The democrats see your retirement money...and they want all of it....

[airplanemechanic]

I don't know. If he did, prove it. Links?

Hasn't Bush been out of office for 8 years? Did that plan get signed into law if it even existed?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The government managing pension funds? California is already billions in debt over this shit

That's kind of the point. Politicians have already salivated over 401k holdings of private citizens, proposing to seize it and then replace it with a social security like pension. Democrats are looking for creative ways to separate people from their hard earned money and the best way is to trick them into putting it into a pot.

 

[PredFan]

When Hillary was FLOTUS, one of the things she and Bill wanted was to take everyone's retirement and make retirement pensions free to everyone. In the interest of "fairness".

link

No.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The government managing pension funds? California is already billions in debt over this shit

That's kind of the point. Politicians have already salivated over 401k holdings of private citizens, proposing to seize it and then replace it with a social security like pension. Democrats are looking for creative ways to separate people from their hard earned money and the best way is to trick them into putting it into a pot.

Well we're onto them, they can pound sand

 

[jc456]

a democrut never saw a buck that couldn't be taxed. Except of course theirs.

I sure wish "conservatives" were different, but the thing is, they're not, at all.

I know of no republican that wishes to tax dead peoples money. Lefties, ohhhhhhhhh yeah. They foam at the mouth for those dollars. Sorry bubba, but you are very mistaken and wrong.

 

[HenryBHough]

California!

A great state to be FROM!

Unless the state you're thinking to migrate to finds out......

 

[jc456]

TSP's are not mandatory.

So

I don't see the government mismanaging it or stealing peoples contributions like the fear mongering OP predicts

So??? I said that no conservative would support a mandatory retirement plan where the gov't can invest the money any way they see fit and you replied to that by talking about TSP's and how they were signed into law by Reagan.

Maybe you're not able to follow this, but I said no conservative would support a mandatory retirement plan and your reply to point out I was wrong was to talk about how a conservative signed a voluntary plan into law?

Didn't Bush propose that as part of his restructure of Social Security? Mandatory retirement plans

why don't you go look on that internet thingy and tell us all?

 

[Holos]

This is an opening move to get to your 401(k) and take all that money for the government/democrat party.....

California wants to force people to save for retirement...by mandating anyone without a private pension plan must give money to a California, government controlled retirement plan.....

What could go wrong?

Jerry Brown May Force You to Save for Retirement - Breitbart

The so-called “public option” retirement plan is a mandatory savings program designed to make sure workers have some assets when they retire.

However, critics have panned the program. The Wall Street Journal devoted a lead editorial to criticizing the plan last week:

A board comprised of Democrats and their nominees—namely, union reps and attorneys—has been charged with fleshing out the program’s details …

The legislation gives the board carte blanche to design and manage the state IRAs. One of the few rules is that the employee contribution must start between 2% and 5% of wages and can only escalate by one percentage point annually up to 10%. Administrative costs after six years are capped at 1% of program assets, which is greater than the operating expenses charged by 90% of IRA equity mutual funds.

The board could invest workers’ money however it chooses, so politicians would be able to direct billions toward their favorite causes.

…

A legislative analysis notes that “the fiscal impact of this bill is subject to considerable uncertainty.” No kidding. If more workers opt out or contribute less than the board projects, administrative costs could exceed the 1% limit. Taxpayers might have to pick up the difference.

The Journal also warns that other large Democrat-dominated states intend to follow California’s example — and that despite heavy federal intervention in the private finance industry, consumers cannot expect government-run plans to be subject to the same scrutiny.

How many of you want democrats in control of a mandatory retirement program.....do you really think your money will exist after they get done with it?

It seems strange that such a clear and direct plan would require a critical perspective to point out how the "flesh" of citizens is part of the program disclosure.

Maybe it coming from the Wall Street Journal has something to do about it, since it seems the public sphere is so greatly extradited to be contained in privacy, away from the streets with walls. Or at least that's my experience of seeing more cars than people on the streets, more empty houses and empty lots than television channels, movie theaters, restaurants, offices, gyms, and other places of restricted access (private).

I'm not sure what people are making money to be, or what you, OP, think money is, because your question, and the entire framework you have assembled the thread with is exceedingly sentimental. The word money comes from "mono", as in continuous singularity, and asking if it will still exist whatever circumstances "they" (the citizens and their diverse organizations) make it to be is nullifying the very definition of the word in perjury (money).

 

[rdean]

Why do you think Trump hires illegals and stiffs his workers? You must have an explanation.

So why does he?

 

[jc456]

Why do you think Trump hires illegals and stiffs his workers? You must have an explanation.

So why does he?

who cares?

 

[Holos]

Why do you think Trump hires illegals and stiffs his workers? You must have an explanation.

So why does he?

Are those illegals you are referring to a "who" or a "what"?

The question is important to answer your own because then you can clarify what is your current understanding of the law, so that in turn you can be sure that the answer to your question is correct, lawful and conclusive.

Stiffness can be pragmatic, and it is also temporary in respect to both biology and physics.

But the law isn't temporary and it takes many aspects and forms.