Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It is becoming quite clear that I need to save every dime I can these days if I want any chance to have a better than average life with the profession I have chosen. (teaching) Might as well start now and I dont have clue 1. People tell me about IRAs and all sorts of other types of investing but I couldnt tell you the difference.

The biggest benefit is tax deferred in traditional IRA or tax exempt savings in Roth IRA (tax paid contribution). But with current capital gains tax at 15% the tax deferred idea is somewhat meaningless especially for traditional IRA.

And if you buy stodgy stocks (food) or indexed stock (spy, qqqq, dia etc) you wont be paying any capital gain taxes till you sell it.

The biggest benefit for 401k (403b public education) is employer matching usually at 50%-100% of your 6% contribution. I never understood why people didn't put away least 6% when your employer is giving you free money. And the tax deferred status. (who knows maybe capital gain tax will go back up)
http://benefitsattorney.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=1

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

There are some complications to this, though, brought on by the fact that the contribution limits are (or were the last time I checked) for both a Roth and a traditional IRA, even though one is effectively pre-tax dollars and the other is post-tax. As a consequence of that, if you make the maximum contribution to either route and nothing more, you are effectively saving more in the Roth, because you won't be taking tax out at the end. Your return will be a wee bit better (somewhat less than the difference in tax rate, based on a very simplistic calculation), which is nice in and of itself, but presumably part of the goal is to have at least the same amount of retirement savings.

Now things get a bit more complicated: from the traditional IRA side, you've gotten the money you didn't pay in taxes on the seed money, less the taxes on that. You can invest some of that in a non-IRA vehicle in order to make up the difference in retirement (when you have to pay taxes on distributions from the traditional IRA but not on a Roth), but now there's the additional complication that the growth is not tax-deferred nor tax-exempt like the IRA's: you're paying taxes as you go along. I'd guess that as long as you invest carefully, this wouldn't be a big deal where tax distributions would eat up a big chunk of your returns, but it's something to be aware of anyway. It's not necessarily as simple as just making a prediction on the tax bracket.

Better to do both and diversify not only your security holdings but your "tax liabilites" as well. God knows what'll happen when Congress gets a hold of Roth accounts... Or they could even change the way 401ks are taxed.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

That's the point I was trying to get at at the end of my last post. Are signing statements really the problem there?

Part of the problem is campaign rhetoric is always simplistic. I don't really want politicians to follow through on promises that can fit on a bumper sticker -- I want policy to be informed by realities which are complicated and thus have a lot of conditionals in them. It would be nice if the electorate was informed enough to actually talk about those conditionals during the campaign, but that's too much to ask of a system where presidents are chosen like toothpaste brands.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Part of the problem is campaign rhetoric is always simplistic. I don't really want politicians to follow through on promises that can fit on a bumper sticker -- I want policy to be informed by realities which are complicated and thus have a lot of conditionals in them. It would be nice if the electorate was informed enough to actually talk about those conditionals during the campaign, but that's too much to ask of a system where presidents are chosen like toothpaste brands.

Sure, but that wasn't really what I was trying to get at.

Say Bush issued a signing statement saying he wasn't going to enforce some law. Is the problem the signing statement or is it the decision not to enforce said law? Take the signing statement away, and he can still choose not to enforce the law, right? The signing statement is just the mechanism used to announce that decision.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Sure, but that wasn't really what I was trying to get at.

Say Bush issued a signing statement saying he wasn't going to enforce some law. Is the problem the signing statement or is it the decision not to enforce said law? Take the signing statement away, and he can still choose not to enforce the law, right? The signing statement is just the mechanism used to announce that decision.

What's your point? The signing statement is basically the intra-office memo that tells his subordinates what the new policy will be. If there weren't something called a "signing statement" there would still be some other way the President would communicate the new policy, so what's the difference? A rose by any other name...

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

What's your point? The signing statement is basically the intra-office memo that tells his subordinates what the new policy will be. If there weren't something called a "signing statement" there would still be some other way the President would communicate the new policy, so what's the difference? A rose by any other name...

Yeah, that's exactly my point.

That's why I don't get the OMG SIGNING STATEMENTS !!!!111!111! attitude.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Sure, but that wasn't really what I was trying to get at.

Say Bush issued a signing statement saying he wasn't going to enforce some law. Is the problem the signing statement or is it the decision not to enforce said law? Take the signing statement away, and he can still choose not to enforce the law, right? The signing statement is just the mechanism used to announce that decision.

My understanding is that the signing statement directs the executive departments and agencies in the manner in which they are expected to enforce the law -- so while a "passive" notification, it also "actively" carries information. Take the signing statement away, and at least one mechanism by which the president materially alters the purpose of the legislation (in the process violating 2 of the 6 basic principles of the Constitution, separation of powers and checks and balances) is removed.

Insofar as they have no meaning they are alright, but insofar as they have any meaning they seem overtly destructive to our principles and should be shunned, if not banned outright.

It stops being a benign "inter-office memo" when it becomes the equivalent of a police chief directing his officers to ignore the 4th Amendment.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Take the signing statement away, and at least one mechanism by which the president materially alters the purpose of the legislation (in the process violating 2 of the 6 basic principles of the Constitution, separation of powers and checks and balances) is removed.

Insofar as they have no meaning they are alright, but insofar as they have any meaning they seem overtly destructive to our principles and should be shunned, if not banned outright.

It stops being a benign "inter-office memo" when it becomes the equivalent of a police chief directing his officers to ignore the 4th Amendment.

Not all signing statements stating something is unconstitutional are wrong. For example, the anti-animal crush video law took years to get to SCOTUS because the executive branch refused to enforce it because they knew it was unconstitutional and didn't want to waste time and money enforcing it and then fighting it in courts. Lo and behold, when it finally did make its way up on the very first instance of its usage, the executive branch was proven right as SCOTUS struck it down.

So while I think signing statements have been abused lately...I can't state that they're always evil/troubling/whatever.

It would help, however, if they'd amend the Constitution to allow SCOTUS to provide advisory opinions to Congress, as many state Supreme Courts do. If something truly controversial comes up, they could at least get something from SCOTUS saying "We agree/disagree that this proposed legislation is constitutional." Seems like it'd be better to just do so right away than wait 10+ years after the fact, but that's just me.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It would help, however, if they'd amend the Constitution to allow SCOTUS to provide advisory opinions to Congress, as many state Supreme Courts do. If something truly controversial comes up, they could at least get something from SCOTUS saying "We agree/disagree that this proposed legislation is constitutional." Seems like it'd be better to just do so right away than wait 10+ years after the fact, but that's just me.

My gut reaction to that is it would REALLY politicize the Court. The way things are now the Court judges the law based on specific circumstances that bring a case before them. The way you propose, the Court would actually be making a judgement while the legislative process was in motion. That would reduce the Court even more to just another partisan body rather than an adjudicator above the fray, and that would be... disheartening.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

That would reduce the Court even more to just another partisan body rather than an adjudicator above the fray, and that would be... disheartening.

Wait, when did the court stop being just another partisan body?

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Are there better options out there for someone like me who currently doesnt have a salaried job just hourly and tips? (I am a bartender) I save in a savings account currently but if there is a better option I am open to it.

Open a Roth IRA account. This can be done through any brokerage (scottrade, et al). You can contribute up to $5000 annually in after-tax income. When you withdraw the money upon retiring, it will not be taxed. Furthermore, you can withdraw the principal at any time without being penalized (penalty applies to earnings of course). A tax-deferred IRA is another option - 401(k)s represent a type of IRA and are through an employer. You can also open a tax-deferred IRA on your own I think.

Difference between the two approaches is the Roth is taxed right away - while the earnings are not. With the tax deferred account, you are taxed when you take money out - so it all comes down to what you think your rate is likely to be in the future vs. now. Typically people assume a lower rate in retirement (thus tilting things in favor of a tax deferred account), but given the country's financial situation, I wouldn't be so sure of it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Wait, when did the court stop being just another partisan body?

The Court nearly destroyed itself with Bush v Gore, but it also nearly destroyed itself with Dred Scott. This too shall pass but in the meantime and with the current composition of, shall we say, substandard jurists, we shouldn't give them matches to play with.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Right, but if it is 100% pure political theater, who cares? It's a no-lose proposition as far as I'm concerned.

Speaking of.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The Court nearly destroyed itself with Bush v Gore, but it also nearly destroyed itself with Dred Scott. This too shall pass but in the meantime and with the current composition of, shall we say, substandard jurists, we shouldn't give them matches to play with.

But before then, it was totally apolitical. I mean, that whole Marbury v. Madison thing was 100% devoid of politics. Pure as the driven snow.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Speaking of.

Still say it's a no-lose idea. Even stuff like this is good I think.

Before the reading of the Constitution by House members got underway, two Democrats rose to question how and why it was decided that sections that had been amended out of existence -- such as the 3/5 cause -- would not be read today. Rep. Jesse Jackson (D-Ill.) argued that it might be vital to hear the "deleted" sections of the Constitution, to remind Americans of how some people were cut out of their democracy at times.

"This is done with sincerity," said Jackson, "not to take a shot at the idea of reading the Constitution."

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Not all signing statements stating something is unconstitutional are wrong. For example, the anti-animal crush video law took years to get to SCOTUS because the executive branch refused to enforce it because they knew it was unconstitutional and didn't want to waste time and money enforcing it and then fighting it in courts. Lo and behold, when it finally did make its way up on the very first instance of its usage, the executive branch was proven right as SCOTUS struck it down.

So while I think signing statements have been abused lately...I can't state that they're always evil/troubling/whatever.

It would help, however, if they'd amend the Constitution to allow SCOTUS to provide advisory opinions to Congress, as many state Supreme Courts do. If something truly controversial comes up, they could at least get something from SCOTUS saying "We agree/disagree that this proposed legislation is constitutional." Seems like it'd be better to just do so right away than wait 10+ years after the fact, but that's just me.

The problem is, the Constitution already give the President a very strong way to address a law passed by Congress with which he disagrees. It's called a veto.

The right way to deal with these things is to veto the law. The chicken way to deal with these things is to sign the law and then refuse to enforce it.

 

[Jon]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I love Glenn Beck. The little old men who run my gym can't move from room to room without turning on Fox News. Yesterday he starting talking about Yoda, Mussolini, Vlad the Impaler, and....

*drumroll*

The Ewoks. So the people who actually liked the Ewoks include George Lucas, Glenn Beck and Eric Cartman.

I almost want to watch him today to see if he mentions Jar Jar.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The Court nearly destroyed itself with Bush v Gore, but it also nearly destroyed itself with Dred Scott.

Yeah, not so much. The whining about Bush v. Gore is notable but hardly came close to destroying the Court.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

But before then, it was totally apolitical. I mean, that whole Marbury v. Madison thing was 100% devoid of politics. Pure as the driven snow.

Nobody said that. It waxes and wanes. Anything we can do to help it wane is good.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So how about an era when the court waned non-political then? I think you'd be hard pressed to find one. I don't think that's such a bad thing either.