START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
Obama Begins Push for New National Retirement System
1 year ago

A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRA’s and 401k plans, NSC is warning.
 

The hearing, held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, was monitored by NSC staff and featured a line up of left-wing activists including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans.
 

"This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could," explains National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone, "However, it is clear that this is the first step towards a government takeover. It feels just like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up."
 

A representative of the liberalPensionRightsCenter, Rebecca Davis, testified that the government needs to get involved because 401k plans and IRAs are unfair to poor people.
She demanded the Obama administration set up a "government-sponsored program administered by the PBGC (the governments’ Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation)."
She proclaimed that even "private annuities are problematic."
 

Such "reforms" would effectively end private retirement accounts inAmerica, Crone warns.
"These people want the government to require that ultimately all Americans buy these government annuities instead of saving or investing on their own. The Government could then take these trillions of dollars and redistribute it through this new national retirement system."
 

Deputy Treasury Secretary J. Mark Iwry, who presided over the hearing, is a long-time critic of 401k plans because he believes they benefit the rich. He also appears to be one of the Administration’s point man on this issue.
 

"This whole issue is moving forward very quickly," warns Crone. "Already there is a bill requiring all businesses to automatically enroll their employees in IRA plans in which part of every employee’s paycheck would be automatically deducted and deposited into this account. If this passes, the government will be just one step away from being able to confiscate all these retirement accounts."
 

NSC has taken the lead in warning the nation about this new government onslaught and is plotting ways to stop it.
 

"This effort ultimately is designed to grab the retirement nest eggs ofAmerica’s senior citizens. This new government annuity scheme, even if it is at first optional, will turn into a giant effort to redistribute the wealth ofAmerica’s older citizens," explains Crone. "This scheme mirrors what I expect the President will try to do with Social Security. He wants to turn that program into a welfare program, too."
 

NSC will likely unveil a new grassroots campaign effort later this year or early in January to coincide with the seating of the new Congress.

 

 

 

http://www.nationalseniorscouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89%3Aobama-begins-push-for-new-national-retirement-system&catid=34%3Asocial-security&Itemid=62

 

1 year ago

Looks like it is time to move to Costa Rica, Linda.    This is one of the top reasons we need to get the socialists out of our White House.     This administration needs their walking papers.   How liberals can support this president is beyond my realm of understanding.

1 year ago

Diane, I think it is because as long as they have their entitlements and are not affected by the changes he is making that will eventually hit them but that doesn't right now, they feel he is just what they need.  

Here is an example of what I mean.  When I was in my 20's and even 30's, those issues that faced the group 60 and above did not impact me.  I used to think that it was crazy to be so worried about retirement, after all, those on Social Security retirement were people who, some of which, had never paid into social security or only for a part of their life.  It was my age, and my parents that had paid in all their life.  And even then, most of the mothers had not worked, so they had not, either.  It was ouir generation of women that were now working outside the home, etc., so they were not really entitled to receive benefits; they had not paid.

Well, when I hit my 50's that all changed very dramatically in my thought process.  I did still see, to some extent, that there were many of those ahead of us receiving social security, usually from their spouse's benefits, as these women had not worked outside the home, but I could see that since the husbands had paid in more than they would ever get back out of the system, this may not be so bad.

Then I hit 60 and began to see it much more close to home, my own benefits and I realized  that the changes to Social Security retirement were critical; we were finding that 65 was no longer the retirement date, it was now 67 and for those born after us, 70.  I began to see that when the single largest group of adults in the history of the U.S. to date, the Baby Boomers, were now not allowed to retire with full benefits until 67 that this was meant to protect the funds since the government had been spending this money on other budget areas (which was against the law I might add if you read what was to be done with the money) and also preventing the generation following from working into the higher pay scaled jobs for that much longer which would have a trickle down affect on each subsequent generaton.  It was no longer a case of "resenting" a generation ahead.  And now I was learning what it is like to be the "resented" generation and we are.  Young people today feel that they are supporting us, that we all want our benefits when we don't deserve them, that we are bankrupting social secuirty, etc.  I have heard all of this and more from the younger generation.  I sit back and realize that they will be 60 some day and it will look much different for them; in the meantime, we get to hear the complaints.

To know that Obama wants to do this to dismantle a part of the retirement plan that those of us have to rely upon; that is unthinkable and yes, he has to go as does his administration and those in Congress that support this sort of thinking.  401K's and private retirement portfolios are all that most of the retired have to secure their livelihood; they took funds and invested this from their own wages, they will be taxed on it as they use it, but this is not enough for Obama.  They want to replace these successfully monitored funds, ones that make the most profit for the individual, and replace it with Government annuities (such as government savings bonds) that traditionally are so regulated that they only allow a minimal percent of profit, nothing near what privately handled investments have yielded.  

What is the most pathetic in their assessment is that it is not primarily something the very wealthy have invested in, if I am not mistaken.  401K's are funds that benefit the middle class, it is through their employers and their own investing that these exist.  It is people like you and I, not the wealthy that benefit from them.  

I read in another article on this that the Obama Administration had ordered that each of the 4 years he has been president that the government buy up all treasury bonds that were not purchased each year and they now have a huge surplus of these and that this is what they plan to use for the "new plan".  So it is not a new thing, just one more step in his plan to socialize the U.S.

1 year ago

Well Ladies: it appears it is wiser to never work, just get all of the entitlements and since you are deemed poor and Obama only takes care of those who do not work FIRST, be part of that class.

That is the message being sent. Pls. read Bill O'Reilly's article I put up as it clearly defines Obamaism and the mentality he is growing. We are heading down a path of erosion from within.

People who produce are punished while people who do nothing but expect support are rewarded.
This redistribution of retirement monies from seniors and eventually all workers who pay into it is highway robbery.

I blame the masses out there who refuse to read and analyze events using history as their guideline. There are so many stupid people that it is overwhelming for me to comprehend how it all happened. I do believe there are far too many people dependent upon prescription drugs, regular drugs and alcohol. This is part of the problem. These people are not living in reality.

1 year ago

Unfortunately also for the kleptomaniacs in the government and in the "progressive" groups pushing this if they do this it will kill the world economy even more and probably bring down a total meltdown of both the economy and society in general. Keep in mind these funds are invested in stocks, corporate bonds, money markets in banks and other financial institutions, and even government obligations of both foreign countries and many state and local governments and authorities in the US. If they take the funds and liquidate them the value of many will fall or be wiped out and they may well not get the monies they expect and may also cause many of those issuing the obligations to fail or default as well. Whatever they do get they will of course spend giving the budget a temporary boost but that will not stop the future spending on wasteful programs and will now be another program that is an 'entitlement". They all are like their economic gurus such as Reich, Krugmann, Geitner, and the rest economic idiots many with advanced degrees from alleged "excellent" schools.

1 year ago

John, the ivy league brigade are Saul Alinsky pupils and followers of The Cloward-Pivan Strategy.    That's a problem.   Bill and Hillary Clinton are followers as well again from the ivy league schools.    Obama taught The Cloward-Pivan Strategy at Harvard.    He follows "Rules for Radicals" and, of course, became a "community organizer."

 

What I don't understand is that our young were raised by personal responsibility Americans.   When I sent my three to their universities, raised in a Republican home, they returned as flaming liberals.    When they needed money to buy a home they had to get it from their republican parents LOL!    It wasn't too long before two of the three changed their minds about our government once they started paying taxes and planning their futures.   The third one says she is an independent and that's okay.   

 

I have to agree with all of you for different reasons that you wrote about.   All of them true and that is the resentment of the young that they now have to take their turn to pay into social security for their parents.   I also agree that Bill O'Reilly hit the ball out of the park when he stated that people who voted for Obama want more free "stuff."   They believe that the government should take care of them and know best what is good for them in the future.    John is correct in predicting the future about the economy crashing if the government takes over our private investments.

 

For me, I went back to work nearly two years ago for one reason:   invest my income to make sure my grandchildren had college funding.    Nearly everything I earn goes into 401k and other investments.    I plan to continue this for the next eight years.  

 

If this does happen, you'll see Americans sending their money out of the country to "safe" banks.    Our young people won't have retirement investments to look forward to because the government will have what little they've put away and will spend it the same way they deplete the social security account in Washington DC.

 

The clear answer is that we need to get the progressives out of our White House to save our country.    Right now we don't seem to have a clue on how to accomplish this.

 

The Tea Party is a group of concerned Americans who may be our only hope.   Maybe they will be our third party in 2016.   They need a strong leader.   What is Sarah Palin's role in our future?    Can she lead the Tea Party and capture a victory?    Who else is out there?   Have we not met the person who can bring sense to a dying America an America we don't recognize today?

 

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.    Sarah Palin was ruined in the left wing media.  They were relentless in ripping her entire family to shreds.   Yet, her popularity among Americans is still significant.   She was instrumental in promoting winners for congress. What is her true strength or is her moment lost forever?  

1 year ago

Diane: I think the tea party is now inconsequential. I don't believe Palin has a solid leadership backing within the ranks of the GOP. The TP is waning and people have turned against it with the MSM doing its effective job in destroying their reputation.


 There are too many groups within the TP who war with one another, Mark Meckler, the orig. TP leader left because of inside bickering and it was all over the monies.


 Then you have the libertarians who are the Ron Paul zealots who you cannot reason with as they were the 3 million who would not vote for Mitt under any circumstances.
This is division within and it is not good.


There needs to be the age old conservative platform which is what the Republican party originally stood for come back to life and it has to be led by one or a few extremely strong, decisive leaders.

 If the GOP does another nasty round of debates like the last one; then the democratic nominee wins again. All the ammunition Obama used was from those debates and he emphasized all the negativity to extremes against Romney in the venue of vulture capitalism which was coined by Rick Perry and used by all on that stage.


 We must analyze mistakes to learn in the future. This is what smart people do, it is being analytical and reflective so the same errors will not be repeated in 2016.

 

I do think christie is problematic, he is the type who will dredge up messy stuff which dems will use.  i don't see the others as nasty people; but I see a huge problem with christie.

He is not favorable in the GOP now and he will stoop low to bring others down.

I can predict the debates without the other players being mentioned.  One bad apple can be a spoiler.  I hope he does NOT run; but his ego is too big.

 

This liberal progressive agenda to transform American may continue for a few decades and dems remain in power.  It is when America is brought to the brink that the party becomes exposed.

 

This national retirement system will give the liberal progressive democratic politicians plenty of money.  It is a new venue to make loads of incoming money but eventually it will dry up because of entitlement spending, public pension plans and reckless spending on their ventures of Chinese style capitalism which is green companies and excess spending on themselves.  They will get emboldened because they are giving everyones money all around; they will reward themselves on a larger scale.   This is their mentality.

 

They will also run more and more blacks, hispanics into office.  Maxine Waters will be the norm and there will be more Barney Franks all lined up to rule our government and transform our government and our country.    The old Protestant work ethic is laughed at now and the MSM is trying to make white conservative politicians dinosaurs.  



This post was modified from its original form on 25 Nov, 4:06
1 year ago

I am not sure that I fully agree that the Republican Party is not viable enough to elect a president in 2016.  I feel that we saw a log of very intelligent and wise people emerging during the RNC; some of them women with a very sound and strong leadership and who understand the issues.  I also think that the Republican Party does have to make some serious changes in their approach to the elections.  

There needs to be voter reform, a drastic reform of our election process from mail in ballots, early balloting, military ballots and how those from overseas reach the U.S., and possibly even the primary and caucaus procedures.  The electoral college needs some serious consideration, as well.  This is not just necessary for Federal elections, a lot of it is necessary for local and state elections, as well.  

I also think that the time of 5 or more candidates for the presidential election is way too may and only weakens the system and this is something that the Republicans need to seriously look at; the Democrats can continue to do that as we could care less what they do in terms of numbers running for the nomination.

I also think it is time for both sides to take morality out of politics where they have no business; these issues have nothing to do with running the Country.  They also need to get entitlement programs out of the Federal government as they do not belong there, either.  

I remember when I was working as secretary for the Church I belonged to at the time.  I can't tell you how many people came to our door looking for money for food, housing, gas to get to the next town or home to their family, medical care, utility bills, etc.  What the church community did was to form a network which was represented by all churches, faiths, etc. in our community.  The various pastors, priests and rabbis, etc. had found that the same people were going form church to church getting help for the same things over and over which meant that fewer people were helped and it was it's own form of fraud.  So the network was a means to prevent this.  The churches would refer them to a central location and here they were screened, their needs assessed, and help was given them if legitimate needs.  Each church contributed to this network to help those in need rather than individually helping people.  In our case, the central location was the Salvation Army.  They then would send people to the various other sources including community action centers such as the food bank, housing authority, etc., Catholic Charities, Women and Child Crisis Center, etc.  It was much more affective, was locally monitored and they were able to eliminate fraud.  That, to me, is where entitlement programs such as these should be handled,  not through the Federal Government and our tax dollars do not need to fund the agencies to hand out the entitlements, either.  In our case, there was not one paid official overseeing this; it was all volunteers and much more effective.  

I know I have left the topic here, but just think what would happen to social security if the money we pay into that fund were not being used for unnecessary Federal programs.  

As to our retirement funds, the government has enough regulatory power now, they do not need to intrude into this any further.  I know that they set the amount of profit a company is allowed to share with their employees, much of the time less that the employer might wish to share.  The also set the guidelines for the amount an employer is allowed to match in 401K programs.  Now they are proposing to become even more intrusive and this is wrong. The concept that 401K only helps the wealthy is so totally out of order; I certainly am not a wealthy person and I contributed to 401K and had a plan, my ex did as well.  I am a friend that makes $15,000 a year and contributes to a 401K with her employer as well.  So it is something that all socio-economic groups benefit from; you just have to have an income to do this and there is the real issue.  

It is not the middle class or the poor that need to have the wealth shared with them, it is those that do not wish to help themselves and these are the people that Obama and progressives are trying to reach as this is the group that will help them weaken the system the most.  It is also those students that want their education for free and are doing little to nothing to help themselves, convinced that studying is all they are able to devote time to and it is up to parents, society, government to financially take care of all else to insure they get that education.  Again, that is again wrong.  Many, many students both in the past and even now are working 2 -3 jobs and going to school full time and paying their own way.  They find scholarships through private business or corporations, they find the ability to do this without federal grants, as well.  Some have to borrow money from banks and pay it back, but they are doing what they have to do to get their education without it being free from the government.

Yes, we have to stand our ground, but we have to look at all aspects such as voting procedures and moral issues and make some better choices in 2016, but we can still win the presidential election, I believe.  Obama is making decisions that are only going to weaken the Democrats in the next 4 years and I do believe people will be prepared to make a better decision if the Republicans can prove that the liberal methods are not working, can't work and give the people positive proof that they can do better, they can repair the damage.

1 year ago

Linda:  I hope you are right about Obamaism failing that quickly and the country feels it immediately.  I am not sure it will be that soon though.  It takes time to breakdown a system and I do not believe the true statistics are coming out either.

 

Obama will get new monies with taxes, Obamacare and if he does not cut programs, the spending will be more excessive.  If he continues that track, maybe ... it is too hard to predict as there are a lot of stupid people voting now.

 

Even dealing with reps. in businesses, how many times do you have to recall as they are giving misinformation.  They are really incompetent and it is alarming.  This has been a growing problem and it is worse now.

 

I think the republicans are in emergency mode and will reconstruct wisely; people who work will get very tired of supporting others who do not work.  The payroll taxes are going up in January and it hits hard.  Again, people have to feel it to start voting wisely and think about the future of their lives and this country.

 

These last two elections were media manipulated and that is a huge problem.   

1 year ago

Carol, thank you for adding this as I know that a lot of us are concerned and rightfully so.  This is not going to help the middle class and even some lower income; they are going to be subjected to the tax, too.  So where is his concept of spreading the wealth?  He doesn't make sense to me.  He is trying to sell his plan by telling the middle and low income that the top 1% are going to be sharing their wealth with them but that is not necessarily what is really happening here.  It is just another way for him to impose taxation and raise funds to run his entitlement programs and bailouts or stimulus programs.

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.