Like working until your 80s? It's easy to see why many Americans will face that stark reality:...


Like working until your 80s? It's easy to see why many Americans will face that stark reality: 56% of U.S. workers have less than $25,000 saved; 60% of retirees have less than $50,000 saved; 45M Americans are on food stamps; plus consumers strapped with trillions in mortgage, student loan, credit card and auto debt.
Comments (117)
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    Obama should be pretty happy. He seems to have driven the final nail in achieved each of his significant goals.
    10 Jun 2011, 05:46 PM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    With all due respect, while I think Obama has done a pretty crappy job....two wars and 8 years of wild spending from Bush/Cheney/+Democratic Congress squandering a budget surplus started us on the trail.Obama certainly did not help but you need to be real about the huge hole he inherited. These one sided attacks are getting real old.

     

    That's all I have to say.
    10 Jun 2011, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (592) | Send Message
     
    There was no budget surplus under clinton, the nat. debt increased every year he was in office.
    10 Jun 2011, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    Yes there certainly was. You can deny all you want ....let me guess another birther in our midst...please get some help before too long as living in a fantasy realm will screw your head up in the long term.
    10 Jun 2011, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Geez kcr357, I thought you were just another kook. So, I googled this issue and basically you are correct. It really kind of pisses me off cause I've been believing this for years.

     

    Their analysis concluded that Clinton's contention was a half-truth. Half-truths are worst than downright lies, I think.

     

    www.politifact.com/tru.../
    10 Jun 2011, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Ken, regrettably I have to agree with kcr357 below. Your generally correct about everything else though. And although there wasn't any budget surplus to squander, our debt by Bush era standards was practically nothing. It was the wild spending and the huge hole President Obama inherited that makes your case, pure and simple.
    10 Jun 2011, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    Congressional Budget Office, Goldman Sachs and Bloomberg news all confirm a budget surplus, be careful where you source your news....the mind is an easy thing to manipulate,

     

    Ok.....neither here nor there for today's issues....and I need to eat something for dinner before I pass out....night all.
    10 Jun 2011, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Neil, give me a break. President Obama has been in office 2 years. This crap has been going on for 30, 40 or 50 years. How's it his fault????

     

    Your anal ytical power's are astounding.
    10 Jun 2011, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Ken, if you would, read the politifact article and get back. It does get a little convoluted, but, the article seemed credible to me. And I'd like your spin on it.
    10 Jun 2011, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    I think it is wrong to pin the wild spending on 8 years of Bush. It really started going downhill fast about 40 years ago when congress found out it could spend all it wanted with no consequences to themselves.
    10 Jun 2011, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    I had bought into that also until I did some Googling to refute your claim.

     

    I guess I have a red face now, because you are correct - there was never any debt reduction at all under Clinton.

     

    In fact, it appears that the debt only went down one time since WW2 - in 1957. www.treasurydirect.gov...
    10 Jun 2011, 08:46 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Nope - I thought so also, until I actually looked it up www.treasurydirect.gov...

     

    I can't believe myself that I bought into it for so long without ever actually checking it, which took 3 minutes to find.
    10 Jun 2011, 08:48 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Apparently that surplus did not translate into lowering the debt. So the question now is, where did it go?
    10 Jun 2011, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1608) | Send Message
     
    www.treasurydirect.gov...

     

    Hasner, don't talk about something you don't know, you sound very ignorant....
    10 Jun 2011, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    I agree with Hasner this Obama bashing by individuals that represent one side is getting old. No one told you to go buy a home and use it as an ATM machine. Geez, morons.
    10 Jun 2011, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Just curious, is this public debt, Govt debt or all debt?
    10 Jun 2011, 10:52 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Actually it all started when Nixon took the US off the gold standard in 1971. USD no longer was equivalent to one ounce of gold. Actually, no currency is equal to one ounce of anything.
    10 Jun 2011, 10:58 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (592) | Send Message
     
    Gonna let this one slide cause I believed the balanced budget thing too ;)
    10 Jun 2011, 11:25 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Because he is charge (supposedly). If you can't take the heat etc.
    11 Jun 2011, 12:09 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "Neil, give me a break. President Obama has been in office 2 years. This crap has been going on for 30, 40 or 50 years. How's it his fault???? Your analytical power's are astounding."

     

    Thank you for the compliment. How's it Obama's fault, let me count the ways.

     

    1. Between 1947 and 1983 the debt (adjusted for inflation was statistically flat) so it could not have been going on for 40 or 50 years.

     

    2. The debt when republican's lost congress in 2008 was somewhere around $4.5T, now its hitting $14.3T. So in 30 years since 1983 we went from about $1T to $4.5T (or $0.12T per Year). And that includes 8 years of war. In 4 years since the Democrats took control of congress we have went from $4.5T to $14.3T or $2.4T per year). Most of this debt Obama could have vetoed so its his fault now.

     

    3. The CBO (a democrat organization) projects that the national debt based on Obama's policies will increase $1T each year for the next 10 years. The real number will be significantly higher.

     

    4. Everybody talks about Clinton having a surplus. But Clinton had a Republican Congress during both terms. Its Congress that appropriates spending when the Constitution is followed. Obama does not have that restriction.

     

    In summary, its not what Obama did those first 30 days in office that gets him the blame, its what he has done and what his Congress has done since 2008 that we will have to live with for the next 20 years. So, what about Bush? Does he deserve some of the blame? Sure, but he is no longer in office so it does not matter. Right now the only thing that matters is that the current person that is in place to correct the problem (Obama) has to take the blame for fixing or not fixing the problems.

     

    If the problem is too big for Obama, then he needs to resign so we can get someone in the office that can fix it. If its not too big, then he needs to fix it or take the blame for it not being fixed.
    11 Jun 2011, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    I think you really have to revise your numbers....

     

    www.treasurydirect.gov...

     

    I think your Tea Party mentality has clouded reality. Sorry dude, but this ain't Kansas and i'm not buying.

     

    BTW Clinton Administration also increased the debt, just not by much...from 3 Trillion to 5 Trillion.

     

    www.treasurydirect.gov...

     

    It was the Bush Tax cuts brought the debt up to 10 Trillion. Please get your facts straight before commenting.
    11 Jun 2011, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • Mad_Max_A_Million
    , contributor
    Comments (1175) | Send Message
     
    Hasner: calling someone a birther is like me calling you a moron.
    Not very professional, Ken. Obama is an imperialist feeding (count them) 4-active wars. He is also a socialist. You only have to look at Greece and the PIIGS to see that the voters are running away from socialists in droves. Take a good guess as to why? Liberal/socialists eat, sleep, and drink a failed policy.
    11 Jun 2011, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Like conservatives are any better? Look at conservatives contributions to our national debt...

     

    www.treasurydirect.gov...

     

    You really need to stop labeling one thing bad and the other good. They are both just as bad. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.
    11 Jun 2011, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1608) | Send Message
     
    Very well said, Max.....
    11 Jun 2011, 03:57 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16254) | Send Message
     
    Max:

     

    I only wish Obama --or any of our presidents-- were really am imperialist, rather than the word just being an epithet used in ad-hominem attacks. A real imperialist invades countries for national gain, seeking resources, wealth or other advantages.

     

    We don't do any of that; what we do is an advanced form of Do-Gooderism, and there's not the slightest thing imperialistic about any of it. It costs us a fortune and gains us nothing.
    11 Jun 2011, 04:05 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "It was the Bush Tax cuts brought the debt up to 10 Trillion. Please get your facts straight before commenting."

     

    What a load of crap. Its congress that passes tax laws, its congress that passes spending laws, and its congress that is responsible for our debt and balancing spending and income. Yes Bush should have vetoed the spending. Now Obama should be vetoing the spending. By not using the veto, Obama has taken responsibility for the debt.

     

    Looking at the numbers based on who was President is faulty analysis. The last two years of Bush's administration he was controlled by a Democratic Congress. What ever happened in those two years he had nothing to do with. And it was those years that the debt skyrocketed. Its the same with Clinton, he was controlled by a Republican congress and they did control spending more than any recent Democratic Congress has.

     

    Now please don't take that mean that I think Republicans are any better than Democrats, because they are not. A political elite is a political elite no matter party and they don't serve us. But we do know that compared to Obama, Bush was a penny pincher. That's the facts.
    11 Jun 2011, 04:36 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    And the latest in our do-gooderisms is that our powerful & reliable allies in NATO are running out of ammunition in Libya, so the US once again has to up the ante. How this works out any better than being a true imperialist I am not sure. At least imperialists get to keep the goat farms,
    11 Jun 2011, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Your labeling of anyone that disagrees with you as being of the "tea party mentality" overlooks quite a few facts. We all (or at least most) realize that Bush totally failed to control the Democratic congress in it's wild spending spree, and came up with a ways to spend a trillion or so on his own. Beating a dead cow adds little to the discussion.

     

    Neils' numbers may be off somewhat, but that does not change the basic fact that no matter what Obama inherited, he made a lot of promises to "fix things", and so far has only succeeded in making things worse. He was hired to fix things, and so far he seems far more interested in campaign rhetoric than in actually doing much.

     

    As far as I know, neither Bush nor Obama ever vetoed a single spending bill from congress. Our system is supposed to be checks and balances, but when you have no checks and rubber stamp presidents, you have no balance. In effect, Obama has ended up as Bush II, but with an extra war to spend money on.
    11 Jun 2011, 10:30 PM Reply Like
  • inthemoney
    , contributor
    Comments (997) | Send Message
     
    > We don't do any of that; what we do is an advanced form of Do-Gooderism, and there's not the slightest thing imperialistic about any of it. It costs us a fortune and gains us nothing

     

    It gains geoplitical influence (in theory). I assure you it is not charity that drives them. I am sure they have a map somewhere in White House which shows the zones of geopolitcal influence - US, China, Russia and so on. And like in chess game they are trying to gain advantage through series of maneuvres.
    11 Jun 2011, 11:01 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    So first...

     

    "4. Everybody talks about Clinton having a surplus. But Clinton had a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS during both terms. Its Congress that appropriates spending when the Constitution is followed. Obama does not have that restriction."

     

    And Now...

     

    "The last two years of Bush's administration he was controlled by a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS."

     

    The 2007 budget was approved by a Republican Congress in 2006. The only budget approved by a Democratic Congress was in 2008 and by that time the market was in freefall. Even now this Congress blocks Democratic initiatives. So i guess only Republicans are allowed Defecit Borrowing. Call me a tax and spend and i'll call you a borrow and spend. Kettle calling the pot black.
    During the Clinton administration the only Budgets approved by a Democratic Congress were for FY 1993, 1994 and 1999. The other years were Republican budgets. So they were 50/50 which is the exact balance i like. However if you agree with going into default, like the present day Republicans do, then you agree with people not paying they're bills because they feel like it.
    12 Jun 2011, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Is this a contest to see who spent us into oblivian the fastest, the Left or the Right?

     

    I think they are both winning....
    12 Jun 2011, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    How hard is it to understand...the only problem with the debt is the problem in your mind. I just finished expalaining that the sovereign debt to other nations is 4 trillion...NOT 14 trillion. We owe ourselves 10 trillion because it is the notes we have borrowed being serviced every time you pay your mortgage, your loan, your light bill...every time you spend money notes are created and every time you pay of a loan the note gets service(cancelled). It is this flow of money (notes) that create an economy. Stop the notes, the economy dissappears. Please read up on how the US economy works.
    12 Jun 2011, 11:10 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "However if you agree with going into default, like the present day Republicans do, then you agree with people not paying they're bills because they feel like it."

     

    This is not the same, because people can not print their own money. It seems to be the only tool available to stop the spending. When the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails. With that said, I expect that failure to raise the debt ceiling will not stop the politicians from just ignoring the debt ceiling, like they do a lot of other laws.
    13 Jun 2011, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "the only problem with the debt is the problem in your mind"

     

    The problem is not the debt, its the spending. We have to stop if we are going to survive with any personal assets intact. Spending is giving the government a license to steal from every hardworking American to buy votes from the ignorant and lazy.

     

    What did Karl Marx say, something like, "The best way to kill capitalism is taxes, taxes, and more taxes."

     

    That's the problem.
    13 Jun 2011, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "The 2007 budget was approved by a Republican Congress in 2006. The only budget approved by a Democratic Congress was in 2008 and by that time the market was in freefall. "

     

    Again your cherry picking, there were a lot of things passed in the democratic congress that were not apart of the budget that jacked up spending. And the budget did not cause the market free fall. It was re the result of years of not enforcing our laws. (yes i agree Republican's were part of the problem).

     

    But right now we need to reduce the size and scope of government. Only the Republican's seem to even want to discuss this, so we have to boot the Democrats and vote in Republicans. Will it solve anything? Nope. But at least we'll reduce the Democrat cash giveaway and that will give us time to figure out how to solve the problems.
    13 Jun 2011, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    All the Republicans want to do is transfer the payments from federal employees to companies. I could agree with you if the government would establish what was inherently gubernmental and not pay contract companies for services. If we are are paying a contractor to perform a job then it should not be from our taxes. The companies can charge to whomever they are providing the service to. Otherwise it should be a government job.
    1 in 5 federal employees today is a contractor. So when you say we should reduce the size and scope of the government are you including getting rid of contract company's? Quit paying companies for services which should be paid by the private sector?
    If so i would agree, otherwise i would say that your idea is as bad as the Tea Party's and the only intent was to wait till Republicans won to then increase the Budget Ceiling.
    13 Jun 2011, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    "This is not the same, because people can not print their own money.

     

    So if you had control of the money supply, you would be free to decide whom and when to pay out and it would be OK? What happened to responsibility?
    13 Jun 2011, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    I am not Cherry picking. I am just stating a fact. The Republican Congress was only in charge during half of the Clinton presidency. Was it a factor? I do not know. What i do know is they were great years and we were prosperous...until the Bush/Republican administration took over. That's my only comment.
    13 Jun 2011, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    I really think you should find out how the US economy works. As i said the debt is not bad, it's an illusion. The Fed loaned me the money to buy a house, buy a car..for you to send your kids to college, live in a free speaking society. All these have a small cost.
    I am paying it all back and in 20 years my note will be paid. by then my kid will have taken a loan to buy a house and that debt will rolled into the treasury notes.
    We owe foreign governments less than 4 trillion dollars. thats about 35,000 for every man woman and child in the US. I could pay that off for all my family and have plenty left over to retire. That's my point.
    People are being brainwashed into thinking we are in a dire situation when the reality is we are in a normal spend/deficit cycle and this too will pass. In the meantime everyone is up in arms over nothing.
    13 Jun 2011, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "So if you had control of the money supply, you would be free to decide whom and when to pay out and it would be OK? What happened to responsibility?"

     

    It left the day Obama was elected.
    13 Jun 2011, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "If so i would agree, otherwise i would say that your idea is as bad as the Tea Party's and the only intent was to wait till Republicans won to then increase the Budget Ceiling."

     

    I don't care Republican or Democrat, there should be no increase in the debt ceiling.

     

    Don't care contractor or employee.

     

    We have too many inspectors that do nothing except create problems, we have too many social service workers that let kids go home to be abused (do nothing), we have too many regulators that are just waiting for their payoffs (do nothing that helps), and I could go on and on. These are the government jobs that should be removed. Yes reduce the bureaucracy at all levels including defense (not solders on the ground), FBI (again, not agents on the ground), CIA (again, not agents in foreign lands), EPA (everyone), FDA (everyone), etc. We are bloated way past our ability to support he government.

     

    Once the bloat is reduced, then I can happily talk about changing taxes. But the problem is the never ending increases in waste and bloat.
    13 Jun 2011, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    And with that i can agree, the system is bloated. However, two wrongs don't make a right. My problem is where do you cut. Contractors? millions without jobs. Federal employees? most qualify for retirement. Defense? You would have Republicans in an uproar shouting how we would lose our "strategic advantage". Food stamps/welfare? You harm children more than the adults. Think of the Mexican child gangs.
    Personally, i think US Govt should get out of ALL business type agencies like education, dept of labor...but the problem is too many madoffs out there scamming the innocent.
    I guess we don't live in a perfect world. I will tell you one thing, i'd stay in the US rather than go anywhere else on a permanent basis, includding Canada.
    13 Jun 2011, 08:00 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    One, that was not the question and two, Reagan did it, Bush Sr. did it, "Slick Willy" did it, Bush Jr. did it and now Obama's doing it. So by singling out one president you are telling me the whole US mess from over 40 years ago is one man's fault? Don't think so.
    13 Jun 2011, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    You nailed that one!!!
    14 Jun 2011, 01:17 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Neil, Neil, Neil, how easily your ethics are compromised.
    14 Jun 2011, 01:19 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    So what your saying is 40 years of Reaganomics.....er....... voodoo economics for those that don't know GB senior, and a financial crisis, coupled with the drunken sailor spending of W and you finally got religion and want to vote in the same guys that trashed the system.

     

    I get it.
    14 Jun 2011, 01:24 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Right on the money nmelendez. They can't reduce the size of government because they'd have to fire the five contractors and that would hurt their big business cronies. Probably what they'll do is fire the one government employee and hire three more contractors to replace he/she. Then they'll brag about reducing the federal workforce.
    14 Jun 2011, 01:28 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    How can you say he made things worse when we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs before he was sworn in and that isn't happening anymore. The stock market was in the toilet and now it isn't. I could probably sit here all night citing success after success. You are simply a card carrying member of the party of NO. You wouldn't see success if it bit you on the nose. Yes, we have a long way to go. But, it wouldn't seem so long if the other half of the country started saying yes........even if it was just occasionally.

     

    Your guys have been in office for some time now and they haven't done ANYTHING. And, I don't see anything on the horizon either.
    14 Jun 2011, 01:38 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "One, that was not the question and two, Reagan did it, Bush Sr. did it, "Slick Willy" did it, Bush Jr. did it and now Obama's doing it. So by singling out one president you are telling me the whole US mess from over 40 years ago is one man's fault? Don't think so."

     

    No it does not matter, the only thing that matters, concerns who is in office now. We can't change Bush, or the others. We can change what Obama does. This is not about who was right and who was wrong in the past, its about the government stealing from the successful and rewarding the non-productive today. Its has to stop.
    14 Jun 2011, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "Neil, Neil, Neil, how easily your ethics are compromised."

     

    How so? The typical liberal response to facts and reality is to attack the messenger. My ethics don't matter, I am not in office. If you want to attack me, thats fine, but it won't solve the problems in DC.
    14 Jun 2011, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "So what your saying is 40 years of Reaganomics"

     

    You obviously don't have any idea what caused the economic recession. It was liberal government policies forcing banks to lend to people who could not pay back the loans, but which loans were guaranteed by the full faith of the US Government. Now those bills are due and we are paying for liberal policies that had no hope of doing anything other than buy voters short term. The government con men are actively marketing that it was not their fault and a lot of people believe them. That does not change the truth.

     

    Our situation today has nothing to do with Reaganomics!

     

    "voodoo economics for those that don't know GB senior, and a financial crisis, coupled with the drunken sailor spending of W and you finally got religion and want to vote in the same guys that trashed the system."

     

    Nope, I know that they were not perfect, but they were a lot better than any of the Democrat alternatives. Look at Obama. Where Bush spent practically (but too much in my opinion) Obama has quadrupled the spending, Obama has us in 4 wars instead of 2, he still has us in Guantanamo Bay, Obama routinely ignores court orders (Bush would have been impeached if he had done that), Obama has the highest number of non-congressionally approved positions (again Bush would have been impeached if he would have done that) and one could go on an on.

     

    The point is, Obama has not changed one significant Bush policy and in fact has increased them past the point of believability. That means that where I was not happy with Bush, I have to to be at least 4 times as unhappy with Obama. How do you explain that Obama by following the same policies that got us here (your words, not mine) is better, when its not only more of the same, but much much more of the same?

     

    Again, what one thinks of Bush or past politicians from either party does not matter right now, it only matters what you think of the current Congress and Administration.
    14 Jun 2011, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    we will just have to agree to disagree. I see the US correcting past mistakes, but in the beginning of a change, pain will be felt. Change is very hard. People like to be in a known comfort zone and the dynamics are changing. What would you say if i told you SPY would reach 1500 again before the next correction?
    Maybe you believe in the Bush Tax cuts. I do not. I also do not believe in privitization. If a company can do it privately the government should not be paying them to make a profit, i.e. do not use my taxpayer money to pay CEO's. I believe in 6% retirement bonds where at 65 you are entitled to receive 6% of all you put in for the rest of your life, however your premium is forfeit. In sense a federal annuity. Why federal? Do you want to buy some worldcom or Enron stocks cheap? The government cannot cheat. Medical is a necessity, not a commodity and as such certain amount of regulation is needed to keep the medical Bernie Madoffs at bay.
    A level playing field is needed to separate Private and Government like the separation between Church and State. Until that occurs, nothing will be resolved.
    As i said before, my concern is i do not feel like switching from paying, with my taxdollars, feds to paying CEO's. That is my point.
    14 Jun 2011, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (592) | Send Message
     
    The gov can and is cheating; not paying cola to old folks by dismissing inflation is one way they are doing it. Seriously, what needs to happen for the gov. to declare prices are rising? Coke now has a 1.75 liter bottle, another soft drink brand is now making 4 packs instead of six, etc etc etc.
    14 Jun 2011, 08:30 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16254) | Send Message
     
    kcr:

     

    Perhaps, some may have noted that a few beer companies (mostly European) have reduced bottle sizes to 11.2 ounces. I have a simple solution for outfits that make subtle size changes they hope you won't notice; I switch to a competitive product that gives me full sizes, even if the price per unit is as high, or higher.

     

    I loathe stealth price increases by subtle, and often deceptive, packaging. I can abide a price increase, but when companies try to fool me, I fool them, instead.
    14 Jun 2011, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1608) | Send Message
     
    Melendez, why are you whining?Government is not a Nanny.....
    14 Jun 2011, 11:13 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Personally i've made money on the downswing and on the upswing. No longer trust anything. Truthfully, i am almost out of this game, i have a defined pension and will be collecting in two years. I feel sorry for those left behind to the whims of the 5% that own 80% of the US stock market. 401K's are an investment scheme, not a retirement plan. That's one thing everyone will find out eventually.
    I have seen prices back to 2006 levels. I saw Orange juice go from 4.58 for a gallon to 2.55 a gallon. Now it's at 3.65. I buy 2 liter cokes for 79 cents when i used to pay 1.29. Mostly what's gone up is gas and when you eat out. The rest is about the same.
    15 Jun 2011, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Neil, I went back to all your comments and generally agree with what you've said. Can't figure out what the hell I was talking about!

     

    Well, I either had something to say about something, was joking, or forgot to take my meds and was in a bad mood.

     

    Sorry.
    17 Jun 2011, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    Monngle, no problem. Have done it myself a time or two.
    17 Jun 2011, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Well, I don't have enough time to respond to all of your comments. But, I will agree with you to some extent. The financial crisis was caused by a change in government policy regarding loans. I'm not sure you can say that government forced the banks to loan money to people who couldn't afford what they were buying, but, government surely provided the climate for banks to do just that and......I know government encouraged these practices. I can clearly remember Clinton and Bush extolling their accomplishments in getting the American people into home ownership.

     

    I really want to blame the conservatives for the financial crisis, but, I can't in good conscious do that. I did for a long time, but, the truth is Republican and Democrat, left and right were complicit in this little nugget.

     

    I do still have a problem with Republicans that call themselves conservative and then spend our asses into oblivion like Reagan and Bush.

     

    Yes, Obama does seem like Bush II. The only cover I can give Obama is the fact that Bush left him and enormous S#!+ ball to deal with and that s#!+ball required spending a lot of money to stimulate the economy and bail out banks.

     

    1. I'm not crazy about how he spent the money or stimulated the economy.
    2. I don't think he had any choice but to bail out the banks. I know a lot of people think we should have let them fail, but, I don't think I or the country or the world for that matter would have dealt with that much pain very well.

     

    Not sure about your remarks about impeaching Bush. However, I'd like to impeach him right now for the Iraq war. We were clearly lied to and manipulated in every possible fashion to get us into it. It was all very treasonous in my opinion.

     

    Yes, I'm not happy either. And I don't see an end in sight.
    19 Jun 2011, 12:43 AM Reply Like
  • User 487974
    , contributor
    Comments (1101) | Send Message
     
    Its the progressive endgame, get as many on the government dole and as the system collapses, then you are all ready to go with a nice little version of "Socialism", ala Obama!
    Jerry
    10 Jun 2011, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    How many were on the dole during the Bush admin vs Obama ? Do you have those numbers for comparison ? Or are you simply spouting partisan 'shock jock' crap like everyone seems to think is in fashion these days ?

     

    Let's have some numbers to back up your claims..please.
    10 Jun 2011, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • User 487974
    , contributor
    Comments (1101) | Send Message
     
    Hey Ken,
    Bush was just as much a progressive{although he wasn't a socialist}, as John Mcain, a progressive is both Republican and Democrat!
    This is math, pure and simple. Bush's freebie to the elderly{Prescription drug benefit} and now Obama care. This is no longer,"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon your talking real money", No sir! Obama has taken it right into the trillions!

     

    Factoid; One trillion seconds equal what?
    32,000 years.

     

    This is beyond the average Americans capacity to even try and grasp. Why bother? Sometimes I envy the non informed. This has to end, the pain will be real, but we will get through it fine, if we rely on God and Each Other!
    Jerry
    10 Jun 2011, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    Duly Noted.....I misinterpreted your post as partisan but I stand corrected and agree. The only issue I would take is that none of those mentioned should be termed 'progressive'. True progressives work toward a better society and economic future for all within economic constraints that make sense. These folks were all 'regressive' policy hacks and I hope we never see the likes of any of them again.
    10 Jun 2011, 06:35 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Well Jerry, you harp on the progressive's for growing government, but, everytime the NOT SO FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE Republicans get into office what do they do? Grow the government!!! Bush, John McCain, were NOT progressive. They are clearly REPUBLICANS that support big money and corporations. Further, I don't think you can define President Obama as progressive either. he's given the Republicans more in the way of legislation than they could pass on their own.
    10 Jun 2011, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    You got it Ken!
    10 Jun 2011, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Up over 40% now under Obama. Read it and weep:

     

    www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34...
    10 Jun 2011, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    That mantra is getting a bit old, since I don't recall anyone here claiming that either the Pubbies or the Demmies were fiscally responsible.
    10 Jun 2011, 09:12 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Well everyone knows the demmies aren't fiscally responsible. But the Pubbies will never miss an opportunity to tell you how fiscally responsible they are AND THEY AREN'T. And that's why I wear out that mantra. It's just my way to call out just one of their hypocrisies. I guess I could call them the NOT SO CHRISTIAN RIGHT or the NOT SO FAMILY VALUES PARTY. Hey, I think I've hit on something else I can wear out......................
    10 Jun 2011, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    My point is that we all know that here, you are beating a dead kangaroo.
    11 Jun 2011, 01:54 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Windsun33, everyone here seems to have their own kangaroos. With 1717 you must have a few of your own.
    11 Jun 2011, 03:26 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    I am non partisan. I not only beat kangaroos, but horses, cows, elephants, and donkies and even an occasional panda. Besides, about half of those 1717 posts were spent bashing various stocks :)
    11 Jun 2011, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    I resent that comment

     

    <------Animal Rights Advocate
    12 Jun 2011, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Well, there are a lot of stocks down under that could be regarded as Kangaroos. Leave Fortescue Metals Group alone though.
    14 Jun 2011, 01:42 AM Reply Like
  • Mister Ed
    , contributor
    Comments (589) | Send Message
     
    Well, as a different viewpoint, our whole system is morally and ethically bankrupt. We need to trash the whole government and start over from scratch. I really don't care for either party.
    10 Jun 2011, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    I could not agree more...2 thumbs up
    10 Jun 2011, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "Well, as a different viewpoint, our whole system is morally and ethically bankrupt. We need to trash the whole government and start over from scratch. I really don't care for either party."

     

    I agree. The system of government is the best in the world. The people in the government are near the worst in the world.

     

    The way to do this is to vote out of office anyone that has more than 2 terms in Congress regardless of ideology. We need new blood and we need to tell the politician's that if they don't represent all of us as American's, they don't stay in office. If they want to pander to some small group then they get the boot.
    11 Jun 2011, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Finally, i can agree with you!!! Two thumbs up!!!
    I would add no more retirement for ANY federal or State em[loyee.
    11 Jun 2011, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    I used to think that term limits were part of the answer, but it seems like the last time that came around, all we got was the same idiots in different costumes. And the problem is that any real change would require a constitutional amendment, and those are hard to come by. One thing that would help a lot is to make all terms for 6 years, with the president limited to one term.

     

    If nothing else, that might get the politicians out of constant campaign mode.
    11 Jun 2011, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (1099) | Send Message
     
    This is what happens when people borrow too much.
    10 Jun 2011, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • User 487974
    , contributor
    Comments (1101) | Send Message
     
    Yes Bouchart
    Agree totally. We must deleverage and this is deflationary!
    One way or another the system will clear. We can be adults and suck up the pain, or the coming depression will level the field for us!
    Question is? Do you want to have a say in the outcome?
    Jerry
    10 Jun 2011, 06:33 PM Reply Like
  • golden1234
    , contributor
    Comments (38) | Send Message
     
    We are not a "saver" nation. Our children are taught to buy, buy, buy. Big TV, cars, clothes, cell phones, eating out etc... Most adults live paycheck to paycheck and cry poverty yet they all buy whatever strikes their fancy. Let them work till 80, it's nobody's fault but their own. It's not Bush's fault or Obama's. What a new concept... Personal responsibility.
    10 Jun 2011, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1608) | Send Message
     
    Obama deserves the blame, he is in charge since 2009, he had the control of Congress, but after passing a pork stimulus, he didn't focused on the most important thing in America:JOBS.....

     

    He took all his energy on passing Obamacare, a socialist care that punishes small businesess and benefits big companies as they are given exemptions....then we have the bashing of anything that is profitable and we have the receipe of below trend jobs growth....

     

    Americans would pass judgment on Obama coming 2012......
    10 Jun 2011, 06:35 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Gotta agree with you. However, what you refer to as Obamacare was the result of Obama caving in to the Republicans. It did result in an unnatural spawn resembling Frankenstein. But, that's the kind of crap you get when you compromise in WDC.
    10 Jun 2011, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Sure, it's never you're fault. Blame it on the Govt. beause they were gonna get you a high paying job, pension at 62 and throw in a masseusse at home for you to work out the body kinks after work....NOT! Get off the friggin blame game and make something outta your life dude. God i hate whiners.....waa waaaaaa waaaaa
    10 Jun 2011, 11:04 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1608) | Send Message
     
    Nope, I am criticizing were our country is going with Obama at it's helm......

     

    If Obama can't take the heat he should have NOT ran for President in the first place....Obama is Jimmy Carter II, what a mess we are for the half witted policies of Obama....

     

    How is change working??

     

    And the Social Security full retirement is at 66 years old, a informed
    American would know that....

     

    Calling someone dude, is informal, how old are you? Probably an underage.....
    11 Jun 2011, 08:01 AM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Same place it was going with Bush or any of the other presidents at the helm, to hell in a handbasket. Change, yep..from Republicans to Democrats and probably back to republicans. It's all the same. The problem is not in the politicians, it's in the people that elect them.
    As far as for me, the change has been indifferent. I still work, i still put on my pants one leg at a time and i still make money trading the market.
    As far as SS, you can start collecting at 62, with a penalty, at 66,, full and at 70 with an additional percentage supplemental. I could tell you more but you go read up on it. As far as "Dude", that's old school, back from Woodstock. You do now what Woodstock was, right?
    Anyway's, my point is Govt. will not do shi* for you, Dems or Reps. You gotta do it yourself. So quit the whine please. It's getting as annoying as Bush bashing.
    11 Jun 2011, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • inthemoney
    , contributor
    Comments (997) | Send Message
     
    Only nobody will hire old people,especially given the healthcare costs. Foodstamps and medicare seem like most likely future for them.
    10 Jun 2011, 06:57 PM Reply Like
  • ParkerStorm
    , contributor
    Comments (754) | Send Message
     
    I have been on this old planet a long time and in the stock market since the early 70's and I am deeply concerned about our national situation. No need to fix blame just work together to fix this terrible mess that we have. A national deficit that is growing by 6 billion dollars a day, unemployment that is out of control, four dollar fuel, a congress that does nothing, and our leader is a cheerleader. Our infrastructure is about as bad as I have every seen it. What happened to all of those work projects and billion of dollars of TARP monies that were supposed to fix our infrastructure and put millions to work? Go to any grocery or mass merchandiser and you will line up because they cannot afford to have enough check out people. People are hurting. I have started what I seldom every do and that is selling some of my old favorite stocks and going to cash. The only things we are now buying are gold, silver, and guns as they soon will be worth more that our US dollar.
    10 Jun 2011, 07:48 PM Reply Like
  • Ken Hasner
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    I guess you can use the silver to make bullets for the guns to take care of the werewolves when they come....have a beer and relax....the revolution is already underway and they will not win.
    10 Jun 2011, 08:12 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Hello,

     

    I started in the market when i saw Bill Gates in NBR(PBS TV). Bought 3000 USd in MSFT and sold it in 1987 for 18000. I should of kept it but that's water under the bridge.
    In 2001 i saw the crash coming, looked like 1987 all over. and went all cash. After the correction i went back in all stocks. In 2008 i also saw it coming and noticed some strange similarities. That got me into trading online and let me tell you, i think i know what the govt did. I trade using TA and EW. The rundown to 6500 was a correction. This wave up is just the upswing before the final downtrend.
    Now i do not know if this is a final correction, in which your guns, gold or food will do any good for you or just a century correction, in which case you will see the Dow at 650. I have so far been batting .880. Now watch closely, SLV will stay at 35 and then rise to 64 pretty quick since wave two lasted about a year and a half.
    I do not think it was Reps or Dems but a cyclical nature of human beings that caused this mess.
    Do not get attached to stocks. They go up and they go down. It took over 20 years for the market to get back to it's 1929 level. It's better to get attached to cash. BTW after 64 SLV will correct down. How much? I have an estimate.
    And do not discount the USD. I am bullish on the dollar. Just warning.
    10 Jun 2011, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1608) | Send Message
     
    Oh sure...you are the best trader in the world, you have seen all the crashes and sells before them....

     

    How many times that I have heard that in a Internet site?

     

    The Internet, where everyone is rich, perfect and can see the future.....
    11 Jun 2011, 08:04 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16254) | Send Message
     
    The "final downtrend?" Wait a minute, the world was supposed to end on May 21st, wasn't it?
    11 Jun 2011, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    No, that was The Rapture, and was only for a few selected people. The real end of the world is on Dec 21, 2012.
    11 Jun 2011, 08:47 AM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Thank you, joe!!! Wow, i never thought someone would recognize me.
    11 Jun 2011, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Let's see..The world ends like this. First, a solar flare hits us, warming up the globe and causing all the ice to melt, this raises the oceans and causes the tectonic plates to shift, due to the added weight on the plates. The shift will cause massive earthquakes and a polar shift so the North and South poles will go to the equator on opposite sides. 3 Mile high tidal waves and and land appearing and dissapearing as the waves slam back and forth. After two weeks the globe will start cooling down which will again freeze the caps on top and bottom of the earth. As the earth cools down a new ice age will emerge and land will be redistributed around the globe.......Then a Comet will hit and push earth into the sun and blow up the Solar System. The End.
    11 Jun 2011, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    I wonder what my Intel stock will be worth after the comet hits?
    11 Jun 2011, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    Does it really matter?
    11 Jun 2011, 09:37 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    If the comet hits before I get my dividend, I will pretty upset.
    11 Jun 2011, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    *sigh* I give up...
    11 Jun 2011, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • convoluted
    , contributor
    Comments (2410) | Send Message
     
    "You load sixteen tons, what do you get
    Another day older and deeper in debt
    Saint Peter don't you call me "cause I can't go
    I owe my soul to the company store."

     

    Tennessee Ernie Ford
    10 Jun 2011, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • ParkerStorm
    , contributor
    Comments (754) | Send Message
     
    You talking to me? Define please " The revolution is already underway and they will not win." Who is they? You talking about a financially revolution or something more serious?
    10 Jun 2011, 08:38 PM Reply Like
  • cynic2011
    , contributor
    Comments (660) | Send Message
     
    So this article says the majority of Americans are losers who can't even feed themselves. Pathetic.
    10 Jun 2011, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • User 714683
    , contributor
    Comments (120) | Send Message
     
    I'm in my early 20's and have more than 50,000, yet I still feel like a loser and know I'll work myself into a coffin and never retire (esp. w/ this min. wage and poverty tax).
    10 Jun 2011, 10:15 PM Reply Like
  • Jim Nelson
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    diepwjulius,

     

    Makes me sad that you are so pesimistic at such an early age.

     

    Establish a Roth IRA and keep your money invested in safe securities. Your Roth IRA will grow larger than any amount you ever imagined. Then you can withdraw from your Roth IRA federal income tax free and enjoy retirement.

     

    Best Wishes.
    Jim Nelson. 76 years old and happily retired for 17 years.
    10 Jun 2011, 11:31 PM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    That's the problem, you've given up before you even started fighting. The loser attitude is because of so much morbosity and anxiety about what's happening. You see things around you do not make sense. Try taking an EW course and compare it to the market. Is Dow 650 bad? No, gets you a chance for a BIG runup. When everyone was losing on the last downturn i was making money. Made 12,000 in 1 year, and that was only trading on the upswings. Educate yourself, learn how to trade. Fix an amount and trade. I lost 8000 before i made 24000 last year. Be careful and do not get attached to any stock. If i knew back then what i know now, i'd be eating breakfast with Buffet today. You're young, don't let this market get you down and do not worry about the pessimism, it's gonna get worse before this is over. Tip Buy and hold the SLV until 100 mark hits. You'll have two more chances at this level.
    10 Jun 2011, 11:36 PM Reply Like
  • IBUYETFS
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    Good advice. Im 20 years old and I have already established a Roth IRA. I am also encouraging all of my college buddies to do the same. "56% of US workers have less than $25,000 saved." We cant fix the past but we can fix the future. Save and win.
    11 Jun 2011, 12:51 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Geez Jim, you told the wrong crowd you've been retired for 17 years. These guys will rake you over the coals for milking SS and Medicare. And I just pray you don't have a government pension. They wouldn't think you deserve that either after working your ass off for 35 or 40 years.

     

    You do give excellent advice though.
    11 Jun 2011, 03:31 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Go get 'em. I'm proud of you!
    11 Jun 2011, 03:32 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Who exactly are "these guys"?
    11 Jun 2011, 03:33 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Windsun33, went back to my history, and it doesn't tell me who I responded to on pretty much the same subject. It wasn't just one occurrance either. I understand that some of the young pups don't get it. But, it still pisses me off when I worked my ass off all my life, left my home and family for weeks, months and something over a year, and much more, paid for SS, Medicare, and pension and have someone who hasn't sacrificed anything for this country call me selfish for expecting a few years of peace at the end of my life.
    11 Jun 2011, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4364) | Send Message
     
    Removing SS, medicare, and a pension (count yourself lucky to have that) does not necessarily mean that you cannot have a few years of peace at the end of your life.

     

    Sucks that we all have to pay into it, but, it's time to look at those programs for what they are (supposed to have been) - insurance.

     

    They need to start teaching retirement 101. In kindergarten.
    12 Jun 2011, 12:29 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16254) | Send Message
     
    John:

     

    All these Government programs that contributors thought they were paying into for decades for their own benefit will turn out to be nothing more than the usual socialistic income-redistribution welfare programs, as the contributors, themselves, become "means tested" out of the programs.
    12 Jun 2011, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • convoluted
    , contributor
    Comments (2410) | Send Message
     
    I agree with Jim Nelson. You're already ahead of a substantial number of people at any age. Set a series of goals. Continue to learn. Avoid impulse spending to keep up with friends. You could very well live to see the next century. I lived thru the Carter malaise, when everyone was cynical and pessimistic. Keep up with trends and developments. Study pholosophy, history and science. Challenge yourself, but pat yourself on the back for what you've accomplished thus far.
    13 Jun 2011, 07:35 AM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (4364) | Send Message
     
    10 years ago I was 31, married with a child, $36k in debt, and usually had less than $50 in the bank. I didn't cry about it, or go hat-in-hand to anyone. I learned, adapted to the way things were, and made a plan to change the way things would be in the furture (still married, still have the kid - I didn't want that to change).

     

    If I can do it, anyone can. I'm a f'ing idiot. And I aint workin' 'til I'm 80, neither (maybe 53 - that's a pretty cool number). ;)
    10 Jun 2011, 11:09 PM Reply Like
  • ParkerStorm
    , contributor
    Comments (754) | Send Message
     
    Some very good points have been made from this article. Yes, some people will have to work until they can no longer work. They just did not plan well and / or had something happen along the way that made retirement just a dream. Politics needs to be tossed aside as Tuesday, August the 2nd is fast approaching. Have we forgot 2008 already? Jim Rodgers has stated his position on what is coming and maybe we should listen up. Even if you do not like the guy, what if he is right. Might as well take those dividends coming, step aside until the train passes, and go back in. You miss nothing. I keep hearing financial planners tell people to stay in and ride it out. This was the same kind of comments we heard in Q4 of 2008. It is not their money. Playing around with the National Dept limit is playing with fire. The article is right on. Millions upon millions of people are strapped out, have zero savings, no pension plans, deep in dept, no health insurance, and little opportunity to every have the American dream. If we do not get our National Dept, unemployment, and these high fuel prices under control we will have millions more joining these ranks. Time is not on our side. Good Luck.
    11 Jun 2011, 07:27 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    When you are young, you are stupid - that is some kind of law or something I think. A few people break that law, but the other law of "no good deed goes unpunished" will usually get those.

     

    I was one of those for a long time. Until I was in my mid 30's my total savings & investments were somewhere between 49 cents and 7 dollars. Then one day I was lucky enough to wander into a free financial seminar at a hotel I was staying at. I am sure they were selling something, but I don't recall what, or the name of the company, but it woke me up to the idea that savings could be something more than what is in your local bank account.

     

    Within a year I had opened up a self directed IRA, plus a taxable trading account at Fidelity. I kept my IRA maxed out each year and added as much as I could to the other. That was some 25 years ago, and while I am not going to say how much I have now, I will say that Social Security could go belly up and I would not care much.

     

    However, I got started by pure luck. If I had not been bored while waiting around the hotel for some relatives to show, it might have taken me another 10 years to get my act together. And that kind of makes me wonder now - why is there so little financial info given in public schools and even colleges to at least plant the seed? On the other hand, why are people so oblivious to what is coming if they don't save more? I know people my age not that far from retiring that have $1200 house payments but expect to live off of SS and a $500 pension (they are not teachers...).

     

    A lot of it is probably media and peer brainwashing I think, as usually when I mention investment I get the "passbook savings" answer, or the "Bernie Madoff" one. It seems that people are far more afraid of the chance losing anything than they are of retiring in poverty.
    11 Jun 2011, 08:33 AM Reply Like
  • nmelendez
    , contributor
    Comments (1618) | Send Message
     
    I have been saving 10% since 1991, and it's worked out great. My regret is i did not buy stocks back then...water under the bridge.
    11 Jun 2011, 09:35 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs