It's not the biggest deal in the world, but it was odd of Hillary Clinton to say that you're automatically enrolled in a 401(k) when you sign on with a 401(k)-providing insurer. This isn't the case, but it ought to be the case, and making the change has been proposed by many people.
« Inside/Outside | Main | Debate Wrapup »
401(k)
26 Feb 2008 09:15 pm
Comments (22)
Another Clinton canned line (SNL/pillow) gets a negative reaction from the audience.
Doesn't learn form experience.
bravo! had the same thought.
it was probably hard on her because they keep asking her the first question. (can't wait for media matters or someone to do the math on this.)
russert's hometown ain't buffalo anymore, though. wish she had called him out on that. there once was a pundit from nantucket!
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 cleared the way for auto-enrollment, or automatic 401(k)s. The main obstacles were employers' concerns of fiduciary liability for any temporary dips in account values in the default investment option (e.g., a lifecycle fund) and concerns about violating state wage laws. The Act addressed those concerns, and auto-enrollment is gradually being adopted by more employers.
Yes, but auto-enrollment isn't mandatory, which was the analogy Clinton was making.
"Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals" -- all the sudden I want both candidates to stick around for a while.
Yes, Fred got that right. Employers can now make enrollment automatic. But it's up to them. Obama proposes creating automatic IRAs as well (Clinton has as well, but has given the proposal a much lower profile.) We discuss the details on this and link to a longer policy brief here:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/01/clinton-vs-obama-on-retirement-savings.html
omg tim russert = noah pollak
where's marty tnr?
"Another Clinton canned line (SNL/pillow) gets a negative reaction from the audience."
It didn't seem canned at all to me. I would bet her advisers cringed when she said it. I think it was her frustration pouring out there. She was really pissed the first twenty minutes. My wife was in the other room doing work and she had to ask me who the angry woman was.
So many bureaucratic tricks in the age of deregulation. As someone in my 15th year of a rare progressive illness - people's jsws drop when they hear what health insurance companies have put me through.
there once was a pundit from nantucket!
I once knew a man from Nantucket.
And?
Let's just say the stories about him are deeply exaggerated.
To whomever asked for the math re: who gets the first question, Clinton has now been asked the first question in 6 of the last 10 debates. So maybe this was Obama's turn, but I doubt she's been keeping track. I think she's just frustrated.
Obama's "denunciation" of Farrakhan did not seem heartfelt. Who is the real Obama?
Overall Hillary was very good but Obama was better. Winner on points, unanimous decision.
Russert is embarrassing.
Who is the real Obama?
He's an inexperienced, shallow, empty suit, pro-Iraq war, conservative, secret Muslim, cult leader fairy tale with no record of accomplishment.
Or have you forgotten your talking points already?
Obama's "denunciation" of Farrakhan did not seem heartfelt.
I'm working and didn't see the debate, but Obama can be very cool, almost impassive at times. I think his temperament generally serves him well, but I wonder if that coolness might be offputting on issues that most people interpret in a very emotional way.
Led,
No, that wasn't the case. Obama was fine on that answer. If anything, he went a bit overboard.
"Still Undecided" has been posting here the past couple weeks trashing Obama and his "cultlike" voters every chance s/he gets, mostly in a ridiculous manner, very much emblematic of the way the Clinton campaign has - and getting crushed.
As for my earlier comment:
He's an inexperienced, shallow, empty suit, pro-Iraq war, conservative, secret Muslim, cult leader fairy tale with no record of accomplishment.
Clearly, there's a new adjective to add, based on "Still Undecided's" latest analysis:
Obama's an inexperienced, shallow, empty suit, pro-Iraq war, conservative, secret Muslim, jew-hating cult leader fairy tale with no record of accomplishment.
You guys never give up. I guess you deserve some twisted credit for that.
I've read Still Undecided's comments recently, but that one seemed fair minded and balanced to me so I responded in kind. And Sullivan also thought the response wasn't sufficiently impassioned so I was worried. And, hey, I'm not going to get mad a Clinton supporter saying Obama won the debate by unanimous decision!
Just to be clear, because I've haven't watched the debate yet either
Matt means "employer" above - not "insurer", right?
Led,
Fair points, but I'd keep in mind that Obama generally keeps an even keel throughout the debates and it might have been a bad idea to get all worked up by a Russert tactic designed to elicit a hyperbolic response.
I think the criticism of the manner of how Russert handled that line of questioning will be pretty unanimous.
I just read Andrew Sullivan's take on the Farrakhan stuff, and while I appreciate where he's coming from, he seemed a bit hysterical on it.
He just posted a bunch of dissent to his initial take, which I think is closer to the mark. Take a look if you get a chance.
I mean, he initially wrote:
I have not believed that Obama has an ounce of sympathy for a creep like Farrakhan. But Obama has now made me doubt this.
Steve Sailer-creep.
Sullivan doesn't actually like Obama; he's just using him to prop his loathing of Hillary Clinton.
If Obama gets the election, watch his Bell Curve streak re-appear.
If Obama gets the Nomination, I mean.
Obama's "denunciation" of Farrakhan did not seem heartfelt.
Obama is not your monkey whose job is to show the proper heartfelt passion about stupid questions on demand.
I could probably not conjure up a "heartfelt" denunciation of Farrakhan, because I'd be thinking to myself, "who is this idiot asking me about Farrakhan and why do I have to answer his stupid questions?" In fact, if you asked me to "denounce" Farrakhan, I'd probably start mocking you.
Comments closed March 11, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
A lot of what she's saying isn't actually the case, and luckily she'll get hammered for it because the press is so anti-Hillary.
Posted by Zach | February 26, 2008 9:21 PM