How many times will Social Security be . . .

[merrylander]

Uh Pete, they repealed Glass-Stegal way back when, exactly what regulation are you talking about?

[piece-itpete]

The regulation that forces companies like mine to have practically a division reporting to the government?

The only thing not regulated is garage sales etc, and just wait.

Pete

[merrylander]

Yet with all this "regulation" the derivative boys still managed to wreck the economy?

[piece-itpete]

There is no doubt that political pressures played their part.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

There is no doubt that political pressures played their part.

Yes, there is. I'm not convinced that the Titans of Wall Street can be convinced to undertake an investment scheme by Congressional strong-arming.

It's a convenient excuse to blame government instead of the actual jagoffs who caused the problem (while said jagoffs were lining the pockets of politicians to reduce regulations/scrutiny to allow them to make (and lose) their millions).

[piece-itpete]

The whistle was blown as early as Clintons' second term. And the new, open government of Obama still refuses to release freddie/fannies' contribution records.

Pete

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It's a convenient excuse to blame government instead of the actual jagoffs who caused the problem (while said jagoffs were lining the pockets of politicians to reduce regulations/scrutiny to allow them to make (and lose) their millions).

Depends on what "problem" we're referring to. If the problem is derivatives and obscuring losses in the mortgage market, them we have to start with the "jagoffs". If the issues is the relaxing of underwriting standards in the face of pressure by the feds to write more mortgages that folks couldn't afford so the "have nots" could turn in to "haves", then we need to look inside the beltway.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Bullshit, my former employer was/is profitable has fully funded its employee retirement plan and I don't doubt but what they will continue to be profitable.

They seem to be able to administer the retirement plan and even provide COLA when warranted.

The problem here is in part based on some idiotic rules such as quarterly reporting whose sole benefit is to profit takers on Wall Street.

Dave is correct in stating that the so called "free market" as some self-regulating sentient being is an insult to any intelligent person. It never has been truly free in any case but has been manipulated from within.

What part is "BS"? I'm one of the limited few who still works for an employer that offers both 401(k) and pension. So what? Only 17 of the Fortune 100 still offer a defined benefit plan, and that number will likely fall over the ensuing years.

Reporting requirements are a function of the SEC, so you can look to our fearless leaders if you want to complain about that.

Still the question remains: what is the correct role of the employer in all of this, who defines it, and how is it defined?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Thoughtful post, but it seems to me that funding for health insurance or retirement has to come from somewhere. It either comes from the state through general taxation or through the employer through wages and benefits. Pick your poison.

As you are certainly aware, during WWII, wage and price controls were placed upon American employers (rightly or wrongly). To compete for workers, companies begin to offer health benefits, giving rise to the employer-based system. Inertia, along with GOP scare tactics, keeps it that way.

Yes, I'm aware that what once was a recruiting tactic has devolved into an expectation/perceived right. Don't quite get the reference to the "GOP scare tactics." Expand please?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Still the question remains: what is the correct role of the employer in all of this, who defines it, and how is it defined?

the government needs to define it or we have abuse