Obama and the democrats declare war on senior citizens

Actually the title should be "Obama and the democrats declare war on responsible senior citizens.  If a person has been fiscally responsible and saved for their retirement, Obama now wants to redistribute your retirement savings to the deadbeat irresponsible liberals who blindly support him and his socialist friends.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/president-obamas-2016-budget-targets-retirement-accounts-2015-02-05

The only person worse that the POS occupying the White House is the dumbass liberal who still supports him and his socialist agenda.

Latest is that the slimey Dems now want to reduce the limit on tax deferred contributikons to savings programs all for the urpose of increason income tax revenues. A more subtle motive is the control of future retirees by making them poor enought to need the govt teet because they won't have money of their own. Despicable

I'm surprised Obama hasn't pushed for the plan that's been bandied about that would replace private retirement accounts assets with government bonds.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:I'm surprised Obama hasn't pushed for the plan that's been bandied about that would replace private retirement accounts assets with government bonds.  

Don't be giving ideas to this MT suit HMWAIC, he may be lurking here

I'm not a fan of proposals #3 and #4. The rest seem pretty straight-forward and well thought out. Especially eliminating that ROTH backdoor.

I don't like the idea of forced minimum deductions from the retirement accounts though.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:I'm not a fan of proposals #3 and #4. The rest seem pretty straight-forward and well thought out. Especially eliminating that ROTH backdoor.

I don't like the idea of forced minimum deductions from the retirement accounts though.

Spoken like a liberal who believes in penalizing the successful and redistributing the wealth of those who have saved for their retirement.  

It has been nothing but an all out assault by Obama on the seniors citizens of this country.  First, he is destroying Medicare to pay for free healthcare for deadbeats who refuse to work and now he wants to tap their retirement savings.  As long as there are morons who still support his Marxist schemes, he has a chance of being successful.

Jammer wrote:

Spoken like a liberal who believes in penalizing the successful and redistributing the wealth of those who have saved for their retirement.  

It has been nothing but an all out assault by Obama on the seniors citizens of this country.  First, he is destroying Medicare to pay for free healthcare for deadbeats who refuse to work and now he wants to tap their retirement savings.  As long as there are morons who still support his Marxist schemes, he has a chance of being successful.

I'm going to disagree as this appears to target people who are not yet retired not those who are currently retired.It specifically mentions that in the article that anyone that is currently retired will not be affected by the changes. That is one of the reasons it has my support, it won't affect current senior citizens if they are retired, but it will place more requirements on those who plan to retire in the future.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Spoken like a liberal who believes in penalizing the successful and redistributing the wealth of those who have saved for their retirement.  

It has been nothing but an all out assault by Obama on the seniors citizens of this country.  First, he is destroying Medicare to pay for free healthcare for deadbeats who refuse to work and now he wants to tap their retirement savings.  As long as there are morons who still support his Marxist schemes, he has a chance of being successful.

I'm going to disagree as this appears to target people who are not yet retired not those who are currently retired.It specifically mentions that in the article that anyone that is currently retired will not be affected by the changes. That is one of the reasons it has my support, it won't affect current senior citizens if they are retired, but it will place more requirements on those who plan to retire in the future.

Conservatives believe that EVERYONE has equal rights.  We do not believe in special rights for any class of people.  It is that very type of class warfare that liberals love to create that helps keep the perverts in power.  

I will never understand you perverts who feel entitled to "pick winners and losers" and then pass legislation that creates different rights for different classes of people.  Conservatives very simply believe in "Fair for ONE - fair for ALL".  You appear to be one who thinks it is OK for government to pick and choose who is MORE fair.   You people are destroying our country.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Spoken like a liberal who believes in penalizing the successful and redistributing the wealth of those who have saved for their retirement.  

It has been nothing but an all out assault by Obama on the seniors citizens of this country.  First, he is destroying Medicare to pay for free healthcare for deadbeats who refuse to work and now he wants to tap their retirement savings.  As long as there are morons who still support his Marxist schemes, he has a chance of being successful.

I'm going to disagree as this appears to target people who are not yet retired not those who are currently retired.It specifically mentions that in the article that anyone that is currently retired will not be affected by the changes. That is one of the reasons it has my support, it won't affect current senior citizens if they are retired, but it will place more requirements on those who plan to retire in the future.

Why would you want to tax capital gains at the higher marginal tax rates just because it is someone who is saving for retirement? Why penalize him for not being able to take advantage of the lower long term capital gains rate just because his trades happened within a tax deferred account? Makes no sense, but then we are talking the fricking government where nothing really makes sense.

Jammer wrote:
Conservatives believe that EVERYONE has equal rights.  We do not believe in special rights for any class of people.  It is that very type of class warfare that liberals love to create that helps keep the perverts in power.  

I will never understand you perverts who feel entitled to "pick winners and losers" and then pass legislation that creates different rights for different classes of people.  Conservatives very simply believe in "Fair for ONE - fair for ALL".  You appear to be one who thinks it is OK for government to pick and choose who is MORE fair.   You people are destroying our country.

Having special rules for people who don't contribute to their IRA originally isn't "fair for one and fair for all". At least as far as I think so.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
Conservatives believe that EVERYONE has equal rights.  We do not believe in special rights for any class of people.  It is that very type of class warfare that liberals love to create that helps keep the perverts in power.  

I will never understand you perverts who feel entitled to "pick winners and losers" and then pass legislation that creates different rights for different classes of people.  Conservatives very simply believe in "Fair for ONE - fair for ALL".  You appear to be one who thinks it is OK for government to pick and choose who is MORE fair.   You people are destroying our country.

Having special rules for people who don't contribute to their IRA originally isn't "fair for one and fair for all". At least as far as I think so.

I must have missed where anybody said that it was.  Please point it out or was that more of the typical liberal BS of "hey look over there"?

We should not be taxing income.  That is just one of the stupid moves the progressives made in changing the Founders formula.   Also taxation should be for one and one purpose only and that is to raise revenue.  The tax code should never ever be used to influence behavior.  If a country makes the mistake of having an income tax, it should be a flat rate, all income should be treated the same and all deductions eliminated.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
Conservatives believe that EVERYONE has equal rights.  We do not believe in special rights for any class of people.  It is that very type of class warfare that liberals love to create that helps keep the perverts in power.  

I will never understand you perverts who feel entitled to "pick winners and losers" and then pass legislation that creates different rights for different classes of people.  Conservatives very simply believe in "Fair for ONE - fair for ALL".  You appear to be one who thinks it is OK for government to pick and choose who is MORE fair.   You people are destroying our country.

Having special rules for people who don't contribute to their IRA originally isn't "fair for one and fair for all". At least as far as I think so.

What does it matter if or when the contribute to their IRA? Do you even know what the heck you are talking about? The only difference between a ROTH IRA and any other IRA is when you pay taxes on it. To pre-pay taxes on a ROTH you are probably being taxed at a higher rate than if you waited until retirement and then draw savings and pay taxes so the government is making a larger percentage of your income. I am really sick of ignorant liberals who have no idea what they are talking about but think if you are responsible and save money your evil. Little hint for you...welfare is going to run out and the slugs are going to get nothing.

Jammer wrote:
I must have missed where anybody said that it was.  Please point it out or was that more of the typical liberal BS of "hey look over there"?

We should not be taxing income.  That is just one of the stupid moves the progressives made in changing the Founders formula.   Also taxation should be for one and one purpose only and that is to raise revenue.  The tax code should never ever be used to influence behavior.  If a country makes the mistake of having an income tax, it should be a flat rate, all income should be treated the same and all deductions eliminated.

Are you not complaining about changing the status quo? I'd say that the current rules are not fair for everyone as there are different rules in place depending upon your income. I've mentioned my my grievances with the changes but the rest to put the playing field on a more even plan.

We should be taxing income, all income equally(including capital gains), albeit the rates need to be changed a bit and probably should be higher although that is up for debate and I'm sure you might be mad at that view point.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
I must have missed where anybody said that it was.  Please point it out or was that more of the typical liberal BS of "hey look over there"?

We should not be taxing income.  That is just one of the stupid moves the progressives made in changing the Founders formula.   Also taxation should be for one and one purpose only and that is to raise revenue.  The tax code should never ever be used to influence behavior.  If a country makes the mistake of having an income tax, it should be a flat rate, all income should be treated the same and all deductions eliminated.

Are you not complaining about changing the status quo? I'd say that the current rules are not fair for everyone as there are different rules in place depending upon your income. I've mentioned my my grievances with the changes but the rest to put the playing field on a more even plan.

We should be taxing income, all income equally(including capital gains), albeit the rates need to be changed a bit and probably should be higher although that is up for debate and I'm sure you might be mad at that view point.

I agree that ALL income should be treated equally and taxed at the same rate.  However, that rate should be LOWER not higher.  I expect the proper rate should be somewhere in the 17% - 19% range.

One of the biggest offenders of this unequal treatment of income is the carried interest category that most of the big democrat hedge fund managers earn.  The democrats have protected this SPECIAL right for their big donors.  The sad thing is that the average person on the street is so uniformed that they believe the lying liberals when they paint these hedge fund managers as all being Mitt Romney Republicans when in fact the majority are big time liberal democrats.

Jammer wrote:
I agree that ALL income should be treated equally and taxed at the same rate.  However, that rate should be LOWER not higher.  I expect the proper rate should be somewhere in the 17% - 19% range.

One of the biggest offenders of this unequal treatment of income is the carried interest category that most of the big democrat hedge fund managers earn.  The democrats have protected this SPECIAL right for their big donors.  The sad thing is that the average person on the street is so uniformed that they believe the lying liberals when they paint these hedge fund managers as all being Mitt Romney Republicans when in fact the majority are big time liberal democrats.

Income should be the higher than that, probably closer to 25% along with the capital gains tax being at the 25% as well. That'd allow the US to maintain a growth income with taxes in addition to making up for the lower tax rate on higher paid individuals.

The hedge fund managers you are referring to do have nothing to do with political parties. They are over paid, but only the top 25 are over paid, apparently the market is pretty competitive once you get past those and a lot are paid about the same as a high middle income class worker ($90,000).

I think you might be too fixed on what words you are using as opposed to thinking out the reason behind the bias.

Jammer wrote: I agree that ALL income should be treated equally and taxed at the same rate.  However, that rate should be LOWER not higher.  I expect the proper rate should be somewhere in the 17% - 19% range.

I agree and this 17% - 19% should apply equally to every wage earner.  That way everybody has skin in the game.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
I agree that ALL income should be treated equally and taxed at the same rate.  However, that rate should be LOWER not higher.  I expect the proper rate should be somewhere in the 17% - 19% range.

One of the biggest offenders of this unequal treatment of income is the carried interest category that most of the big democrat hedge fund managers earn.  The democrats have protected this SPECIAL right for their big donors.  The sad thing is that the average person on the street is so uniformed that they believe the lying liberals when they paint these hedge fund managers as all being Mitt Romney Republicans when in fact the majority are big time liberal democrats.

Income should be the higher than that, probably closer to 25% along with the capital gains tax being at the 25% as well. That'd allow the US to maintain a growth income with taxes in addition to making up for the lower tax rate on higher paid individuals.

The hedge fund managers you are referring to do have nothing to do with political parties. They are over paid, but only the top 25 are over paid, apparently the market is pretty competitive once you get past those and a lot are paid about the same as a high middle income class worker ($90,000).

I think you might be too fixed on what words you are using as opposed to thinking out the reason behind the bias.

You are so full of shite. Diane Feinstein's husband is ONLY one of the many, there are dozens and dozens more. Richard Blum is Blum Capital and Nancy Pelosi's husband is a venture capitalist. You now have NEGATIVE credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blum_Capital

Jammer wrote:
You are so full of shite.  Diane Feinstein's husband is ONLY one of the many, there are dozens and dozens more.  Richard Blum is Blum Capital and Nancy Pelosi's husband is a venture capitalist.  You now have NEGATIVE credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blum_Capital  

There are several representatives that are hedge fund managers and make quite a bit of money from it, from both political parties. I'm not sure why you are singling out what only confirms your bias but here is a nice list of how it can break down and shows mostly the GOP has recently been the top hedge fund recipients in recent elections.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F2700

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
You are so full of shite.  Diane Feinstein's husband is ONLY one of the many, there are dozens and dozens more.  Richard Blum is Blum Capital and Nancy Pelosi's husband is a venture capitalist.  You now have NEGATIVE credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blum_Capital  

There are several representatives that are hedge fund managers and make quite a bit of money from it, from both political parties. I'm not sure why you are singling out what only confirms your bias but here is a nice list of how it can break down and shows mostly the GOP has recently been the top hedge fund recipients in recent elections.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F2700

You dumbass:

1.  I made no differentiation between Republicans and democrats.
2.  I said nothing about where the money goes.  It will seek to influence, so it will tend to shift to where the hedge fund/private equity/venture capitalists think they can buy the most bang for their buck.
3.  What I said was that the majority of these managers who benefit from this preferential treatment ARE liberal democrats.
4.  Since the socialists have hijacked the democrat party, the traditional democrats have found it easier to muddle their way into the Republican Party than to save the democrat party.  However, just because they now wear a big red "R" does not make them conservatives.

YOU ARE A MARXIST

Jammer wrote:
You dumbass:

1.  I made no differentiation between Republicans and democrats.
2.  I said nothing about where the money goes.  It will seek to influence, so it will tend to shift to where the hedge fund/private equity/venture capitalists think they can buy the most bang for their buck.
3.  What I said was that the majority of these managers who benefit from this preferential treatment ARE liberal democrats.
4.  Since the socialists have hijacked the democrat party, the traditional democrats have found it easier to muddle their way into the Republican Party than to save the democrat party.  However, just because they now wear a big red "R" does not make them conservatives.

YOU ARE A MARXIST

You specifically picked out three democratic hedge fund managers while not mentioning the republican equivalent.

I'm glad you didn't deny where the money goes.

You left out quite a few GOP hedge fund managers.

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:

Jammer wrote:
You dumbass:

1.  I made no differentiation between Republicans and democrats.
2.  I said nothing about where the money goes.  It will seek to influence, so it will tend to shift to where the hedge fund/private equity/venture capitalists think they can buy the most bang for their buck.
3.  What I said was that the majority of these managers who benefit from this preferential treatment ARE liberal democrats.
4.  Since the socialists have hijacked the democrat party, the traditional democrats have found it easier to muddle their way into the Republican Party than to save the democrat party.  However, just because they now wear a big red "R" does not make them conservatives.

YOU ARE A MARXIST

You specifically picked out three democratic hedge fund managers while not mentioning the republican equivalent.

I'm glad you didn't deny where the money goes.

You left out quite a few GOP hedge fund managers.

Feel free to name all of the GOP fund managers that you want.  I could care less, they benefit from the same special rights that the democrats have extended to this "special class".

Here are just a few of the democrats that I can think of from memory.  There are literally hundreds more.  Contrary to urban legend, the majority of these fund managers are flaming liberals.

James Simons, Renaissance Technologies
Jon Corzine – MF Global and a crook who got away with robbery
Warren Buffett – Berkshire Hathaway
Jamie Dimon – JP Morgan Chase
George Soros – Soros Management Fund
Satyen Mehta - Neon Capital Management
John Doerr -  Kleiner Perkins  
Mark Gallogly -Centerbridge Partners
Bernie Madoff – Whose fund was a PONZI scheme
Richard Blum – Blum Capital Management
Robert Wolf – 32Advisors
Paul Pelosi - Financial Leasing Associates

Jammer wrote:
Feel free to name all of the GOP fund managers that you want.  I could care less, they benefit from the same special rights that the democrats have extended to this "special class".

Here are just a few of the democrats that I can think of from memory.  There are literally hundreds more.  Contrary to urban legend, the majority of these fund managers are flaming liberals.

James Simons, Renaissance Technologies
Jon Corzine – MF Global and a crook who got away with robbery
Warren Buffett – Berkshire Hathaway
Jamie Dimon – JP Morgan Chase
George Soros – Soros Management Fund
Satyen Mehta - Neon Capital Management
John Doerr -  Kleiner Perkins  
Mark Gallogly -Centerbridge Partners
Bernie Madoff – Whose fund was a PONZI scheme
Richard Blum – Blum Capital Management
Robert Wolf – 32Advisors
Paul Pelosi - Financial Leasing Associates

So you agree changing the rules to make them pay their fair share is a good thing? You support this change now?