I admit it doesn't say it is Obama's plan. When I was posting before, I was just addressing the issue of whether it was a real plan or Rush-fantasy, and not whose plan it was.
Now that I admit it doesn't expressly say it is Obama's plan, will you concede that as the current de facto head of the Democratic Party, possible the most powerful head ever because of the nature and timing of his win, that this plan would be dead in the water if he was against it.
From today's LA TImes.
Rush Limbaugh accused Obama's party of plotting a government takeover of 401(k) retirement plans. "They're going to take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund, whatever the hell that is," Limbaugh woofed. "Trust fund, my rear end."
A slight problem with Limbaugh's report: Obama and the Democrats have proposed no such thing.
The proposal, in fact, emanated from a single economist, one of many experts testifying to a congressional committee.
The president-elect has thus far shown as much interest in taking over your 401(k) as he has in moving the capital to Nairobi. (If you look hard, you might find that one somewhere out there in the blogosphere, too.)
To broadcast such a report -- so drained of context as to constitute a lie -- would be a shameless act at any time. But Limbaugh needlessly stirred the fears of the millions he holds in his thrall -- making the 401(k) thievery sound like nearly a done deal. Shameless.
-- Modified on 11/9/2008 8:59:57 AM
Clinton tried to do this, but was stopped by Gingrich. What makes you think it won't be tried again with the dems in control of everything? That's a very big pile of money the government could use right now.
Google "401K govt takeover" and you will see many articles about it. Rush did not make it up.
Here is one example from 20smoney.com:
Reports have surfaced in recent days over House Democrat attempts to make significant changes to 401(k) plans in our country. They first want to remove the tax break we currently receive by contributing funds to a 401(k) plan. Then, they wish to enroll everyone into a government run retirement plan where you would be required to put away 5% of your income to earn a 3% return. Let’s look at why this is likely to happen.
First, there are two reasons why I think that this is going to happen (assuming Obama is elected President).
1. The wealth building gap or the savings rate between races (specifically, black vs white) is fairly large. The interesting thing is that this still applies even when a black person earns as much as a white person. The current issue of Money Magazine (or maybe Smart Money) has an interesting article on this. The important thing to note here is the “fairness” rhetoric we are hearing in this political season. It is deemed unfair that a certain segment of society is more responsible with their money than the next. Therefore, government should control all entire retirement savings to ensure equal savings.
2. The stock market has suffered serious declines. It is easy for government to assume more power and authority during times of fear. Right now that fear is economical. You will see more calls for government to “buy up” 401(k) plans that have suffered severe losses. You will hear this concept presented as a bailout for individual’s retirements. Risk, apparently, is now a concept that is unacceptable.
No. It isn't Rush. Below is a link that refers you to the newpapar article giving names of congresspersons proposing it. This link was actually in the post below on this issue.
It is amazing that something can be this well documented and some one says it is a Limbaugh propaganda ploy.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/display_story.html?id=5081
Of course, once you see the source you are going to say, "Oh, I made a mistake. It is a shocking idea. I am sorry I doubted you."
No. I don't think you will admit it.
Here's part of the transcript:
RUSH: George Miller, who runs a congressional committee, Democrat in California, came out with the first notion of just getting rid of your being able to deduct for your income your contribution to your 401(k), that the government is "losing" $80 billion and we can't afford lose that so they want to take that away. Then they had a hearing last week where a professor from the New School for Social Research, a professor of economics, Teresa Ghilarducci, she appeared and said: I've got a better plan. What we want to do, we want to take your 401(k) at its August level, before the crash. We'll give you that equivalent and put it in your Social Security account, essentially, and we're going to invest that money that we take from your retirement account, your 401(k), at its August level. We're going to buy government bonds with it, which will guarantee you 3% -- and then we will require that you put 5% of your pay into your 401(k) although it's not yours anymore. The government owns it. They will manage it. They will take care of it, and then when your retirement day comes you'll get your Social Security check and part of your check will be whatever your 401(k) monthly payout is, after 3% of growth every year under the stewardship of the government. So I mentioned this on Greta's show.
.
.
.
RUSH: Spreading the wealth! Her proposal... Now, this is not Obama's yet. This is George Miller's idea. This is the Democrats in Congress.
.
.
.
RUSH: I want to go back and play the last sound bite here with Teresa Ghilarducci, who is a professor of economics at the New School for Social Research, and she testified before a House committee, Democrat committee last week on how she thinks the government should basically take your 401(k) and administer it, take it away from you. That's bad enough, but it is worse than that, because she says "spread the wealth around." What that means is spread your wealth, your wealth. So let's say you have a 401(k), and I'm just going to use an arbitrary number, your 401(k) right now has assets in it of $50,000, somebody else has assets of $30,000, she doesn't think that's fair to the person that has 30,000. So rather than you get a tax subsidy based on your 39% tax bracket, she's going to give you and the person with an IRA of 30,000, 600 bucks and call it even, a year, plus invest the value of your IRA at 3% adjusted for inflation and then pay you back when you retire. You'll get one check, it will say Social Security Administration. Your 401(k) is gone. The max you can contribute to it under her plan every year would be 5%. It's gone. Kaput. Now, this is not Obama's plan, I want to stress. This is the Democrats in Congress. This is what they want to do. I don't care if they're Obama or if they're George Miller, Barney Frank, liberals are liberals, socialists are socialists. Now, you listen to Teresa Ghilarducci here again as Kirby Wilbur in Seattle tries to understand this. He says, "You're gonna supplement this with this $600 annual payment that everybody with a 401(k) is gonna get."
END TRANSCRIPT
Hear that. . .
"Her proposal... Now, this is not Obama's yet. This is George Miller's idea."
"Now, this is not Obama's plan, I want to stress."
Twice, just here, he took extra steps to make it clear.
-- Modified on 11/9/2008 12:23:35 PM
It's just the typical Limbaugh technique of fear mongering. The Democrats have not proposed anything like Limbaugh said. One economist at a hearing threw out the proposal. There is no pending or proposed legislation on this issue. Just Limbaugh being Limbaugh. Keep fear alive 08.
This isn't something that the economist happened to 'spring' on the committee. The Dems knew EXACTLY what she was going to say before they let her in the door. She was invited specifically because of this opinion. If you do not believe that YOUR Buds in Congress wouldn't LOVE to get their hands on all that 401K stash then you are worse than naive.
But then maybe you don't have a 401K and you also think it's a good idea, but won't admit it.
-- Modified on 11/10/2008 5:15:39 PM
I admit it doesn't say it is Obama's plan. When I was posting before, I was just addressing the issue of whether it was a real plan or Rush-fantasy, and not whose plan it was.
Now that I admit it doesn't expressly say it is Obama's plan, will you concede that as the current de facto head of the Democratic Party, possible the most powerful head ever because of the nature and timing of his win, that this plan would be dead in the water if he was against it.
You need to quit listening to just sounds bites, reading just headlines or maybe all of the LA Times.
Limbaugh made it ABSOLUTELY clear that this was NOT Obama's plan. He made it perfectly clear that this was an idea from the economist Teresa Ghilarducci and put forward by Democrat Committee Chairman George Miller.
The LA Time’s tactic which you fell for hook, line and sinker, is to take one or two sentences out of context and then twist the meaning into something else.
Grown up or better yet, try listening for yourself.