“The problem is, is that the way BUSH has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents -- number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.” Barak Hussein Obama - July 3, 2008, at a campaign event in Fargo, N.D.

Fully understand, my comment was tongue in cheek...

With Skype, GoToMeeting and the like the bureaucrats have no excuse for expensive 'training' conferences. The elected could also stay in their home districts instead of all congregating in a central location. That would sure put a crimp in the lobbyist budget.

True. You are still in the system though.

If I were to become dictator, a position I never want, then representatives and senators would vote from their own districts and conduct their communications via Skype or something like it. Taking the power away from Washington is part of the solution - BUT IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Same with Texas.

Because the wealth is there to be looted.

"Given the Dems already stated (in late 2013) intention to nationalize 401Ks (and possibly IRAs later), I have already withdrawn everything I can (almost half) right now from my Roth IRAs..."
This doesn't make sense to me (although politicians often don't make sense) b/c monies in an IRA are shielded from some law suits. It's easier ordinarily for someone to take wealth held outside an IRA. If Congress were going after people's wealth, why would they focus only wealth held within an IRA. You only qualify for an IRA if your income that year was low. So why they go after wealth built by people with lower incomes?

Five tax years after your Roth IRA conversion(s), you can withdraw the converted amount without the 10% early withdrawal penalty. So, for example, if you converted in June 2013, the five year clock starts January 1st, 2013. Thus, you can withdraw the conversion amount (but not any earnings) penalty free on or after January 1st, 2018.

Given the Dems already stated (in late 2013) intention to nationalize 401Ks (and possibly IRAs later), I have already withdrawn everything I can (almost half) right now from my Roth IRAs...

One of my college professors (H. Vernon Poe, Clemson University) years ago used to tell us that the best thing we the people could do is move our nation's capital each year. It took several years for me to appreciate the wisdom in that perspective.

I am switching my IRA to a Roth to get the tax implications out of the way, so that I can start earning money tax-free.
As for the 401K, I can't touch that for over a decade without huge penalties.

In Montana they only meet every other year.

I *think* they are too smart to confront individuals... more likely, there will be a campaign to nationalize 401K plans with some Ponzi scheme rationale of it being a better deal than the current plans we have. Given the intelligence of the typical US voter, this would likely fly.

One of the few things I like in NH is the state legislature. Unpaid and only in session for part of the year.

Restricts the damage they do.

I prefer they don't write any bills. I'd rather pay them to stay home...it's cheaper.

You don't sign up. They send your medicare card in the mail and you chose between option A and option B. You get one either way.

"No one is coming to your home for $150,000". Not yet anyway. But to the administration we have right now it might just be the next logical step. And you want to blame this all on Congress? Since when does Lord Obama need their permission for anything?
Apologists for this sort of bad government behavior would claim they have every right come asking for the money. After all it was spent on us. You remember that whole "You didn't build that" thing?

The house has passed plenty of bills, they go to die in the Senate.....like the fossils who "work" there.

Gridlock would be better than the alternative we had in 08 and 09, but it is so gridlocked they can't rein in the white house either.

So we get the worst of both

I have no idea what you are talking about. "Besides, you are legally obligated to go through the medicare system first when you reach 65." I turn 65 later this year. If I do not sign up are they going to arrest me? They have not threatened to do so. They say that I am "eligible." The Selective Service is pretty clear about that not being voluntary: http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm
https://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/11306....