PDA

View Full Version : Economics Forcing IRA/401k to invest in Treasuries??


talastan
01-14-2010, 09:02 AM
I know it is a WorldNetDaily post, but I was wondering if anyone heard the Rick Santelli broadcast....

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121891

Obama to meddle with your retirement account?
Administration considers forcing investors into Treasury debt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 14, 2010
12:30 am Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


The Obama administration appears to have come up with a novel way of financing trillion-dollar budget deficits – demanding IRA and 401(k) holders buy trillions of dollars in Treasury bonds.

With the Treasury needing this year to see another $1 trillion in debt to finance the anticipated federal budget deficit, and the Federal Reserve about to discontinue its 2009 program of buying Treasury bonds for the Fed's asset portfolio, the Obama administration is scrambling to find ways to sell government debt without having to raise interest rates.

Bloomberg reported Friday that Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Mark Iwry are planning to stage a public comment period before implementing regulations that would require private investors to structure IRA and 401(k) accounts into what could amount to a U.S. Treasury debt-backed government annuity.

CNBC's Rick Santelli broadcast the rumor the same day from the trading floor during CNBC's "Power Lunch" show.

Spokesmen from both the U.S. Treasury and Department of Labor confirmed to WND that the federal agencies about to enter a pre-regulation public comment phase on the proposed rule change.

But the agencies are getting serious pushback from the mutual fund industry, objecting to what some financial planners see as a government attempt to divert hundreds of billions of dollars of private retirement accounts into federal government debt, regardless whether the investment in Treasury bonds is in the best interest of the retirement-oriented investor.

On the Department of Labor website, the transcript of a Dec. 9 webchat with Borzi confirms the Employee Benefits Security Administration is about to issue a Request for Information on how annuity lifetime options should be structured into a wide range of defined contribution retirement plans, including 401(k)s.

Under ERISA, the Department of Labor regulates approximately 700,000 private pension plans, with approximately $4.7 trillion in assets.

"Lifetime Income Options," code words for annuities, are also listed in the Department of Labor's regulatory agenda for the Employee Benefits Security Administration, issued Dec. 7 and filed in the Federal Register.

The government's argument is that IRA and 401(k) investors lost principle in the stock market when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted from a closing of 14,164.53 on Oct. 9, 2007, to 6,547.05 on March 9, 2009.

For instance, Fidelity Investments reported the average fund balance on the approximately 11 million accounts Fidelity manages dropped 31 percent to $47,500 at the end of March, from $69,200 at the end of 2007.

With the stock market rally since March, Fidelity further reports 401(k) account balances increased 128 percent by the end of the third quarter 2009, to an average of $60,700, from the low at the end of the first quarter 2009 of $47,500.

While U.S. Treasury bonds have had historically lower yields than equity returns, government proponents of the idea argue Treasury bonds are safer, guaranteed by the federal government to pay principal and interest regardless of market conditions.

Furthermore, annuities as life insurance contracts have a unique investment advantage of being able to pay a specified lifetime income, regardless how long the annuitant lives.

The Investment Company Institute, a national trade organization representing the mutual fund industry, argues that the distinction of the Obama administration proposal would be to require annuities funded with Treasuries to be embedded within IRAs and 401(k) programs, using the fear of loss as a reason to demand retirement investors own Treasuries.

Right now, IRA holders and investors in 401(k) plans are free to invest in Treasury bonds, if they choose.

Also, annuities are a popular settlement option for IRAs and 401(k) plans that transition from the accumulation phase to the payout phase.

Annuities are an attractive payout instrument, because annuities offer the part of lifetime income and only a portion of each payout installment is considered taxable as return of investment principle.

Interest or investment earnings in annuities accumulate income tax-deferred until the annuitant takes out money, either in an unscheduled withdrawal, or in a payout option extending over a specified number of years in retirement, or for the lifetime of the annuitant.

The unusual nature of the Obama administration's proposal would be to place as an investment a tax-deferred instrument like an annuity within a tax-deferred retirement program. Investment advisers typically use annuities as an investment option for after-tax dollars, not as a required investment option within a retirement program like an IRA or 401(k) that is already income-tax deferred.

A survey conducted by the Investment Company Institute showed more than 70 percent of all households disagreed with the idea of requiring retirees to buy annuities with a portion of their assets, whether the annuity is offered by an insurance company or by the government.

Moreover, 96 percent of households in the survey responded that retirees rejected the idea that the government should mandate turning IRA or 401(k) assets into annuities, asserting instead that retirees should make their own decisions about managing retirement assets and income.

The Investment Company Institute member companies manage some $11.62 trillion in mutual fund assets for some 90 million mutual fund shareholders, including retirement-oriented investors participating in defined contribution plans such as employer-sponsored 401(k) accounts.

HonestChieffan
01-14-2010, 09:03 AM
How do you spell Control?

cookster50
01-14-2010, 09:05 AM
Obama?

talastan
01-14-2010, 09:06 AM
So if I understanding this correctly, I'll be forced to invest my retirement savings in the failing business that is the Federal Government? :cuss:

KC Dan
01-14-2010, 09:09 AM
So if I understanding this correctly, I'll be forced to invest my retirement savings in the failing business that is the Federal Government? :cuss:
Not a chance in hell. This would be their ultimate downfall from ever holding public office again.

Garcia Bronco
01-14-2010, 09:25 AM
I would just stop investing in a 401(k) and take my money out and pay the federal taxes and they get nothing from then on.

HonestChieffan
01-14-2010, 09:30 AM
Imagine if all the IRA and 401 k money in stocks had to be moved. The only way they could do this would be on future contributions.

wild1
01-14-2010, 09:33 AM
They hate 401k, HSA, etc., because it saves you money, gives you control over your own life, and limits the amount you lose to the system.

They'd claw it all back from you and make you a socialist pensioner if they could.

talastan
01-14-2010, 10:17 AM
It will be great to watch the markets freefall when investors liquidate their retirement accounts. :shake:

Chief Faithful
01-14-2010, 10:34 AM
We know Union pensions will be exempt.

Garcia Bronco
01-14-2010, 11:32 AM
It will be great to watch the markets freefall when investors liquidate their retirement accounts. :shake:

It's exactly what would happen.

patteeu
01-14-2010, 12:06 PM
It will be great to watch the markets freefall when investors liquidate their retirement accounts. :shake:

There's a simple solution for that. Just increase the penalty for early liquidation to something approaching 100%. And while we're at it, let's repeal the back-end tax benefit for Roth IRAs (only on the wealthy, definition tbd, of course).

Hey, I'm getting the hang of this socialist thing. Maybe I can find a soft spot to land as a democrat party apparatchik!

KC native
01-14-2010, 12:30 PM
Ah, Jerome Corsi, the outright liar. This article completely misrepresents what's going on.

First off, here is the paper Increasing Annuitization of 401(k) Plans with Automatic Trial Income

Retirement, Social Security, Aging, Pensions

William G. Gale, Vice President and Director, Economic Studies
J. Mark Iwry, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
David C. John, Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Lina Walker, Research Director, The Retirement Security Project
This paper proposes a policy that would increase the role of lifetime income products in future retirees’ overall retirement planning. Over the next few decades, a substantial number of workers will retire with larger balances in their retirement accounts and have fewer sources of longevity protection than retirees today. They, therefore, must manage these resources to ensure they last throughout their retirement. Lifetime income products would be beneficial for many because payments are made for life and they mitigate the risk of running out of resources late in life. Despite the benefits of lifetime income, current retirees do not use lifetime income products very much and future retirees are unlikely to do so under current arrangements. The reasons may be that retirees already feel they have sufficient guarantees—for example, from social security benefits—against the risk of outliving their resources. However, evidence suggests also that the market for lifetime income products functions poorly and that people do not understand and are biased against the products.

Our strategy addresses market function by making it easier for a substantial number of retirees to purchase lifetime income plans; the increased volume of sales would reduce prices and make them a better value for the average consumer. Our strategy addresses the role of ignorance and bias by giving retirees an opportunity to "test drive" a lifetime income product, which would help overcome existing biases, reframe their view of lifetime income products and improve their ability to evaluate their retirement distribution option.

Specifically, we propose that a substantial portion of assets in 401(k) and other similar plans be automatically directed (defaulted) into a two-year trial income product when retirees take distributions from their plan, unless they affirmatively choose not to participate. Retirees would receive twenty-four consecutive monthly payments from the automatic trial income plan. At the end of the trial period, retirees may elect an alternative distribution option or, if they do nothing, be defaulted into a permanent income distribution plan. Employers and plan sponsors would be encouraged to offer the trial income plan and would have discretion over some of its structure and implementation. By making the proposal voluntary, we allow opting out by anyone who is not interested in purchasing guaranteed lifetime income. Several important questions would have to be resolved before this strategy could be implemented. The aim of this paper is to map out the first of several steps toward increasing the use of income products in 401(k)-type plans, with the ultimate goal of enabling improved retirement outcomes for workers.



Here is the Bloomberg story

Retiree Annuities May Be Promoted by Obama Aides
The government is looking at ways to promote the conversion of 401(k)s and IRAs into steady payment streams after a significant decline in plan balances

By Theo Francis

(Bloomberg) — The Obama administration is weighing how the government can encourage workers to turn their savings into guaranteed income streams following a collapse in retiree accounts when the stock market plunged.

The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.

Annuities generally guarantee income until the retiree's death, and often that of a surviving spouse as well. They are designed to protect against the risk that retirees outlive their savings, a danger made clear by market losses suffered by older Americans over the last year, David Certner, legislative counsel for AARP, said in an interview.

"There's a real desire on a lot of people's parts to try to encourage something other than just rolling over a lump sum, to make sure this money will actually last a lifetime," said Certner, legislative counsel for Washington-based AARP, the biggest U.S. advocacy group for retirees.

Promoting annuities may benefit companies that provide them through employers, including ING Groep NV (INGA:NA) and Prudential Financial Inc. (PRU), or sell them directly to individuals, such as American International Group Inc. (AIG), the insurer that has received $182.3 billion in government aid.
Balances Fall

The average 401(k) fund balance dropped 31 percent to $47,500 at the end of March 2009 from $69,200 at the end of 2007, according to a Fidelity Investments review of 11 million accounts it manages. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index tumbled 46 percent in that period. The average balance of the Fidelity accounts recovered to $60,700 as of last Sept. 30 as the stock market rebounded.

There is "a tremendous amount of interest in the White House" in retirement-security initiatives, Borzi, who heads the Labor Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration, said in an interview.

In addition to annuities, the inquiry will cover other approaches to guaranteeing income, including longevity insurance that would provide an income stream for retirees living beyond a certain age, she said.

"There's been a fair amount of discussion in the literature taking the view that perhaps there ought to be more lifetime income," Iwry, a senior adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, said in an interview.
Lump Sums

"The question is how to encourage it, and whether the government can and should be helpful in that regard," Iwry said.

While traditional defined-benefit pensions were paid out as annuities, providing monthly payments for retirees and often their spouses, workers increasingly are taking advantage of options to receive lump-sum distributions.

Only 2 percent of 401(k) plan participants convert retirement savings into an annuity on retirement, according to a July 2009 report from the Retirement Security Project, a joint venture of Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute and the Brookings Institution in Washington.

A survey of 149 companies released on Dec. 17 by employee-benefits consultant Watson Wyatt Worldwide, now part of Arlington, Va.-based Towers Watson & Co. (TW), suggested that about 22 percent of employers with retirement savings plans offered retirees the choice between an annuity and a lump-sum distribution.
Annuity Sellers

Government success in getting workers to move retirement assets into annuities may prove profitable for insurers that sell annuities, Anne Mathias, policy research director for Washington Research Group, a policy analysis unit of Concept Capital, said in an interview.

Retirement plans, including 401(k) accounts, held $3.6 trillion in assets at the end of the second quarter of 2009, while annuity investments of all kinds totaled about $2.3 trillion, according to figures from the Washington-based Investment Company Institute, a trade association for asset managers.

The top sellers of individual annuities in the U.S. include AIG, MetLife Inc. (MET), Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. (HIG), Lincoln National Corp. (LNC) and New York Life Insurance Co., according to figures from the American Council of Life Insurers for 2008. The top group-annuity sellers include ING, Prudential Financial, MetLife and Manulife Financial Corp.
Under Fire

Asset managers are concerned the government may go too far in encouraging annuities, said Mike McNamee, a spokesman for the Investment Company Institute. Seven in 10 U.S. households would object to a requirement that retirees convert part of their savings into annuities, according to a survey the group released today.

"Households' views on policy changes revealed a preference to preserve retirement account features and flexibility," the institute said in a report.

The institute also said annuities have received support from academic research and "it is unclear why individuals usually forego the annuity option" even when it is available. The survey didn't ask about potential efforts by the government to encourage voluntary use of annuities.

Annuity sales to individuals have come under regulatory scrutiny in recent years over the size of sales commissions and whether some varieties are suitable for older investors.
Social Security

John Brennan, the former chairman of Vanguard Group, the Valley Forge, Pennsylvania-based mutual-fund company, criticized annuities today as often expensive and offering little inflation protection. Americans already benefit from "the best annuity in the world, which is Social Security," Brennan said in an interview on Bloomberg Television.

AARP's Certner said policy makers could avoid many of those pitfalls by encouraging the use of group annuities, which are bought by employers rather than individuals and often carry lower fees, or using approaches that provide retirement income without commercial annuities.

Adding lifetime income to 401(k) plans won't be sufficient for many workers because they can't, or don't, save enough to live on in old age, and Social Security often proves inadequate as more than a safety net, said Karen Ferguson, director of the Pension Rights Center in Washington, D.C.
Senate Bill

"It's a great idea, but how much are people really going to get out of it?" she said. A better approach would be to give employers incentives to revive defined-benefit pensions, which have languished as employers have focused on cheaper and more flexible 401(k) plans, Ferguson said.

One proposal raised by Iwry as co-author of a paper while at the Retirement Security Project, before joining the administration, has reached Congress. A bill requiring employers to report 401(k) savings both as an account balance and as a stream of income based on an annuity was introduced on Dec. 3 by Senators Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat, Johnny Isakson, a Georgia Republican, and Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat.

and here's one explaining the created bonds

Administration explores 'R bond' as option for retirement accounts
Automatic IRAs could rely on government bonds as default investments for employees
By Mark Bruno
June 7, 2009
Officials in the Obama administration are moving quickly to develop the investment infrastructure behind the president’s proposal for mandatory automatic enrollment in individual retirement accounts, which could be supported by the creation of Treasury-issued retirement bonds.

J. Mark Iwry, deputy assistant secretary for retirement and health policy at the Department of the Treasury, said that administration officials are exploring some “conservative” options for investing the assets of 78 million Americans that he estimates could be automatically en¬rolled in this “universal” workplace retirement system.

He said that officials have discussed the possibility of making a low-risk life-cycle or target date fund the default investment option for these auto-IRAs, which would be mandatory for employers if they don’t offer a retirement plan to their workers.

BUILDING BLOCK
J. Mark Iwry: The proposal has gained some bipartisan support.
J. Mark Iwry: The proposal has gained some bipartisan support.
But there is also a chance that they could rely on a new form of bond — an “R bond” — as the basic building block for the auto-IRA, Mr. Iwry said in addressing reporters at the Treasury Department in Washington last week.

Administration officials are discussing the exact details of these R bonds, such as their interest rates, maturities and minimums, he noted. These bonds ideally would provide individuals with a source of secure, steady returns that would protect their initial investments.

There are two reasons in particular that R bonds could be an attractive default investment option for auto-IRAs, Mr. Iwry outlined.

For one, many of the individuals who would be automatically en¬rolled in these accounts could be people who had never saved for retirement, he noted. And if their auto-IRA assets are invested in a vehicle that could decline in value or at least fluctuate frequently, these workers may be discouraged from continuing to save, and could choose to opt out of the plan.

Using R bonds as the cornerstone for these accounts, however, could eliminate this volatility issue.

The bonds would also address a second potential problem in getting the auto-IRA program off the ground, Mr. Iwry explained.

Many of the auto-IRA accounts will be fairly small at first, a factor that could dissuade financial services providers — such as mutual fund companies and investment advisers — from wanting to manage these assets.

R bonds, Mr. Iwry said, could serve as the “training wheels” that would allow workers’ auto-IRAs to grow to the point where they would be more attractive to the financial services community. Essentially, these bonds would serve as the bridge between the public and private sectors in the auto-IRA program, he added.

Once workers established more substantial balances, then they could “graduate” to something more appropriate for a long-term retirement investment, such as a target date or life-cycle fund.

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
The administration, which included an auto-IRA provision in its 2010 budget, has gained some bipartisan support for the proposal, Mr. Iwry added. However, as more specific details of the program’s features come out — such as this initial investment infrastructure — opposition could well unfold.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., for one, said last week that she’s concerned any such mandatory retirement proposal “would only lower choices for workers and reduce employers’ flexibility.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Robert Casey Jr., D-Pa., a member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said that he needed more specific information before he could officially weigh in on the auto-IRA proposal.

E-mail Mark Bruno at mbruno@investmentnews.com.

KC native
01-14-2010, 12:39 PM
Cliff notes since most you fuckers are lazy

1) The government wants to give more 401(k) and IRA participants the ability to annuitize their retirement accounts once they start taking distributions. Nothing nefarious and eventhough I'm not a fan of annuities it should be promoted as an option to people who don't know of that option.

2) The government wants more people to invest for retirement. Thus they are proposing an auto-enroll for people whose employers don't provide a retirement plan (think waiters, barbers, etc).

3) Since people can opt out of these auto-enroll accounts they are proposing safe Treasuries to get people with little investing experience and little knowledge to stay invested. These people and their small balances are typically not targeted by financial institutions and tend to get scared off from investing by volatility. They are proposing the Treasury default option (which means they can change it if they want) so these people can build balances that will make the accounts more attractive to financial service institutions where they can receive good advice and service.


All of these are good proposals and NONE OF THEM REQUIRE THAT YOU INVEST IN TREASURIES.

KC Dan
01-14-2010, 01:18 PM
1) The government wants to give more 401(k) and IRA participants the ability to annuitize their retirement accounts once they start taking distributions. Nothing nefarious and eventhough I'm not a fan of annuities it should be promoted as an option to people who don't know of that option. If you say so

2) The government wants more people to invest for retirement. Thus they are proposing an auto-enroll for people whose employers don't provide a retirement plan (think waiters, barbers, etc). No way, no how

3) Since people can opt out of these auto-enroll accounts they are proposing safe Treasuries to get people with little investing experience and little knowledge to stay invested. These people and their small balances are typically not targeted by financial institutions and tend to get scared off from investing by volatility. They are proposing the Treasury default option (which means they can change it if they want) so these people can build balances that will make the accounts more attractive to financial service institutions where they can receive good advice and service. a) Typical nanny-state proposal, make it "people can opt in"
b) With our national debt and continued devaluation of the dollar --> Yeah, right (safe)


All of these are good proposals and NONE OF THEM REQUIRE THAT YOU INVEST IN TREASURIES.
See above red ink, similar to the National budget, you understand that correct? Or, are you too lazy to comprendo that?

ClevelandBronco
01-14-2010, 01:22 PM
If they can mandate you giving your money to a health insurance company, they can sure as hell do this as well.

And it will eventually be mandatory.

Amnorix
01-14-2010, 01:27 PM
If they can mandate you giving your money to a health insurance company, they can sure as hell do this as well.

And it will eventually be mandatory.

They can't mandate you funding your own 401(k) or whatever. That doesn't even make sense.

Obviously, they COULD mandate that the tax break given to 401(k) invetsed funds only apply where the funds are used to purchase treasuries or whatever, but given that that would almost certainly result in dramatically reduced/eliminated 401(k) contributions, that doesn't seem like a very worthwhile rule change.

KC native
01-14-2010, 01:31 PM
See above red ink, similar to the National budget, you understand that correct? Or, are you too lazy to comprendo that?

You are aware that if your company has a retirement plan you are auto-enrolled right? The law changed on that during Bush (I highly doubt you had anything to say about it then). The auto-enroll is just extending that option to people whose employers don't currently sponsor a plan.

Second, Treasuries are safe. The US isn't going to default on it's debt. You may not make any money in real terms after inflation (over the long term) but you won't be losing it either.

KC native
01-14-2010, 01:32 PM
If they can mandate you giving your money to a health insurance company, they can sure as hell do this as well.

And it will eventually be mandatory.

They're not mandating anything like that. Color me not suprised that you don't understand that. The government is looking to promote annuities to people who aren't aware that an annuity can provide income for life so the person doesn't have to worry about exhausting their assets.

patteeu
01-14-2010, 01:35 PM
They can't mandate you funding your own 401(k) or whatever. That doesn't even make sense.

Obviously, they COULD mandate that the tax break given to 401(k) invetsed funds only apply where the funds are used to purchase treasuries or whatever, but given that that would almost certainly result in dramatically reduced/eliminated 401(k) contributions, that doesn't seem like a very worthwhile rule change.

They can mandate that you pay SS taxes so they could mandate that you make a savings-bond-based 401(k) contribution. I don't expect it to happen, but it could. If it was part of a sensible plan to replace SS, I might even support it.

HonestChieffan
01-14-2010, 01:38 PM
The annuity pushers always like anything that promotes annuties. Its a sleazy part of the investment business so it makes sence Obama would like them. The pushers get all their fees up front.

Amnorix
01-14-2010, 02:24 PM
They can mandate that you pay SS taxes so they could mandate that you make a savings-bond-based 401(k) contribution. I don't expect it to happen, but it could. If it was part of a sensible plan to replace SS, I might even support it.

Agreed all around.

Hydrae
01-14-2010, 02:53 PM
You are aware that if your company has a retirement plan you are auto-enrolled right? The law changed on that during Bush (I highly doubt you had anything to say about it then). The auto-enroll is just extending that option to people whose employers don't currently sponsor a plan.

Second, Treasuries are safe. The US isn't going to default on it's debt. You may not make any money in real terms after inflation (over the long term) but you won't be losing it either.

A retirement plan is funded by the company, a 401(k) is mostly funded from your wages. Slight difference there.

Given that a 401(k) is funded from my earnings, they sure as hell better not automatically start taking it for investment purposes without my permission!

KC native
01-14-2010, 03:11 PM
A retirement plan is funded by the company, a 401(k) is mostly funded from your wages. Slight difference there.

Given that a 401(k) is funded from my earnings, they sure as hell better not automatically start taking it for investment purposes without my permission!

:shake: 401(k)'s are a retirement plan. Defined benefit pensions are dead (still have existing but no one does new ones anymore). A 401(k) falls under defined contribution plans. Usually the employer kicks some in as a match thus the defined contribution moniker.

Regardless, if you were to start at a company tomorrow and they offered a 401(k) plan you would automatically be enrolled with a 1% deduction from your paycheck unless you opt out. Where that money is invested in the default scenario is entirely up to the plan (which is designed by a provider and your employer), some go into money markets and some go into target dated funds.

ClevelandBronco
01-14-2010, 03:19 PM
They're not mandating anything like that. Color me not suprised that you don't understand that. The government is looking to promote annuities to people who aren't aware that an annuity can provide income for life so the person doesn't have to worry about exhausting their assets.

You've not run across the word "eventually" before?

alnorth
01-14-2010, 03:31 PM
Well, thats one of the stupidest, most blatantly deceptive articles I've read in a while.

I'm not a big fan of treasuries personally, but if someone who is too lazy or clueless to pick their own investments gets defaulted to treasuries, thats probably fine until they are motivated and educated enough to take an educated risk and get out of treasuries.

To claim that the government is going to start mandating all people with IRA's and 401k's start buying treasuries is nothing more than a flat-out lie.

ClevelandBronco
01-14-2010, 03:42 PM
Well, thats one of the stupidest, most blatantly deceptive articles I've read in a while.

I'm not a big fan of treasuries personally, but if someone who is too lazy or clueless to pick their own investments gets defaulted to treasuries, thats probably fine until they are motivated and educated enough to take an educated risk and get out of treasuries.

To claim that the government is going to start mandating all people with IRA's and 401k's start buying treasuries is nothing more than a flat-out lie.

For now.

KC native
01-14-2010, 03:45 PM
You've not run across the word "eventually" before?

Apparently you need a primer on logical fallacies too. Have you ever heard of a slippery slope argument?

ClevelandBronco
01-14-2010, 03:46 PM
Apparently you need a primer on logical fallacies too. Have you ever heard of a slippery slope argument?

Of course.

HonestChieffan
01-14-2010, 03:55 PM
The slippery slope is on the exit side of the river.

patteeu
01-14-2010, 04:59 PM
Apparently you need a primer on logical fallacies too. Have you ever heard of a slippery slope argument?

That doesn't apply to what he said. He's saying that B could follow A, not that B *must* follow A. Seriously, you should learn more about what fallacies really are.