Obama Begins Push for New National Retirement System

[DA 20]

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/obama-begins-push-for-new-national-retirement-system/?cat_orig=politics

http://www.nationalseniorscouncil.o...ent-system&catid=34:social-security&Itemid=62

(National Senior Council) A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRA’s and 401k plans, NSC is warning.
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.”

 

[WTJ]

I thought we already had one that didn't work.

Stupidity NEVER sleeps.

 

[Buddhaman]

“This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could,”

Maybe because the cost of living has gone up and people can't afford to put money in their retirement?

 

[Fyrtwuck]

Isn't that what Social Security was supposed to do?

 

[Biggsly]

We just need a lawk box.

 

[freeranger]

Someone point out the enumerated power for this in the Constitution please?

 

[loudshirt]

Someone point out the enumerated power for this in the Constitution please?

Commerce Clause

 

[DPI]

They did something similar at the start of o first term. The talk of nationalizing people's 401ks will cause some raucous for sure. Taking money directly from someone's hard earned savings are fighting words.

 

[freeranger]

Commerce Clause

Much too simple an answer. Again, most folks seem to forget that Article 1, Section 8 is a list of finite, limited powers granted to the federal government by the states to address issues that affected the confederation as whole. The very fact that the Commerce Clause falls within this set of limited powers illustrates that the federal government does not have authority over many aspects of our daily activities. Commerce at the time of the Constitution's drafting pertained to trade and exchange (simple explanation, historically it goes back to precolonial days were the regulation of commerce was the law merchant, which Parliament had the ability to regulate if it was for the general welfare of the Colonies as well as among the political units of the British Empire) between the colonies. The Founders sought to stimulate America's economy, as as such the federal government could prohibit or discourage importation/exportation of selected commodities/products. Certain issues that were obstacles of commerce between the states also fell under these enumerated limits. And keep in mind, that the last paragraph of Article 1, Section 8 that Congress were permitted "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for the carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."; meaning those specific, enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8. The Commerce Clause never granted carte blanche power to regulate every facet of activity within the states. Arguing that it does would be in opposition to the reasonable belief that the states would ever cede powers to the federal government areas that they could address and take care of themselves. Again, the ratifying debates of the separate states shows how each understood the different clauses presented to them within the text of the Constitution. The Federalist repeatedly assured the states that powers granted under Article 1, Section 8 were limited and finite. To believe that the states would cede unlimited power to the federal government would be a contradiction of Article 1, Section 8 as they understood it, a limit on federal power. I've eluded to one thing repeatedly, the federal government has no vested interest in policing itself and limiting itself to adhere to the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Since the New Deal era, it has worked tirelessly to scheme of ways to bypass those enumerated powers and reduce the power of the states and the people.

 

[RETOKSQUID]

Don't see a hole lot of difference between this and forcing us to buy health insurance and pay for those who can't. Just one more load of crap that we are going to sit back and let happen.