tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post462870865621974568..comments2024-03-28T13:48:19.009-04:00Comments on Doug Ross @ Journal: IF YOU LIKE YOUR 401(k), YOU CAN KEEP YOUR 401(k): Obama Labor Dept. Sets Stage for Nationalizing Retirement AccountsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-73980621271227684622015-12-20T16:18:42.327-05:002015-12-20T16:18:42.327-05:00The Government has shown a total lack of self cont...The Government has shown a total lack of self control with money so it is to be expected that they would prey on retirement accounts. Face it, there are only 75 million Boomers in play here and 40 to 50 million will croak quickly without meds. The rest can be humiliated and starved off by 2030, leaving the Country to the clamor of the ignorant, the unemployed and their Progressive Masters. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-78953228987799123412015-12-20T07:43:41.248-05:002015-12-20T07:43:41.248-05:00This is basically the same thing they did to indep...This is basically the same thing they did to independent medical practice, and why you are now seeing a nurse practitioner owned by a gigantic system run by the same university that steals your income via state taxes so they can ruin your kids lives by charging them a ton, putting them in debt, making them unemployable, and subsidizing foreigners and Democrats.Teapartydocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-74269858579123726592015-12-19T18:28:05.414-05:002015-12-19T18:28:05.414-05:00Eileen you are misinformed. No one has "earn...Eileen you are misinformed. No one has "earned" their SS accounts and the government doesn't owe you nor I SS money. There is no "right" to social security.<br /><br />Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time. <br /><br />Ephram Nestor was a Bulgarian immigrant who came to the United States in 1918 and paid Social Security taxes from 1936, the year the system began operating, until he retired in 1955. A year after he retired, Nestor was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party in the 1930s. In 1954 Congress had passed a law saying that any person deported from the United States should lose his Social Security benefits. Accordingly, Nestor’s $55.60 per month Social Security checks were stopped. Nestor sued, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits. <br /><br />The Supreme Court disagreed, saying “To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.” The Court went on to say, “It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.” <br /><br />In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.” <br /><br />In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-38164811819252610732015-08-31T21:01:20.343-04:002015-08-31T21:01:20.343-04:00SS funds aren't gone ... tens of milllions of ...SS funds aren't gone ... tens of milllions of recipients are still receiving monthly subsidies ... besides, retirees on SS EARNED every single penny of their payouts ... the gov't owns NONE.<br />Any dipping into these funds is FELONY GRAND THEFT ... since billions ... if not trillions ... is involved. Robbing poverty-stricken retirees of their SS benefits is also premeditated MURDER, whenever even one such retiree dies, because he/she's unable to afford sufficient food, medicines, and heat for their residences in winter.Eileen K.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13862471438300873107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-55362639280916638422015-08-31T09:57:56.375-04:002015-08-31T09:57:56.375-04:00With SS funds gone, pensions upside down, all bond...With SS funds gone, pensions upside down, all bonds needing to be rolled over, etc...'using' 401k funds are the obvious next step to keep the can kicking for another 5-10 years. Barry soetoro is just a puppet, voting won't change things, don't get caught up in the left/right paradigm. best course of action is to just not participate in 401k. Stop adding to it, and consider taking some if not all funds out of it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6034478.post-78694587711341523922015-08-30T12:54:01.929-04:002015-08-30T12:54:01.929-04:00I'd suspect what they're really doing is d...I'd suspect what they're really doing is defaulting on their liabilities. By confiscating people's retirement funds; it means that they don't have to pay out on them, because they cannot.kerdasi amaqnoreply@blogger.com