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

[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.

[noncom23]

Originally Posted by JCL

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.

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.

[JCL]

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.