• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bloomberg unveils plans for Americans’ Social Security, retirement savings

Sounds like more communist bull****.
 
Chomsky said:
Actually, yes. And Trump seems to recently be wanting to curtail the program. That's the political calculus we're trying to examine.
Click to expand...

You dont understand this isn't about helping people. Bloomberg is signaling to the investment communities. The largest pools of money are in government employee retirement funds. A very few select people run those things. This means those funds are subject to their foibles. These funds dont buy sectors, like other funds do. They buy entire markets. Multiple entire markets. Government retirement funds own over 50% of almost every major company. They own large chunks of EVERY listed company on the markets. The money that flows from what Bloomberg proposes gives the government even MORE control. Lately the government has been investing their retirement funds into China. The term follow the money is very applicable in this case. Bloomberg is exposed right now in China and heavily. In fact you will find a very large portion of people in the government are financially exposed in China. You think the government hates Trump reasons other than he is screwing with their pocket books? thats the prime driver behind all the bull**** in Washington. Its a reason why the Republicans have been reluctant to assist when normally they would.
 
danielpalos said:
What if, the Poor could obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States and were able to purchase some form of insurance on the open market at a reasonable cost?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are getting at. I live in a right to work at will employment state and you can get unemployment by virtue of having been employed and you can also buy AFLAC if you want
 
this guy can beat Trump and the rest are gonna get their asses kicked.

He can save us from Trump and company selling off the commons, killing or devaluing all the social net programs and 60 years of Trump judges.

It's gonna be very interesting to watch Democrats and how much they're gonna stick to their purity test.
 
Drawdown said:
The government using its own money to contribute to a person's brokerage account wouldn't be a tax. It would be a restricted benefit. Nobody would be forced to put any of their own money into what I am talking about. They just could if they wanted to. Even $7-9 fees on transfers at online brokerages discourage poor people from investing if they want to as they may not have a lot to do it with at once and therefore would be losing money right of the bat if say they only had $30 to invest this week. that stock would have to have 25% growth before they even broke even.
Click to expand...
In technical terms, it might seem so on the surface. But in reality, we will pay taxes to provide those taxpayer funds back to us - and then be forced to put them into private equities. That's my point.
 
PirateMk1 said:
You dont understand this isn't about helping people. Bloomberg is signaling to the investment communities. The largest pools of money are in government employee retirement funds. A very few select people run those things. This means those funds are subject to their foibles. These funds dont buy sectors, like other funds do. They buy entire markets. Multiple entire markets. Government retirement funds own over 50% of almost every major company. They own large chunks of EVERY listed company on the markets. The money that flows from what Bloomberg proposes gives the government even MORE control. Lately the government has been investing their retirement funds into China. The term follow the money is very applicable in this case. Bloomberg is exposed right now in China and heavily. In fact you will find a very large portion of people in the government are financially exposed in China. You think the government hates Trump reasons other than he is screwing with their pocket books? thats the prime driver behind all the bull**** in Washington. Its a reason why the Republicans have been reluctant to assist when normally they would.
Click to expand...
I must admit you do make an excellent point here - one I hadn't considered. I have considered that Bloomberg will try to appease big business and the markets to go to him and dump Trump (they'd love to dump Trump), but I hadn't applied that line of thinking to my OP. But you're right. Obviously, Bloomberg can be accomplishing more than one thing with his policies, including this one, but I do admit your opinion here makes sense.

I think it's for things like this that makes Bloomberg dangerous for Trump. Bloomberg can dispute Trump, believing he has a lock over the Dems with big-business and the plutocrats. Bloomberg may indeed be able to usurp Trump in that manner, since this crowd likely thinks of Trump as an erratic interloper whereas Bloomberg is an insider & one of their own. And he's a successful one-of-their-own, at that!
 
Drawdown said:
Probably not for a couple reasons. He doesn't say how he will pay for the increased benefits. The only real solution is to increase withholdings so he is being coy in not disclosing that. Social Security, by law, has to be self-funding. Second, while his working poor access to retirement sounds peachy, a lot of working poor people are not going to have the discretionary income (or willingness) to contribute to begin with even if there are matching government funds. Related, government "low risk" funds will probably not be able to do more than keep pace with inflation. Obama proposed this but people would be buying treasuries with the money which are piss poor returns compared to many funds. In short, there is nothing new to see here and people are more worried about financial concerns that are clear and present in their lives, not paying the electric bill 30-50 years from now.
Click to expand...

trump just signed a new act into place that allows people to further diversify their 401k. such as you can now include annuities with your 401k. i think that will help a lot of people and something i am interested in doing if i see that show up.
 
Chomsky said:
I must admit you do make an excellent point here - one I hadn't considered. I have considered that Bloomberg will try to appease big business and the markets to go to him and dump Trump (they'd love to dump Trump), but I hadn't applied that line of thinking to my OP. But you're right. Obviously, Bloomberg can be accomplishing more than one thing with his policies, including this one, but I do admit your opinion here makes sense.

I think it's for things like this that makes Bloomberg dangerous for Trump. Bloomberg can dispute Trump, believing he has a lock over the Dems with big-business and the plutocrats. Bloomberg may indeed be able to usurp Trump in that manner, since this crowd likely thinks of Trump as an erratic interloper whereas Bloomberg is an insider & one of their own. And he's a successful one-of-their-own, at that!
Click to expand...

The problem for Bloomberg and his electability is he has a track record as a politician. One that can be hammered. His election even with wall street and the government backing him is not assured as we saw in 2016 with Clinton. People dont like being told what to do. Bloomberg did that in spades in New York with the salt and surgery drink bans amongst others. People didnt like it there. Think how they will like it elsewhere.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The problem for Bloomberg and his electability is he has a track record as a politician. One that can be hammered. His election even with wall street and the government backing him is not assured as we saw in 2016 with Clinton. People dont like being told what to do. Bloomberg did that in spades in New York with the salt and surgery drink bans amongst others. People didnt like it there. Think how they will like it elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I don't know about this. Yeah, he's got a track record. So does Trump - in spades. And that's who he's running against. As to those sugary drinks, I think many will look at that compared to Trump in Ukraine et al, and they'll find soda a pretty minor topic in comparison.
 
Cardinal said:
Trust me. If he’s the nominee, republicans will call him a socialist.
Click to expand...

No we won't. He's a collectivist, but only in the social sphere. That's why he feels the state has the legitimate right to forbid you from owning a gun or buying soda. But on the economic side, he's a capitalist and a free trader.
 
Chomsky said:
I don't know about this. Yeah, he's got a track record. So does Trump - in spades. And that's who he's running against. As to those sugary drinks, I think many will look at that compared to Trump in Ukraine et al, and they'll find soda a pretty minor topic in comparison.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with Ukraine, there are many like me who saw the transcripts and go what is the problem? He did fine. A lot of people with Trump have stopped listening to the tweets and the media and just look at as best they can with all the chaff thrown about see a president under siege by the opposing party. Despite that he has been ok to pretty decent to a good president. I have been up front I am voting for him again. I think he has been better than I expected him to and he has intestinal fortitude. For good or ill the man doesn't back down from a fight. I am beginning to suspect that this election is going to be a landslide as to which way I cannot foresee that far it depends on how the Democratic party nomination goes.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Here's the problem with Ukraine, there are many like me who saw the transcripts and go what is the problem? He did fine.
Click to expand...
Obviously we disagree, and this is but one example. There's many others to which a sugar tax pales in comparison. At least from where many of us sit.

A lot of people with Trump have stopped listening to the tweets and the media and just look at as best they can with all the chaff thrown about see a president under siege by the opposing party. Despite that he has been ok to pretty decent to a good president. I have been up front I am voting for him again. I think he has been better than I expected him to and he has intestinal fortitude. For good or ill the man doesn't back down from a fight. I am beginning to suspect that this election is going to be a landslide as to which way I cannot foresee that far it depends on how the Democratic party nomination goes.
Click to expand...
I will agree the Dem candidate is crucial for Dems to prevail.

But with half the country not just wanting Trump impeached, but to have him removed, and with Trump's approval-disapproval numbers always upside down by double digits or close, what makes you so optimistic?
 
ludin said:
trump just signed a new act into place that allows people to further diversify their 401k. such as you can now include annuities with your 401k. i think that will help a lot of people and something i am interested in doing if i see that show up.
Click to expand...

I think you could before. Just not a lot of plans did it. A lot of them also allow you to buy specific stocks and use it like a brokerage account though you are still being outsourced to an online broker and still have to pay their fees in addition to your 401K fees.
 
Chomsky said:
Obviously we disagree, and this is but one example. There's many others to which a sugar tax pales in comparison. At least from where many of us sit.

I will agree the Dem candidate is crucial for Dems to prevail.

But with half the country not just wanting Trump impeached, but to have him removed, and with Trump's approval-disapproval numbers always upside down by double digits or close, what makes you so optimistic?
Click to expand...

They have always been that way. As for impeachment it was partisan issue and the media has been on the side of the Democrats since day one. I suspect the polls accuracy may not be as advertised.
 
Chomsky said:
In technical terms, it might seem so on the surface. But in reality, we will pay taxes to provide those taxpayer funds back to us - and then be forced to put them into private equities. That's my point.
Click to expand...

We do that already with earned income credit. This would just be an earned investment credit.
 
PirateMk1 said:
They have always been that way. As for impeachment it was partisan issue and the media has been on the side of the Democrats since day one. I suspect the polls accuracy may not be as advertised.
Click to expand...
Well, you'd have to make and prove the bolded claim in order to show a preponderance of Americans believe what you claim. And as to the impeachment being partisan, you bet it was. But as you can see with our discussion of the polls which you dispute, you cannot say the Dems are on the wrong side here - just as you cannot say the Republicans were right. Now you can say it's your opinion, which I'll respect even while I strongly disagree.
 
Chomsky said:
I will agree the Dem candidate is crucial for Dems to prevail.
Click to expand...

There are convergent and energetic dynamics at work in the coming election which coincide;

(a) those who will vote Democrat because they always do.

(b) those who will vote Democrat in 2020 mainly in support of the Democrat candidate's articulated policy platform.

(c) those who will vote Democrat expressly to remove Donald Trump.

I myself am a (c) voter more so than an (a) or (b) voter.
 
Drawdown said:
Getting back more money than you paid in through the EIC is "free capital"
Click to expand...
And getting less, is?

Look - we can play this game of semantics ad nauseum, but those funds come from our taxes and will be forced into private investment just as Obama did with our ACA money. Call it what you wish. It's fine to simply disagree, and I very much do when government tries to force me to purchase private products.
 
Rogue Valley said:
There are convergent and energetic dynamics at work in the coming election which coincide;

(a) those who will vote Democrat because they always do.

(b) those who will vote Democrat in 2020 mainly in support of the Democrat candidate's articulated policy platform.

(c) those who will vote Democrat expressly to remove Donald Trump.

I myself am a (c) voter more so than an (a) or (b) voter.
Click to expand...
That's an excellent line!

BTW - Put me down as a solid 'C', hoping to become a 'B', but never to accede to 'A'! :mrgreen:

(I think this would make a great poll)
 
Chomsky said:
And getting less, is?

Look - we can play this game of semantics ad nauseum, but those funds come from our taxes and will be forced into private investment just as Obama did with our ACA money. Call it what you wish. It's fine to simply disagree, and I very much do when government tries to force me to purchase private products.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't have to purchase anything. You could leave it sitting there in a money market waiting for a hot tip to come along.
 
Drawdown said:
You wouldn't have to purchase anything. You could leave it sitting there in a money market waiting for a hot tip to come along.
Click to expand...
That's not a lot of difference, Drawdown. But anyway, we differ in opinion & I'm leaving it at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom