Obama Admin Looks To Control Americans’ $19.4 Trillion In Retirement Accountsi49.tinypic.com
Obama Admin Looks To Control Americans’ $19.4 Trillion In Retirement Accounts
Made popular 102 days ago in Politics
freedomoutpost.com — Remember that old phrase, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help”? Well, it looks like we are hearing it again, at least on the issue of keeping Americans’ retirement funds safe. The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is weighing whether it should take on a role in ‘helping’ Americans manage the $19.4 trillion they have put into retirement savings. This would be the agency’s first incursion into the investments of consumers.
“That’s one of the things we’ve been exploring and are interested in in terms of whether and what authority we have,” said bureau director Richard Cordray.
He indicates that many people have had their credit damaged by financial crises, including the mortgage bubble bursting and other unexpected, emergency expenditures. “It may be because of things they did and it may just be because they suffered,” Cordray said. “You know if you lose your home because the rest of your block is foreclosed on, your credit history is affected.”
The bureau claims that it has a “concern” that many Americans, especially those retiring from the Baby Boom generation, may fall prey to scams that will rob them of their retirement. No mention was made about the current and ongoing scam of Social Security.
According to Bloomberg,
The retirement savings business in the U.S. is dominated by a group of companies that handle record-keeping and management of investments in tax-advantaged vehicles like 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts. The group includes Fidelity Investments, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Charles Schwab Corp. (SCHW) and T. Rowe Price Group Inc. (TROW) Americans held $19.4 trillion in retirement assets as of Sept. 30, 2012, according to the Investment Company Institute, an industry association; about $3.5 trillion of that was in 401(k) plans.
The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Labor are the main regulators of U.S. retirement savings vehicles and funds. However, the consumer bureau — established by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act — sees itself as a potential catalyst for promoting a coherent policy across the government, the people said.
Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute, said that he didn’t believe the Act gives the bureau specific jurisdiction over investments. However, he indicates that it could step in if other agencies don’t.
“I could imagine the CFPB growing into a role on investment savings if it seems like the SEC is asleep at the wheel,” Calabria said.
There is no doubt that the Federal government can’t manage it’s own fiscal issues and Social Security is a prime example, along with an inability to implement a budget, follow the enumerated powers on what they can spend on, and their utter inability to actually put forward any real spending cuts. So why on earth would anyone want to allow them to manage their retirement funds?

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/obama-admin-looks-to-control-americans-19-4-trillion-in-retirement-accounts/#ixzz2K1y8BxN5

Report This Post
Posted by lastbaldeagle
Add To Favorites
80 Votes
Similar Issues
7 Comments
ShareThis
You want a government that gave you the USPS, Social Insecurity, Obabacare, Amtrack and has run up $16+ Trillion in deficit to protect YOUR retirement savings?
No!
1.2%
Hell NO!
15%
Yes, I am a government dependent Koolaid drinking liberal who needs someone else to do my thinking for me. I do well enough just being able to feed myself with someone else's money providing the food. Don't make me think for myself too!
84%
This is not a scientific survey, click here to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding and voting descrepencies.
User Comments
bish66
Posted 102 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
A lot of the deficit was inherited from Bush, his wars and his tax cuts, so give credit where credit is due...
lightdude
Posted 102 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
@bish66 Blah, blah, blah. Get over yourself. George bush has been out of office for over 4 years. This is all dumbo. Put your head back in the sand or up......
bish66
Posted 99 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
@lightdude
when Clinton left office, the USA had a surplus which would have eliminated the debt in 10 years. Bush preferred to lower taxes for his wealthy donors and had to spend money for national security after 9/11, including financing the huge new department of Homeland Security (ironically, Bush claimed that Gore would increase the size of government...). Then there were the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quote from Wikipedia: "During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008, due to decreasing tax rates and two unpaid wars."
So Obama is responsible for $4.8 trillion of the current debt, due to the mortgage crisis, the financial crisis, various stimulus packages, ObamaCare. I'm quite certain that the USA would be better off financially if McCain had won in 2008 (or in 2000).
Yes, Bush is out of office for more than 4 years, but the effects of his (failed) policies can still be felt.
curmudgeon
Posted 98 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
Wikipedia is a left slanted site run by a uber liberal couple and your meandering rant proves you are not among the brightest in the population. You seem to have left out all the assistance that Bush received from the likes of Pelosi, Reid and Barney Frank in running the country into the hole. Bush screwed up by not using his veto pen on ll the risky socialist schemes passed by the democrat controlled Congress in Bush' last two years.@bish66
curmudgeon
Posted 98 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
Kind of sad how few liberals feel qualified to think for themselves and are willing to let the Nanny State care for them with OPM from cradle to grave. Government controlled public school education from the union drones of the NFT and NEA sure has done a huge disservice to the citizens of this once great nation that used to value ambition and self reliance.
bish66
Posted 96 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
@curmudgeon
it takes two to play, Congress and the White House,,,

If you don't like Wikipedia, what about http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt ?

"When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush's column)."
bish66
Posted 95 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
Or FOXNEWS: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/18/obama-has-continued-bushs-failed-policies/

"On government spending, it’s the same story. Bush racked up one of the most disastrous records of out-of-control spending and debt the country had ever seen. Every aspect of the federal budget jumped under Bush. Economist Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center found that in Bush’s second term, he nearly doubled total federal spending. Moreover, she found that spending on subsidy programs – big government interventions in the market to pick winners and losers that have been a central theme of Obama’s agenda – jumped 30 percent under Bush and included over 1,800 separate programs.

Art Laffer and Stephen Moore summarized the orgy of government spending at the end of the Bush administration: “From the second quarter of 2007, i.e., the first full quarter of a Pelosi-Reid dominated Congress and a politically weakened President Bush, to the second quarter of 2009 when President Obama assumed office, government spending skyrocketed to 27.3% of GDP from 21.4%. It was the largest peacetime expansion of government spending in U.S. history.”

Obama came in and continued spending recklessly. Bush’s $152 billion stimulus bill failed and so did Obama’s $821 billion stimulus bill. Bush flushed $25 billion in bailout funds to Chrysler and General Motors, and Obama added another $20 billion before finally recognizing that the companies would inevitably file for bankruptcy. All of the pre-bankruptcy bailout dollars were lost. Obama’s health care law will add trillions more to federal spending, and if reelected he plans astonishing spending increases that would make Bush’s profligacy appear amateur; Obama’s never-balancing budget anticipates spending jumping to 30 percent of the economy by 2027, 40 percent by 2040, 50 percent by 2060, and 80 percent by 2080.
Bush’s final deficit of $458 billion in 2008 – nearly half a trillion dollars – was then the largest in American history. Obama has run trillion-dollar-plus deficits in each of his four years."

Or have a look at Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
You will have 2 minutes to edit your comment.

Add your comments