Slacker G wrote:I was listening to ABC news and a demoncrat congresswoman was addressing the topic. Not a republicrap spew.
Link: Turn on your TV or radio once in a while and hear what leaks out from the liberal news media.
She said that the 401K contributions should be reduced to and shared with people who can't afford them. In other words, same old - same old demoncrat spew about how we need to share the wealth.
I did look up some interesting aspects of 401's for people too stupid to Google it on their own. Never waste a crisis comes to mind. No disaster speak on most of these but you will find out how401's are secretly being bled on charges and fees. But why worry? By the time you can cash in the whole amount it might not even buy a loaf of bread.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/ ... KA20121126
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-thi ... genumber=1
http://www.policyshop.net/home/2012/11/ ... -401k.html
Well I'm more than aware of the fees and bleeding 401k's. That's a far cry from money specifically being taken out of mine solely or specifically to fund a 401k for someone who doesn't have one.
It's not that I don't watch CNN, or pay attention to the news, it's that I refuse to buy into our sensationalist media's claims of sky is falling every single day-
So anyways...
I went to the trouble to try and find the root of this story. It's repeated on only a few blogs that I found on a quick scan, but one of them provided a cite to an article written on the nationalseniorcouncil website. NSC's site is equatable to any other think-tank-activism site, the ARP, or even the NRA, in that it chooses political sides and supports them blindly. NSC in this case has not waivered from thier political affiliation, which is fine - everyone is biased. But when you a site allows it's bias to cloud their judgment, expect me to step in and correct that. For instance, I've commented many times on alternet when the liberal bias of an author becomes obvious and counter to the truth. I hold everyone responsible for the truth, not just one side (if only we ALL did, eh?).
But upon reading the article, I realized that none of this was based on facts, other than a meeting happened. After that, it was entirely speculation. Here's an excerpt:
"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 liberal Pension Rights Center, 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."
http://www.nationalseniorscouncil.org/i ... &Itemid=62
Robert Crone goes on to say it was a meeting solely about why americans aren't saveing retirement funds, which could mean a lot of things, but then goes on to choose ONE thing that he thinks it means and speculates on it, so of those two sentences, the only facts that exist are that our government is worried about a negative trend and met to discuss it.
So this rebecca davis even gets quoted offering that they could be discussing reforms to a system that is fairly corrupt and needs to be regulated (to which I agree), and then the article drones on about the impending doomsday, based on one sentence of speculation.
I deem this issue a non-issue. The sky is not falling.