If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Des Moines Register)   Hillary wants to introduce American workers to "the miracle of compound interest" by using government money in 401(k) plans, because such a miracle can only come when the government gives you money for retirement   (desmoinesregister.com) divider line 262
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

345 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Oct 2007 at 4:46 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



262 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-10-10 03:10:24 PM
Go Go Chinchilla!: That way, I can defuse the objections of people who think that you're not allowed to biatch about the government unless you vote.

People who say sh*t like that are of similar mentality to those who blame Nader for Bush's victory in 2000. Myopic.

/It's still a cop out. You should still vote for a candidate.
//assuming you were kidding
 
2007-10-10 03:12:13 PM
albo: actually, this is the good kind of tax incentive. give me more of my money back and let me decide how to spend it, not the government.

My point was that it was a cynical election-year giveaway designed to attract the middle-class swing voters as well as a big-government program that exceeds the fed's responsibility and constitutional mandate.
 
2007-10-10 03:13:03 PM
Mordant: So if people don't learn and arrange for their own future what happens ?

Do we ignore them and let them disappear in poverty or do we end up bailing them out at greater cost much like we do now with people who don't have medical insurance ?


Simple, if you haven't prepared for your retirement we exile you to Canada when you turn 65. Hope you have a nice coat.

Don't we already have a "subsidized tax break to encourage savings", they're called IRA's. You put money in and effectively make 10-20% extra because you will pay less in taxes on it when you take it out than when you put it in.

This, plus the "bond in every bassinet" idea, how many more "Look at how I will give you money if you make me president" ideas will Hillary cook up? Or any of the current batch of political hopefuls for that matter?
 
2007-10-10 03:13:28 PM
albo: give me more of my money back and let me decide how to spend it, not the government.

A little Disney, don't you think?
 
2007-10-10 03:14:10 PM
thamike: /It's still a cop out. You should still vote for a candidate.

I'll vote for Ron Paul if he gets the nomination. Otherwise, I'm voting for my cat. If I voted for any of the other scumbags, I would not be able to forgive myself.
 
2007-10-10 03:14:40 PM
thamike: albo: give me more of my money back and let me decide how to spend it, not the government.

actually, we used a car insurance check for disney. paid for a week at beach club
 
2007-10-10 03:15:15 PM
Go Go Chinchilla!: I'll vote for Ron Paul if he gets the nomination. Otherwise, I'm voting for my cat

i don't need to tell you which one has a better chance to win, do it
 
2007-10-10 03:15:54 PM
images.schoolinsites.com

RECYCLE YOUR ELDERLY
 
2007-10-10 03:16:47 PM
Go Go Chinchilla!: And that's fine, for Canada. Here in the USA, we used to have this little thing called a Constitution, which explicitly defined the powers of the Federal government. The tenth amendment to this Constitution explicitly stated that powers not delegated to the national government belonged to the states.

Right right. I should specify that most of the things you listed are in fact provincially-run programs, but have been founded in every province.

albo: hitchking, the argument "we should do it because it's a good thing" is not compelling enough

That wasn't my argument at all. My argument was the government should encourage behaviours that have positive impacts on others, that the person making the decision won't normally take into account. Someone saving for retirement doesn't think "But if I save more, I'll help increase national productivity!". If the benefits to national productivity outweigh the cost of the government encouraging additional saving, then I say the government should do so. It's a net gain.

Again, I can't say for sure that that argument applies in this case. Just raising the possibility.
 
2007-10-10 03:17:31 PM
Go Go Chinchilla!: I'll vote for Ron Paul if he gets the nomination. Otherwise, I'm voting for my cat. If I voted for any of the other scumbags, I would not be able to forgive myself.

Both ridiculous declarations, but I see your point. I, however, will vote the scumbag that suits my needs.
 
2007-10-10 03:19:07 PM
hitchking: Again, I can't say for sure that that argument applies in this case. Just raising the possibility.

It does. But, some people have been exposed to too many sound-bites.
 
2007-10-10 03:20:08 PM
albo: i don't need to tell you which one has a better chance to win, do it

I figure the cat has a better shot. Besides, he'd make a great President. He doesn't do anything. If he gets restless, break out the laser pointer. Keep him in fish and catnip and he's fine. And he starts purring if you play Iron Maiden or one of Bruce Dickinson's solo albums.
 
2007-10-10 03:38:46 PM
Postal Penguin: Hillary should just change her campaign slogan to "fark personal responsibility" I think its mind boggling she would take money from me(a college student who already set up CDs and other savings for the future) and give it to someone who is too lazy or stupid to do it on their own. fark you Hillary.

/If she wins the Dems primary, Im voting republican.


That's exactly what she wants to do -- punish those who have the foresight and planning to save and plan for their future and give it to those who do not.

Instead of this plan, why not embark on a national education campaign? Wouldn't that have the same results of increased saving without government compulsion to do so?
 
2007-10-10 03:40:18 PM
revskippy: This, plus the "bond in every bassinet" idea, how many more "Look at how I will give you money if you make me president" ideas will Hillary cook up? Or any of the current batch of political hopefuls for that matter?

The sad part is that the money has to come from somewhere that she is giving it away from, and it assumes the principle that your income is the governments to spend as they see fit and that you should justify to the government why they SHOULDN'T spend your money that way. In reality, and I think in theory as well, it should be the other way around.
 
2007-10-10 03:44:30 PM
whidbey: I swear I don't even have a clue as to what to think of her when all I see here at Fark are Hillary-phobic ignorant, retarded "criticism" from the naysayers...

I'm not a big fan of hers, but none of you make a compelling argument why we shouldn't be voting for her.


Already I hear criticisms that seem to be trying to evoke both the "castrating mommy figure" and "spendthrift woman shopper" archetypes.
 
2007-10-10 03:58:14 PM
Postal Penguin: I think its mind boggling she would take money from me(a college student who already set up CDs and other savings for the future) and give it to someone who is too lazy or stupid to do it on their own. fark you Hillary.

/If she wins the Dems primary, Im voting republican.


I think it's mind boggling that your estate is worth $7 million or more.
 
2007-10-10 04:06:12 PM
KaponoFor3: That's exactly what she wants to do -- punish those who have the foresight and planning to save and plan for their future and give it to those who do not.

It's a tax cut for people of low-moderate incomes who save for retirement, "paid" for by DEAD people with estates larger than $7 Million.
 
2007-10-10 04:11:59 PM
hitchking: KaponoFor3: That's exactly what she wants to do -- punish those who have the foresight and planning to save and plan for their future and give it to those who do not.

It's a tax cut for people of low-moderate incomes who save for retirement, "paid" for by DEAD people with estates larger than $7 Million.


So since they are dead, fark them and their money. They shouldn't be allowed to pass it to their kids (or for that matter, whoever the hell they want to give it to) without the government getting its hands on it? And giving it to other people who, unlike the dead, didn't have the foresight to plan for their own retirement? Isn't that just a tad inequitable?
 
2007-10-10 04:18:24 PM
KaponoFor3: So since they are dead, fark them and their money. They shouldn't be allowed to pass it to their kids (or for that matter, whoever the hell they want to give it to) without the government getting its hands on it?

Well, the estate tax is bad. All taxes are bad. But some taxes are worse than others. Income tax is worse than the estate tax. The income tax is a much larger drag on the economy.

The "matching" funds for retirement savings is essentially an income tax cut, designed to encourage saving.

The best outcome, from a pure tax point of view, would be to just do the retirement-savings-income tax cut, and forget about the estate tax. Unfortunately, the US has a deficit, and deficits are bad.

So my argument is that the retirement-income tax cut is good, but the resulting increase in the deficit would be bad. However, the estate tax is LESS bad than the deficit. Therefore, reducing retirement-income taxes while increasing the estate tax to "pay" for it, is a net gain for the economy. An improvement on the current state of affairs.
 
2007-10-10 04:19:49 PM
Go Go Chinchilla!: What in Arioch's name do you think the New Deal was, if not government paternalism?

It was a way for FDR to buy votes using government money. Note how the south, that was safely democrat, got little money compared to the other parts of the nation.

FDR was en economic idiot who prolonged the Great depression because he thought he knew what to do better than anyone else. His monetary policy was a disaster.

Hillary will basically be doing the same thing.
 
2007-10-10 04:24:37 PM
Crosshair: FDR was en economic idiot who prolonged the Great depression because he thought he knew what to do better than anyone else. His monetary policy was a disaster.

FDR's policies were on the cutting edge of economics at the time, and the first real implementation of Keynesianism. The rest of the developed world has since embraced most of his reforms.

So what the fark are you talking about?
 
2007-10-10 04:46:57 PM
hitchking: FDR's policies were on the cutting edge of economics at the time, and the first real implementation of Keynesianism. The rest of the developed world has since embraced most of his reforms.

So what the fark are you talking about?


What are you taking about that FDR was on the "cutting edge"? Social Security always was and always will be unsustainable over the long term. Many of his policies and programs were declared unconstitutional. Below is a good read, as is the book, "FDR's Folly". FDR is hardly a man that should be respected and idolized.

Three Myths of the Great Depression (new window)

Myth Number One: The New Deal helped get us out of the Great Depression.


In fact, the New Deal was an inevitable economic failure. Roosevelt's formula of substituting government programs for a normal business recovery had no chance of relieving the high unemployment........

Unemployment under the New Deal never dropped below 14 percent and averaged over 17 percent.

As the Great Depression persisted, even Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau admitted that the New Deal had been a failure. On May 6, 1939, he confessed, "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

Myth Number Two: The New Deal was a political success as well as an economic success.

To the contrary, the New Deal was a grand economic failure and only a qualified political success.....

......in early 1936 Roosevelt was behind in the Gallup polls and even trailed in his own private polls. In February 1936, Emil Hurja, Roosevelt's personal pollster, concluded that if nominated Landon could beat Roosevelt were the election held that month.....This should not be surprising-the New Deal had not ended the Great Depression and voters were responding accordingly.

in 1936 the president developed a strategy that swamped the Republicans. It can be described in three words: subsidies for votes.......For example, he met with Henry Wallace, the agriculture secretary, and gave the following order, "Henry, through July, August, September, October and up to the 5th of November I want cotton to sell at 12 cents [a pound]. I do not care how you do it. That is your problem. It can't go below 12 cents."

Myth Number Three: Roosevelt was widely respected.

This is partly true. Roosevelt received thousands of fan letters each week and his picture was on the wall in perhaps millions of American homes. He had widespread adulation, especially from those who received his federal subsidies. But among reporters, policymakers, fellow politicians, and even his own friends Roosevelt was widely disrespected. His popularity was often superficial, and seemed to decline as people close to him came to know him better.......

....during the 1930s, the American economy would have been far better off if there had not been the New Deal.
 
2007-10-10 04:48:08 PM
hitchking: FDR's policies were on the cutting edge of economics at the time, and the first real implementation of Keynesianism. The rest of the developed world has since embraced most of his reforms.

Von Mises and the other Austrians have been arguing against this bullshiat long before Keynes said, "Screw the future, we're all gonna be dead anyway."

/I know that's not what he really said.
 
2007-10-10 04:48:38 PM
so anyone else see this right here, yesterday?
 
2007-10-10 04:50:18 PM
brap:
I think it's mind boggling that your estate is worth $7 million or more.


Nice. You RTFM0wned him.
 
2007-10-10 04:53:27 PM
The private sector does not and never has worked as a pricing scheme for necessities, only for luxuries, at least not as far as the lower 90% of the population is concerned.

/Suck it, cons.
 
2007-10-10 04:57:27 PM
Go Go Chinchilla! Besides, my cat was born in the US, and he's over 35 in cat years. That makes him eligible according to the Constitution.

He sounds overqualified
 
2007-10-10 04:57:49 PM
Let's see...returning tax money to taxpayers and encouraging workers to invest in economic growth, thereby reducing their reliance on Social Security and boosting the economy.

I can see why the right-wingers and libertarians hate this idea. Wait, what?
 
2007-10-10 04:59:12 PM
Can I borrow a </b> from anyone?
 
2007-10-10 04:59:29 PM
albo: A bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

she wants to take money from me to give to some other person who may be earning as much or more than me who is perfectly capable of opening up their own 401K but chooses not to do so, whether out of laziness, stupidity, or some other reason.

why should that be a function of government?


You don't open your own 401K, that would be a an IRA.
 
2007-10-10 05:00:59 PM
Crosshair:
What are you taking about that FDR was on the "cutting edge"? Social Security always was and always will be unsustainable over the long term. Many of his policies and programs were declared unconstitutional. Below is a good read, as is the book, "FDR's Folly".


Yes, and for an unbiased account of the Bush administration, I recommend "George W. Bush is a Baby Eating Douchebag".
 
2007-10-10 05:02:20 PM
Go Go Chinchilla!: Code_Archeologist: Because we live in a representative Democracy and the people who voted for one or more of the chosen representatives wish for it to be. This is how Democracy works.

First off, this is supposed to be a constitutional republic. Second, the Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to do this shiat.


The constitution does not disallow this.
 
2007-10-10 05:02:37 PM
I remember Bush's plan to start Social Security Savings Accounts so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2007-10-10 05:02:37 PM
Crosshair
...during the 1930s, the American economy would have been far better off if there had not been the New Deal.

So much stupid. I love when people even deny the facts of history for their modern dumbass political arguments. I mean this is just SO FUKKING STUPID
 
2007-10-10 05:02:51 PM
albo: why should the government give taxpayer money

Is it ironic when a war apologist complains about giving away taxpayer money? can I get a ruling on that...
 
2007-10-10 05:03:07 PM
How about you let me keep my $500 instead of you giving it back to me with strings. That and get back in the kitchen and make me a samich.
 
2007-10-10 05:04:18 PM
All2morrowsparTs

First off, this is supposed to be a constitutional republic. Second, the Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to do this shiat.

The constitution does not disallow this.


Anybody even bringing up what the constituion restricts must not leave the house. The last 7 years show the constitution means nothing. nothing at all.
 
2007-10-10 05:04:56 PM
Crosshair: What are you taking about that FDR was on the "cutting edge"?

His economic policies were the first implementation of Keynesianism, which really took the economics profession by storm. FDR was not an economic idiot, and was implementing what were really groundbreaking policies that had widespread support among economists.

Social Security always was and always will be unsustainable over the long term. Many of his policies and programs were declared unconstitutional.

I have no idea what either of those two claims have to do with my argument that FDR was on the cutting edge of economics. But I'll mention that if 70+ years doesn't count as "the long term" for a government program, I'm not sure what does.
 
2007-10-10 05:05:29 PM
Headso

albo: why should the government give taxpayer money

Is it ironic when a war apologist complains about giving away taxpayer money? can I get a ruling on that...


couple years ago it would have been ironic. now its just a sign of a clueless asshole.
 
2007-10-10 05:06:25 PM
albo: why should the government give taxpayer money to people who currently aren't doing something good for them (setting up a retirement account)? do we elect a president or a national mommy?

So if they called this a "Tax Rebate" you would be 1000% percent for it. But they call it something else so you are 1000% against.


Uhhhh ok.
 
2007-10-10 05:06:31 PM
Saiga410 How about you let me keep my $500

The plan is voluntary to join.

/just saying
 
2007-10-10 05:06:45 PM
Saiga410: How about you let me keep my $500 instead of you giving it back to me with strings.

No no no, this is money coming from dead rich folks. Not you.
 
2007-10-10 05:07:54 PM
Instead of taking my money from me, (to run it through Washington) why doesn't she just leave it with me and use her damn bully pulpit to tell me to invest in a way that is beneficial to me.

Oh, it's about controlling my money and to make me happy to have my money so I'll vote for her because she gave me my money.
 
2007-10-10 05:08:52 PM
Crosshair: ....during the 1930s, the American economy would have been far better off if there had not been the New Deal.

I doubt it. What would you have considered a better replacement?

Not to mention that the fat cats were still cashing in, and the US still led the rest of the world in several industries...
 
2007-10-10 05:09:28 PM
Tyee: Instead of taking my money from me, (to run it through Washington) why doesn't she just leave it with me and use her damn bully pulpit to tell me to invest in a way that is beneficial to me.

Because you are too stupid to do so and then when you get old, all the rest of us have to pay 10 times as much for your dumb ass.
 
2007-10-10 05:10:14 PM
Bush - Let's privatize social security!
Dems/Public: HERESY! IMPEACH THE CHIMP!

Hillary - Let's privatize social security!
Dems/Public: Hmm. Interesting. Let's hear her out...

Fark every one of you piece of shiat party-before-country assholes.
 
2007-10-10 05:11:12 PM
Shaggy_C: Fark every one of you piece of shiat party-before-country assholes.

Whoa. You really misunderstand the plan she's proposing.
 
2007-10-10 05:12:42 PM
Shaggy_C
Bush - Let's privatize social security!
Dems/Public: HERESY! IMPEACH THE CHIMP!

Hillary - Let's privatize social security!
Dems/Public: Hmm. Interesting. Let's hear her out...

Fark every one of you piece of shiat party-before-country assholes.


Not even close to the same thing, bro.
 
2007-10-10 05:13:14 PM
Let's take a little quiz, shall we?*

Who said:

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

* credit given to original source of this quiz later in thread along with answers...
 
2007-10-10 05:14:13 PM
*Reads article*

Blinks.

Facepalm.

/img1.fark.com
 
Displayed 50 of 262 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report