not clear on your definition of equalatarian. I had always associated that word with equality related to gender, and so on, not economics. I figured the word egalitarianism worked just fine for the economic equality issues. Maybe I need to get a copy of the Tea Party Dictionary. (edit: I found one on line)

Communism came from the articles posted by you. If you don't believe the ideas in the article, you should perhaps say so when you post, otherwise people may interpret the opinions expressed as matching yours.

What led you to believe that I have faith in Obama, or that I am defending him? The only way I can see that from my posts in this thread is if you believe that Obama is a Communist, which is, incidentally, a view I don't share. I was illustrating the logical inconsistencies in the argument, and pointing out that calling political oponents Communists doesn't do much to advance the debate.

Automatic enrollment doesn't sound evil to me. I think you have the same concept for your social security cards, if people are going to work and pay taxes. It isn't going after the individual, it is ensuring that the businesses impacted offer pension opportunities to their employees. See my comments above on equality of opportunity (to have a pension, in this case), a decidedly right-of-the-spectrum concept.

I just find it interesting the degree to which US politics are being polarized and poisoned by inflamed rhetoric. IMO.

Unlike you, I don't have any dog in this fight, directly, I don't even live or vote in your country. I am impacted indirectly, seeing as how our economy is so closely tied to the US, and that Canada is your largest foreign oil provider. So I don't get to have a say every four years, but we as a country prosper or not based largely on the health of your economy. That causes me to be interested.

So maybe that is a third side?

Thats the most interesting part. I post an opposing article
to the current view and you, with no dog in the fight, want to argue
against a side you say you don't take. Please explain to me why
you defend the left if you are so neutral? Why not just stand by
and let the article, backed up by the posted budget speak for
itself. If it is informng or not to you. State your
opinion and move on. If it is scary, maybe it should be.
Maybe its time to wake up. I defend my right to inform
whether you like it or not. If your country rides on part of what
goes on here, maybe open up to all sides. Or is it only the
left that should be heard? Yes, all that obama does has no
possible negative future. Yes, I do believe communism is but one
of the possible outcomes.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by noncom23

Thats the most interesting part. I post an opposing article
to the current view and you, with no dog in the fight, want to argue
against a side you say you don't take. Please explain to me why
you defend the left if you are so neutral? Why not just stand by
and let the article, backed up by the posted budget speak for
itself. If it is informng or not to you. State your
opinion and move on. If it is scary, maybe it should be.
Maybe its time to wake up. I defend my right to inform
whether you like it or not. If your country rides on part of what
goes on here, maybe open up to all sides. Or is it only the
left that should be heard? Yes, all that obama does has no
possible negative future. Yes, I do believe communism is but one
of the possible outcomes.

I didn't argue against a side called left or right, as I tried to point out. I argued against a side called illogical. I presume that you see my comments as being leftist because you are further to the right yourself.

The problem is that the article does speak for itself, but it speaks gibberish. If it was a coherent argument that would be an entirely different thing. So there is a summary of my opinion, clearly stated.

You have every right to inform. As I have a right to post an opinion that the information doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It isn't about whether there should be pensions that each American can contribute to if they so choose, or whether Obama is going to lead you further into debt (he appears to be doing so). It is about a first post in this thread that was illogical.

You bring it all down to left and right. My post above pointed out that there are more viewpoints than left or right, just using my position as a Canadian who is impacted as an example of one of those other viewpoints.

The problem is polarization, namely that the left and right are seen as good and evil by each other, and vice versa. And that should end. IMO.