This Week's Hillary Giveaway: 'American (Socialist) Retirement Accounts'

North Star Writers Group ^ | October 10, 2007 | Herman Cain

[Dan Calabrese]

Less than a month after Hillary Clinton proposed giving every child born in the United States a $5,000 gift, she told a crowd in Iowa last week that she now wants to give families $1,000 in annual matching funds to into a 401(k) retirement account. Of course, all of this giveaway money would come from the government after she confiscates more money from the evil rich.

According to a report from the Associated Press’s Nedra Pickler, to qualify for this annual gift toward your retirement, you need to make $60,000 a year or less, or not be working at all. If you make between $60,000 and $100,000 your annual gift is $500 instead of $1,000. If you make over $100,000, you do not get a gift because you are part of the evil rich.

Other than being another idea that fits the communist manifesto, this latest idea ignores the broken promises of Social Security and adds another layer to the politics of envy.

[Brilliant]

We need to amend the Constitution to ban the federal government from doing anything other than providing for the national defense.

[brownsfan]

Bread and circuses.
Hillary! knows how to appeal to the masses. The stupid, uneducated, illegals and the dead will all be voting for her heinous.

It’s interesting that when you discuss economics here on FR, there are always a few chaistizing about how one should have read Adam Smith and others before even forming an opinion. Well, there are MILLIONS who will vote for Hillary! who have no idea who Adam Smith was, or what he did. Our representative republic is unraveling.

[Political Junkie Too]

Democrats say no to Social Security private accounts, but yes to this?

-PJ

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

You are very close, but the Feds do need to provide homeland security (actually a part of national defense).
I don’t have a problem with the Feds having national parks or regulating our nuclear industry. Even basic consumer protection like the FDA or protecting our privacy.

We don’t need the Feds to
1)subsidize farmers
2)subsidize businesses
3)manage health care
4)collect taxes, pass the FairTax and allow the states to collect and pass on necessary revenues to the Feds.
5)protect bugs or lizards from extinction
6)micromanage (actually manage) education at all
7)Build highways, let the states do it

[babygene]

Since the federal government already confiscates 15% of all wages for retirement, giving them back $1000 dollars is not enough. The amount collected for Social Security should be given back.

This is not a bad plan, it just doesn’t go far enough...

[shankbear]

The communist whack job needs a real life. Stop spending my damned money Mrs. Bill Cliton.

[massgopguy]

Quiver in fear for your private retirement accounts if the government gets involved. Read the “Reservation of Power” section of FICA. If she gets her nose under the 401k tent she will replace you dollars with bonds, just like they did with Social Security. For Hillary’s true plan for 401ks read; Mrs. Tyson Fried Economics.

[babygene]

“If she gets her nose under the 401k tent she will replace you dollars with bonds”

That’s a good point... But then it wouldn’t be a 401K would it.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

...The witch reaches into her bag of tricks and looks for another candy bar with a razor blade in it to feed us!....

[Dan Calabrese]

Wouldn’t it make more sense to just not take it in the first place?

[mathluv]

'Democrats say no to Social Security private accounts, but yes to this?'

The only diff is who (a dim) is suggesting it - (as opposed to a pubbie).

[Maneesh]

While a anti constitutional, anti American and Marxist idea this could be a political winner. The vast majority of voters make less than $60k and a lot of them will see this is a gift to them from the evil rich by way of the govt. In fact this may even increase voter turn-out, vote for Hillary and get $1000 in your account soon after.

We are quickly reaching the point where over 50% of the population will essentially vote themselves goodies and at that point the entitlement redistribution mentality is here for good. Just look at Canada and Western Europe, there is no conservative movement just for this reason.

One more reason to defeat Hillary.

[Maneesh]

“Wouldn’t it make more sense to just not take it in the first place?”

Absolutely not, the libs derive their power from their ability to take money from you and redistribute it in a manner as to appease different groups which then depend on the govt to get their goodies. This would be a giveaway to the people making less than 60K / yr.

This is all about establishing a greater degree of control over your life, not what make sense and what is efficient.

[massgopguy]

A judge once ruled that FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) wasn’t a “contributory insurance” program.

[SQUID]

Creating more people that will depend on government will end in tyranny.

[crazyshrink]

to qualify for this annual gift toward your retirement, you need to make $60,000 a year or less, or not be working at all. If you make between $60,000 and $100,000 your annual gift is $500 instead of $1,000**********

Now there’s an incentive to work if I ever saw one!!!!!!s/o

[Sunshine Sister]

You got it and then guess what? The baby boomers retire and die and all the money they have been taking in from us disappears. Then what?

[bert]

Why screw around promising a chicken in every pot when you can promise to steal from successful Americans and give to the lazy and unsuccessful.

[rogue yam]

If you make the matching funds a tax credit that is only available to those who actually pay Federal income taxes, and require that the money be invested in a retirement savings account with restrictions on early withdrawal, and make the taxpayer’s contribution tax-deductable, and finally make the system available to all then what you have is a privatized retirement plan and that’s a good thing.