An obscure SCOTUS ruling last week sets the stage for Obama to seize your 401(k)

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

An obscure SCOTUS ruling last week sets the stage for Obama to seize your 401(k)

Tapping the estimated $19.4 trillion dollars in private pension plans is every progressive socialist’s wet dream. I warned you Obama had his eye on your 401(k), and now a little noticed Supreme Court ruling just gave him the green light to seize your money.

The US Supreme Court ruled last week in the unanimous, 8-page decision in Tibble v. Edison holding that employers have a duty to protect workers in their 401(k) plans from mutual funds that are too expensive or perform poorly. That is simply astonishing since there is no constitutional requirement for even government to provide social benefits.

Remember when the Constitution provided a limit to government power?

Yeah, me neither.

Now the Constitution says the government has to protect you from your own bad investment decisions. Er, SCOTUS says the government has to protect you from your own bad investment decisions. The Constitution is silent on the matter. But, emanations of penumbras, or some such rubbish dontcha know.

Monday’s unanimous ruling sends a warning to employers that they now must improve their plans and it is now an obligation to project employees. This comes just in time for then the next step is government to seize private funds and prosecute employers who choose badly a fund manager. This fits perfectly just in time for the Obama administration’s next assault as they prepare a landmark change of its own by issuing rules requiring that financial advisers put the interest of customers ahead of their own. This creates a very gray area wide enough to justify public seizure of pension funds under management.

Read that again, in case you didn’t catch the part where the government is going to decide if your 401(k) is “good enough.”

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Yet this decision is even deeper. It sets the stage to JUSTIFY government seizure of private pension funds to protect pensioners. When the economy turns down and things get messy, they are placing measures in place to eliminate money in and physical physical dimension, closing all tax loopholes, shutting down the world economy with FATCA, and preparing for the final straw of Economic Totalitarianism with the Supreme Court reversing its entire construction of the Constitution to impose a duty upon employers to ensure the 401K plans perform in a world where interest rates are going negative. You really cannot make up this level of insanity.

Oh, this level of insanity is just what a guy like Bernie Sanders ordered. It’s the nanny state, writ large.

Bureaucrats answerable to Sanders’ cohort Elizabeth Warren will now get to decide if your 401(k) plan cuts the mustard. They’ll arbitrarily set a cap on management fees, and punish any fund that exceeds their idea of a “reasonable” profit.

The punishment? Seizing the fund’s assets, and forcing your money into an investment in Treasury bonds.

Then you’re just another creditor to Obama, standing in line behind all the geezers on Social Security. Good luck getting paid, after all you’re also collecting Social Security, and sooner or later you’ve made enough money.

Between the court ruling and the Obama administration’s push for stronger fiduciary rules send a strong message that government can much easier seize the pension fund management industry of course to “protect the consumer.”

Who’s gonna protect us from the government?

You knuckleheads shoulda thought that through before you elected a committed Marxist to the presidency.

Share

Obama Is Eying Your Savings!

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Obama Is Eying Your Savings!: Our Contributor Jim, living in a communist dictatorship, knows all to well how this pans out…

Remember when President Obama said “there comes a point when a person has earned enough”? Well, it should be a surprise that he also feels that people have saved more than they need for retirement. Mr. Obama has given new meaning to the word “arrogance”.

With this scandal a day administration, it is no wonder some of their plans to get their hands on more of your money slip under the radar.

On Aril 12, 2013, the Wall Street Journal wrote:

How many times have you read financial-advice stories lecturing you to max-out on your IRA, save as much as you can in your 401(k), and even pay taxes now to change your regular IRA into a Roth IRA that will be tax-free until you die?

Well, be careful how much you save.

Assistant OpinionJournal.com editor Allysia Finley on President Obama’s attack on tax deferred retirement accounts.

A lot of job-switchers are ignoring what may be one of the best options to get the most out of their retirement: Moving their savings into their new employer’s 401(k). MarketWatch’s Jim Jelter explains the benefits.

That’s the message in President Obama’s budget for fiscal 2014, which for the first time proposes to cap the amount Americans can save in these tax-sheltered investment vehicles. The White House explanation is that some people have accumulated “substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.” So Mr. Obama proposes to “limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million for someone retiring in 2013.”

On April 14, 2013, the Independent Sentinel wrote:

THEY ARE COMING FOR YOU NEXT, make no mistake about that!. They already proposed it back in 2008. The government is on the hunt for more money to support its spending problem. President Obama wants more “revenue” – “taxes” – so he can make more “investments” as he spreads the wealth around.

You need to be afraid, very afraid!

Americans have $17.5 trillion in savings with 25% of it in IRA’s. It is a future source of revenue for the government if they can get their hands on it.

President Barack Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget plan estimated that retirement tax deductions taken by employers and individuals over the next five years add up to $429 billion in “lost” tax revenue. The government believes your savings is their lost revenue.

See how that works? Because you take a legal tax deduction, the government is getting screwed. Never mind that the original idea was to give citizens an incentive to save. Further along in the Independent Sentinel article we find this:

Share

IRS Intercepts Tax Returns!

Share

Think you’re getting a tax return?  Well, maybe not, if the IRS has their way.  IOwnTheWorld has more…

Marc Fisher reporting in the Washington Post:

Across the nation, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who are expecting refunds this month are instead getting letters like the one [Mary] Grice [of Takoma Park, Md.] got, informing them that because of a debt they never knew about — often a debt incurred by their parents — the government has confiscated their check.

The Treasury Department has intercepted $1.9 billion in tax refunds already this year — $75 million of that on debts delinquent for more than 10 years, said Jeffrey Schramek, assistant commissioner of the department’s debt management service. The aggressive effort to collect old debts started three years ago — the result of a single sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts to Uncle Sam.

No one seems eager to take credit for [the provision]…

Remember that Farm Bill that no one read?  Yeah, that’s what you get when you elect fools to office.

Share

Will The Government Steal Your Savings? It’s More Likely Than You Think?

Share

This has been a recurrent theme for several years.  It’s been simmering on the back burner, so to speak, but it continues to get some attention from time to time.  The issue is savings.  Whether it be your 401k, or your IRA, or even a savings account; the democrats has been eying them like a crackhead views their pipe.  Big government has wasted trillions on making more poor people, creating dependency, paying off contributors, punishing enemies, arming those that kill Christians, and trying to prop up their union buddies.  Now, after building up an unsustainable debt, they need another fix, and your savings is becoming mighty attractive to them.  Remember the old cartoons where two characters are starving?  remember how one character would look at another, and see a sandwich?  It’s kinda like that.  Doug Ross has the latest developments…

This didn’t just happen over night. The move to make this reality has been going on for quite some time. The first time it was mentioned publicly in any official capacity was at a 2010 Congressional hearing:

Democrats in the Senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more “fairly” distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee heard from hand-picked witnesses advocating the infamous “Guaranteed Retirement Account” (GRA) authored by Theresa Guilarducci.

In a nutshell, under the GRA system government would seize private 401(k) accounts, setting up an additional 5% mandatory payroll tax to dole out a “fair” pension to everyone using that confiscated money coupled with the mandated contributions. This would, of course, be a sister government ponzi scheme working in tandem with Social Security, the primary purpose being to give big government politicians additional taxpayer funds to raid to pay for their out-of-control spending.

You’d think that such an idea would be immediately dismissed by the American public, but it has only gained steam since, as evidenced by a 2012 hearing held at the U.S. Labor Department:

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.

Such “reforms” would effectively end private retirement accounts in America, Crone warns.

A few years ago the government of the United States of America nationalized nearly 1/6th of our economy when they took over the health care system with forced mandates. In the process they essentially took control of $1.6 trillion in yearly industry revenues.

But that’s nothing compared to private savings. The total amount of retirement assets in America, including 401k, IRA and savings accounts is around $21 trillion. With our national debt coincidentally approaching the same, the government sees big money and potentially a way out of our country’s fiscal disaster.

This will start voluntarily with the MyRA and other state-sponsored programs. But when not enough Americans are making it their patriotic duty to turn over their funds to their government, they’ll mandate compliance with the stroke of a pen just as they did with the Patient Affordable Care Act.

This is spot on.  And, by the way, the excerpt is a small part of a much larger post.  I’d advise you to go over there to read the rest.

As you look at the MyRA scam.  Think of these…

1.  The Income Tax was only going to be on the rich, and at a small percentage.  Look at your next pay-stub, and see how true that is.

2.  Social Security funds were going to be kept separate from all other government funds?  Just remember that what you pay in to SS goes right out to fund the government, and interest on the debt.  As for the “lock box?”  It’s full of worthless government IOU’s.

Anything the government offers now will be changed in order to rip you off.  They’ll say some thing to get you to buy in, like, “if you like your plan…”  Then, once they have the power, and your savings, they’ll do whatever they want with it, and you’ll be left will a meaningless IOU.  Then, when you retire, you’ll find that you get nothing, because some democrat constituent group needed your hard earned savings more than you do.

And, then, you’ll regret your votes for democrats.

Share

Obama Is Eyeing Your Savings!

Share

Remember when President Obama said “there comes a point when a person has earned enough”? Well, it should be a surprise that he also feels that people have saved more than they need for retirement. Mr. Obama has given new meaning to the word “arrogance”.

With this scandal a day administration, it is no wonder some of their plans to get their hands on more of your money slip under the radar.

On Aril 12, 2013, the Wall Street Journal wrote:

How many times have you read financial-advice stories lecturing you to max-out on your IRA, save as much as you can in your 401(k), and even pay taxes now to change your regular IRA into a Roth IRA that will be tax-free until you die?

Well, be careful how much you save.

Assistant OpinionJournal.com editor Allysia Finley on President Obama’s attack on tax deferred retirement accounts.

A lot of job-switchers are ignoring what may be one of the best options to get the most out of their retirement: Moving their savings into their new employer’s 401(k). MarketWatch’s Jim Jelter explains the benefits.

That’s the message in President Obama’s budget for fiscal 2014, which for the first time proposes to cap the amount Americans can save in these tax-sheltered investment vehicles. The White House explanation is that some people have accumulated “substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.” So Mr. Obama proposes to “limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million for someone retiring in 2013.”

On April 14, 2013, the Independent Sentinel wrote:

THEY ARE COMING FOR YOU NEXT, make no mistake about that!. They already proposed it back in 2008. The government is on the hunt for more money to support its spending problem. President Obama wants more “revenue” – “taxes” – so he can make more “investments” as he spreads the wealth around.

You need to be afraid, very afraid!

Americans have $17.5 trillion in savings with 25% of it in IRA’s. It is a future source of revenue for the government if they can get their hands on it.

President Barack Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget plan estimated that retirement tax deductions taken by employers and individuals over the next five years add up to $429 billion in “lost” tax revenue. The government believes your savings is their lost revenue.

See how that works? Because you take a legal tax deduction, the government is getting screwed. Never mind that the original idea was to give citizens an incentive to save. Further along in the Independent Sentinel article we find this:

Share

NY State Using Medical Records to Confiscate Firearms

Share

Ask anybody, and they’ll say that the core of the Roe vs. Wade decision is the right to “privacy” between the doctor and patient.  In other words, the state cannot interfere, or even know what’s going on in the doctor-patient relationship.  Unless, that is, it’s about ObamaCare, then all bets are off.  The government gets to tell you and you doctor all sorts of things that need to happen, or not, and eventually, what the fee schedule for all of it is anyway.

Now, let’s combine that with another story.  Last week, I covered the story regarding a boy talking about a squirt gun while in school.  According to the statistics, the next logical step was to confiscate the father’s real guns.  The current objective is to confiscate firearms, and any and all measures are in use.  At that point, I noted…

Gun grabbers will go to any length to take as many guns from as many people as possible.  The more people that are disarmed or criminalized, the better.  So, with that in mind, it doesn’t particularly matter how asinine the reasoning, as long as the job gets done, it’s all good. Even if they have to justify it with a squirt gun, it’s all good! 

Doug Ross has identified “Plan B,” or “how to confiscate guns when the owners child does not discuss squirt guns at school.” 

Amazing, isn’t it? The Aurora, Colorado movie shooter was on all sorts of prescription medications, warned his psychiatrist of violent fantasies and even left her a notebook. That book remains sealed. The defense has argued, successfully thus far, that it is not evidence because it “is part of doctor-patient privileged communication“. Yet, according to New York’s Tresmond law firm, some of that state’s law enforcement agencies are dipping into private medical records for the purposes of gun confiscation:

John Doe, an upstanding professional with no outstanding criminal convictions and no history of violent action received a letter from the Pistol Permit Department informing him that his license was immediately revoked upon information that he was seeing a therapist for anxiety and had been prescribed an anxiety drug. He was never suicidal, never violent, and has no criminal history. The New York State Department of Health is apparently conducting a search of medical records to determine who is being treated for anxiety drugs and using this as a basis for handgun license revocation.

I would like to add that the police departments are demanding that whomever turns in a pistol also turn in accessories for that pistol such as magazines, despite the fact that these magazines are not firearms themselves and anyone can purpose a magazine without a pistol license. Even more troubling was the fact that the police officer taking custody of the pistols cheerily informed the client that “the department” would be destroying his pistols if they were not retrieved within one year. When she was questioned as to what he should do should he choose to sell the pistols out of state, given that he has a property right to the monetary value of the gun, she became confused, her expressions changed to perplexed, and she made a referral to another officer.

Those are the facts. Nothing more, nothing less. (Signed, Max Tresmond)

Wow, where to begin with this?  Anybody hear of HIPPA?  I mean, there are actual criminal penalties for violating it.  Give out medical records, and you could go to jail.  And, if this is legal, does the state have the right to interfere with the doctor -patient relationship?  Is the “right to privacy” in Roe vs. Wade out the window?  What does that mean for the abortion business?  And, when does the state have the right to confiscate private property with out cause or compensation?  Of course, leftists have an objective in mind, and if anything the rule of law is little more than a tool to be perverted, if not outright ignored in order to achieve the stated intent.  It’s all about the ability to confiscate firearms, and no perversion of privacy, law, or justice is off the table.


You can support the CH 2.0 with your Amazon purchases, at no additional expense!

Share

Was Cyprus a Test Case for the Government Takeover of our Private Retirement Accounts

Share

Obama_Money

There be GOLD in them thar 401k’s, said the statists!  There have been rumblings about government wanting our private retirement accounts since the earliest days of the Obama presidency.  It’s been floated again and again, but hasn’t gotten traction, or does it even need to have political support at all?  As we have seen, Obama and his cohorts are more than willing to subvert the Constitution to do as they please.  And no one seems interested in stopping them.  Wyblog, who aptly quote my Post on the Great Bank Robbery in Cyprus, draws the inevitable relationship between the Great Bank  Robbery, and the potential Great Retirement Swindle. 

Think it can’t happen here? Think again.

According to Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge the U.S. would need a one-time 24% to 26% haircut in order to cover the massive national debt run up by Obama (and Bush). Here’s the relevant chart:

Cyprus is the Test Case. The EU’s guinea pig. If they get away with it, they’ll do it again. And again.

Then Obama will do it too.

Now, get over to Wyblog, because he has even more.  Then head back here for my take…

Ok then, Obama and company has created a massive amount of debt, and low an behold, we citizens have quite the nest egg.   So, government gets to thinking, “gee we haven’t quite run out of other people’s money yet,” and decide to take a sizeable cut of everyone’s retirement accounts.  After all, it’s probably unfair that they have it anyway, and they can rely of Social Security, like everyone else (snicker).  In fact, they didn’t earn it, someone else made it happen, so it’s perfectly OK for Fedzilla to devour it.  Here’s what I think will happen…

1.  Government goes on a spending binge of unprecedented scale.  The money will not go to debt reduction, but to campaign contributors.  “Too big to fail” entities, of which major investors are campaign contributors, will see cuts of the pie.  Labor unions will get a cut.  Community organizations that run the voter fraud schemes will get handouts.  Obamaphones will be upgraded with a satellite dish…you get the point.  It will be turtle tunnels galore.  And none of it will do a damn thing to actually fix anything.

2.  Then, when the money is gone, the crisis will be amped up again.  Of course, producers will be blamed, since  they are so pesky and productive.  Of course, it’ll be perfectly OK to go back for another dip.  After all, productive people are why all the jobs went away, and that there’s global warming.  And, they hate puppies too.   I bet the low information crowd will eat that up.

3.  Eventually, those that produce will be robbed to the point of either poverty, or the smart ones will go Galt.  They will then need government assistance.  They will be dependent, as intended.

I’m exaggerating, I know, but sometimes, hyperbole is cathartic.  It’s frustrating watching this unfold, writing about it-only to see some useful idiot get his or her panties in a bundle when the excrement hits the proverbial fan.

Share

Chinese Uprising and OWS: Freedom vs. Slavery

Share

In the event you haven’t heard, a Chinese town of  20,000, Wukan, is in open rebellion against the ChiComs, throwing out the local Communist officials.  Here is more from The Other McCain…

Malcolm Moore reports from Wukan, China:

For the first time on record, the Chinese Communist party has lost all control, with the population of 20,000 in this southern fishing village now in open revolt.
The last of Wukan’s dozen party officials fled on Monday after thousands of people blocked armed police from retaking the village, standing firm against tear gas and water cannons.
Since then, the police have retreated to a roadblock, some three miles away, in order to prevent food and water from entering, and villagers from leaving. Wukan’s fishing fleet, its main source of income, has also been stopped from leaving harbour.
The plan appears to be to lay siege to Wukan and choke a rebellion which began three months ago when an angry mob, incensed at having the village’s land sold off, rampaged through the streets and overturned cars.
Although China suffers an estimated 180,000 “mass incidents” a year, it is unheard of for the Party to sound a retreat. . . .

These are clearly some brave people, and they are literally risking their lives in this rebellion.  The ChiComs may not be quite as murderous as they were under Mao, but they are still a totalitarian regime.  Needless to say, our hope and prayers ought to go out to these people.  They’re going to need all of the help that they can get.  Hopefully, they all don’t “disappear” (and our homegrown Communists boldly state that they never existed).

I’m thinking that eventually, someone is going to compare this to OWS.  More likely than not, they are going to say something to the effect that these people are somehow resisting capitalism.  Also, it reminds me of a recent exchange I had with our friend, The Classic Liberal.  We had a disagreement regarding my take on the Occupy Berkeley Pepper Spray Incident.  Here is that exchange…

theCLNovember 26, 2011 at 11:50 pm

I must vehemently disagree with you here.

Look, I find the OWS movement mostly wrong, ideologically confused, and incredibly uninteresting. But whatever it is they are or aren’t, doesn’t matter in this instance.

Not long ago, the British colonists of North America had run-ins with British soldiers as they protested rights violations, regulations and taxes that were insignificant to what we deal with now. The soldiers resorted often to violence. The North American Brits counted these among a long train of abuses …

British soldiers traveled across the vast ocean and risked their lives protecting the colonists from the Indians and French. Yet the colonists hated them, seeing them as occupiers, not protectors. A group our government today would considered a terrorist network, the Sons of Liberty, burned Andrew Oliver (a public official) in effigy before burning some of his property and raiding his house too. They created a small, but angry mob. The sheriffs were afraid for their lives that night and wouldn’t mess with them. The Sons of Liberty were also known to literally tar and feather tax collectors and bailiffs. They went after Tories (government loyalists) too, and worked aggressively to subvert and overthrow the government.

The original Tea Party was was a felony act of vandalism and theft. The Declaration of Independence was in fact a declaration of war. All of the above (and then some) were bold acts of treason.

Are you starting to get my point?

The cops in that video look more like soldiers than peace officers. Pepper-spraying those kids was neither defensive nor proportional (Christian doctrine). Those cops were no better than those “liberating” British soldiers in the colonies whom against those ungrateful colonists waged war.

The left/right argument is so 1960?s, and incredibly meaningless. OWS will soon fade out of existence*. It’s time to ask yourself whether you are a patriot (Sons of Liberty), or a Tory (state apologist)?

*Once caveat is that societal breakdown is nearing as a consequence of an ever more intrusive and violent police state. If the state overreacts (as they usually do), OWS will grow instead of fade, and we’ll have a repeat of the French revolution on our hands.

Here is my response…

MattNovember 27, 2011 at 2:15 am

I think we are looking at OWS in radically different ways. My point is that this is an excellent opportunity to examine the hard left in unmasked action. We’ve seen the religious hate, the violence, the vandalism, and the calls for revolution and Communism. Yes, they have the large numbers of drugged hippies, who have no idea what or whom they are serving. We also have the violent elements, and the leadership, who are already in control (and marginalizing the more clueless elements). For the most part, this is nothing new-it’s simply being put into practice on a larger scale, and therefore bears examining, and exposing.

We also differ in that I’m looking at the end goals of the movement. You draw comparisons to behavior. Those cannot be argued, as they are factual. However, what are the end goals of that behavior? We know what the occupods want-they have told us. Also, we know where their support is. They want to take what they perceive to be the threat to freedom- the corporations, and control them with an all powerful state. Many of the followers have no idea where that will lead. We do-history teaches us where a powerful government leads.

On the contrary, our government, as envisioned, is a historical aberration. There were mobs, there were “criminal” acts, and intellectuals, and “rich” people were the heads of the movement. At almost any other point in history, such a revolution would have lead to a tyrannical state. Instead, Washington turned in his sword, and went home. Those rich intellectuals, rather than acting in their own interest, helped craft a system of government that placed the emphasis on the individual, and his rights, rather than on the power of government. Contrast that with where OWS is going. Will that revolution result in more human freedom, or would it lead to a bloody, tyrannical regime? Again, history is a teacher, and that is a cause for alarm.

In the end, behavior is a tool. It’s the end that we have to look at. I can use a hammer to build something for myself, or for others, or I can build gallows, a guillotine, and a Gulag. It’s not just the behaviors, it’s the motivations behind them.

I also look at the historical parallels to other protest movements. We have seen that leftist protesters have a history of staging events to garner public support. I’ve covered that here a good bit. From putting elderly and toddlers on the “front lines,” to provoking reactions from the police, they have been trying rather hard to stage another “Kent State.” It’s fake and contrived, but they have done it before, and it’s a safe bet that they will do it again.

My point is rather simple; civil disobedience is a tool.  Yes, we can get stuck on behavior, but our eyes, ears, and brains need to be looking at the reasons for the behavior, as well as the stated goals of the people engaging in that behavior.  From what we can tell (because the ChiComs aren’t exactly letting the citizens communicate with the outside world very much), the Chinese townspeople  are upset that their government took their land from them, and are giving it to a developer.  That would, if true, certainly qualify as crony capitalism.  As a result, the villagers have kicked out their actual aggressors-the Communist Party officials that made the deal.

Let’s contrast that with OWS.  The townspeople, again, went after the government officials that took their land, and gave it to someone else.  OWS wants to empower government to take from others, and give to THEM.   That, and the government, with more power to tax and confiscate, will abuse more and more people in the process.  Similar behaviors are visible, but the goals are nearly diametrically opposed.  Again, it’s easy to look at behavior and become alarmed.  However, I will be persistent in looking at the motivations of the behavior, because that will always tell you whether something is truly dangerous.

Share