Catherine Austin Fitts of Solari.com speaking with Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com about the elites, the secrecy, the killing, the debt collapse of our economies, presidential candidates, and our role in what is happening to us.
“I think what the global economy and what the US economy need is the Rule of Law. So if we have to have this conversation which will bring an end to the secrecy and privilege and get back to the Rule of Law so we can support productivity, then I say ‘let’s have a mess’.
On Warren Buffet, Bill Gates & co.
I think his success comes from the covert side and that has never been looked at hard. So I think no one has ever looked seriously at Warren Buffet’s operation. The one who scares me the most is Bill Gates because I think part of what you are watching is one of the factions that is looking to basically run America as a criminal enterprise is Gates plus Buffet plus Clinton. That’s the democratic side, and I think one of the powers of Trump is he is looking at a vision for America and you’ve got a world of Americans saying ‘no, we don’t want our children being autistic from the vaccines, we don’t want our children having their brains turned into mush by Common Core, we don’t want the lawlessness and the crony capitalism that you guys stand for’, and they are just saying ‘no, no, no, no.’
Published on Mar 6, 2016
Are criminals running the U.S. government? Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a former Assistant HUD Secretary, says, “Yes. . . . The American government . . . is running the central banking warfare model globally, and it depends heavily on criminal profits. If you look at the general population, the general population supports that. . . . The general population supports that as long as they can pretend they don’t have responsibility for that. If you look at the drug trafficking, the mortgage fraud, stuffing innocent people into prison, that is being implemented one county at a time in 3,100 counties. There are millions of Americans getting paid to put a pretty face to it. . . . The party with the debt growth model is over, and that means the party is over for a lot of people who are unproductive.”
Fitts goes on to say, “I agree with Winston Churchill, and he said, ‘Tell the people.’ If you tell the people what the real problems are and give them the tools . . . the wealth potential with new technologies and where you have rule of law where people believe in an economy where winners are allowed to happen. . . . Wow, it could be incredible.”
Catherine Austin Fitts on how ‘Mom and Pop’ are being blamed for what has happened to the economy and one of the most striking comments follows…
I think we all have to take responsibility to solve the problem, but the people who created this was not Mom and Pop. If anything, Mom and Pop have been harvested to finance the breakaway civilizationand the leadership moving trillions of dollars offshore.
Ms. Fitts also covers the $27 Trillion given to the banks….Cyprus is coming here kids, time to prepare.
Catherine Austin Fitts on Financial Survival Radio (1.16.2011) on why her money is NOT in a 401(k) and how the federal government is salivating over yours. I have written extensively about the government seizing your 401(k), (and the leftist think tank behind it), and using the last $8 trillion in American’s wealth to keep the ponzi scheme going. Check the related links at the bottom of the post.
October 13, 2010 Download a PDF version of this article
Over the past few years, various proposals for annuitization of 401(k) and IRA accounts upon retirement and automatic enrollment in 401(k) programs have been made. On September 14-15, 2010, the Departments of Labor and the Treasury held a joint hearing on Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries in Retirement Plans. The hearings focused specifically on annuitization of retirement funds and the feasibility for introducing these annuities into 401(k) and IRA plans.
Switch to Annuities/Lifetime Income
The possibility of 401(k) annuitization appears to have caught the public eye primarily in response to the November 04, 2008 testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci before House Democrats and a November 20, 2007 paper she wrote entitled “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts: Toward Retirement Income Security,” published by the Economic Policy Institute’s Agenda for Shared Prosperity. A report in the Carolina Journal Online characterized her testimony and the hearings as “proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts—including 401(k)s and IRAs— and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.” While somewhat polemic in its language, and perhaps not entirely accurate, the Carolina Journal did cover the most salient points of this proposal. Ghilarducci advocates creation of Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs), which would be mandatory, and which would be funded through payroll deductions in the same way Social Security currently is. These funds would be matched and placed into a pooled account which the Federal Government would invest and manage, guaranteeing a 3% rate of return. Upon retirement, these funds would be annuitized, and that portion of the funds contributed by the individual, minus any benefits received, could be passed on to heirs. Ghilarducci further advocates shifting current employer tax incentives from 401(k)s to these GRAs, and to the extent that tax privileges are, indeed, shifted, there would almost certainly be a shift of funds held in 401(k)s to the GRAs, though there would technically be no “confiscation” of 401(k) assets.
As interesting as Ghilarducci’s proposal is, it pales in comparison to the influence and reach of the writings and proposals of individuals associated with the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton and Retirement Security Projects.
In April of 2006, the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project published “Improving Opportunities and Incentives for Saving by Middle- and Low-Income Households“, in which it advocated mandatory and automatic enrollment in retirement plans for employees of all businesses (“with possible exceptions for the smallest”), universal matching by the Federal Government for all contributions, and “other changes to the retirement system to promote lifetime annuities.” In particular, the paper “recommend[s] that the government set as a default that the matching contributions in each person’s account be annuitized,” which “would set the precedent … that annuities are a sensible use of retirement resources.” These annuities would ideally be provided by the Federal government and processed by the Social Security Administration.
In June of 2008, Iwry co-authored, and the Hamilton Project published, “Increasing Annuitization of 401(k) Plans with Automatic Trial Income“, in which Iwry and his colleagues advocated that “a substantial portion of assets in 401(k) … plans be automatically directed (defaulted) into a two-year trial income product[, i.e., an annuity,] … unless [retirees] affirmatively choose not to participate.” The reasoning for these automatic trial annuities is not clear, and seems simply to be that retirees might run out of money if they manage their own savings themselves.
In July of 2009, the Retirement Security Project of the Brookings Institute published “Automatic Annuitization: New Behavioral Strategies for Expanding Lifetime Income“, in which Iwry and his colleagues continued their proposal for automatic, mandatory trial annuities, and added a proposal for automatic enrollment, mid-career, in a separate annuity fund within existing 401(k) accounts, to which the employer’s matching contribution would be directed.
The push for automatic annuities appears mainly to be rationalized through the demise of the historic private pension plan system in which companies provided fixed income benefits to their employees upon retirement. As 401(k) programs were introduced, businesses opted for these less-burdensome and tax-incentivized plans, abandoning the traditional pension plans. The need for fixed-income payments is also briefly rationalized in an articulated concern over the future of Social Security benefits, something which does not really lend support to yet another Federal government-sponsored annuity plan. Finally, the arguments for automatic annuitization are generally based on the uncertain financial landscape and a general need for guaranteed income on the part of retirees. As important as these factors are to consider, however, the necessary logical conclusion that all retirement accounts must be turned into annuities simply does not follow.
The actual testimony at the Joint Hearings on September 14-15 was varied on the subject of mandatory annuitization. The Vanguard Center for Retirement Research indicated that annuities are not a popular investment choice for retirees, especially given the annuity-like Social Security and Medicare programs already provided, and most individuals want to have the flexibility and liquidity of a lump-sum payment managed under their own direction, rather than a fixed-income annuity. However, several large entities, including TIAA-CREF came out in favor of at least partial retirement annuities, and in support of proposed Federal regulation requiring annuity information on retirement documents.
Making 401(k)s Mandatory
A second aspect of current 401(k) and IRA proposals at issue is the possibility that all business entities will be required to provide 401(k) plans and that all employees will be required to enroll in these plans.