As nest eggs shrink, many defer retirement

This stuff won't change either.

AIG, who is getting hundreds of billions in a bailout, is still paying their top execs big money.

There's no oversight because they're so cozy with the Treasury Dept.

The Republicans and Democrats are taking your kids' and grandkids' money and giving it to the politically-connected, powerful corporations that got us into this mess.  The absurd bonuses won't stop.  The failure won't stop.

Now, the Democrats want to bail out GM, Ford, and Chrysler.  Are there any mismanaged corporations who don't get a bailout?

When a dog begs at the table, and you give him people-food, the dog will not stop begging.

When you teach corporations to beg for government money instead of making healthy long-term decisions, then stupid short-term thinking is what will result.

Will it change?  Not with the Republicans and Democrats in office year-after-year.

Nope, we'll keep scuttling our economy to toss money down a giant hole.

Good luck trying to save for retirement!  Convert the money to Euros first.

Carl, the deal with the Big 3 will be a loan that they have to pay back.

What do you propose, that we make a distinction to save white collar people but not blue collar workers?

The Big 3 make our tanks, vehicles, and engines for the military. Who will make this if they go away, Russia?

AIG has gotten 40 billion so far. Big 3 are asking for 25 billion, maybe another 25 billion later. To me it makes more sense to save the auto industry, it employs millions of people via the secondary market, manufactures a durable good, than to save an insurance industry that is cable and telephone transactions.

I'm surprised that helping the auto industry has become such a debate.

The auto industry too big of a chunk of our country to let fall. 

On Hardball yesterday a GOP Congressman made a comment that it was because unions traditionally back the Democratic ticket that the GOP are against helping the auto industry. 

This "anti union" stance of the GOP is not good for their party.  Teachers, Police, and Firemen also have unions. 

We need to protect the few American made products that we have left and work to develop more American made products...not kill off what few we have.

Why protect inferior products?  If the unions refuse to make any concessions in this deal, then why should we support and protect their jobs.  The big three were not only mismanaged, but eaten to death by union pay and benefits.  If this bailout goes through I will never buy another american car.  Getting taken to the cleaners via my tax dollars is one too many times for me. 

anne the unions have already made concessions. it usually the white collar portion that doesnt make any concessions. American made automobiles are still some of the best made products.

97% of all Ford trucks are still on the job.

Carl,

Perhaps we should explore the possibility of filing a class suit as taxpayers against those who are not worthy of bailouts.   Why save the rich ?

Please tell me why people nearing retirement age put their nestegg into volatile investment items. My parents never owned a share of stock in their lives as far as I know. Savings always went into CD's. My mother still has money to draw on as she nears 90. My 401k has been in a fixed income money market account for sometime now. I haven't lost a penny of it in this big market downturn. It's time people started using their brains when it comes to preparing for their future.

I think the problem is bigger than just these large companies...Laursen saved his money.  He planned for retirement...he watched his spending and made sure he had no debt.  He was very wise in the choices he made for his future.  Many Americans are not this smart and the youth of today charge everything.  I remember thinking that it was awesome that fast food restaurants and grocery stores started taking credit cards...now I wonder if that truly was a smart move as I see many people charging their groceries on their credit card...not debit but credit.  Many people of America live on credit with no savings account anywhere let alone a retirement fund.  The problem is bigger than just these large companies...we the people need to change too.  The banks etc...allowed people who could not afford homes get a home.  I can not imagine buying a home I could not truly afford...but many did because they allowed someone to talk them into it because they wanted it so badly.  We need to learn the value of saving our money.  We need to learn that credit can get you into a lot of trouble.  But our government is just as bad...we owe the chinese money.  My grandmother saved for months for things like a new dress or a vacation.  WE need to get some of that thrift back and start saving for a rainy day and we need to teach our kids that credit is a risky choice and one that can cause more worries than help.

Sue, The wording of the last paragraph is very unclear and it shocked me that this article was concluded in this manner. You will believe what you want, but please, please don't stop at the people who over-extended their credit, there is so much more depth to this crisis. It's good to be angry, and establishing where the blame lies is a good tool for providing solutions (if there are any viable solutions left at this point). Individuals made poor financial choices, investment bankers certainly for the most part performed poorly, and our government was also complicit by allowing reduced regulation and oversight.

Individuals who entered into mortgages that they couldn't afford, were allowed to do so, talk about a snake oil operation! Individuals who saw their home values increase took advantage of the Home equity lines of credit offered to them, now a lot of those people are in really bad shape, BUT they are not getting bailed out, many of them are homeless. It is important to distinguish who is getting bailed out here.  Investment banks lobbied for less regulation and they got it, then they engaged in practices that were not sustainable and made a lot of money, then things went south because the degree to which the system was deregulated allowed for what would have been considered fraud prior to the deregulation. Then, they begged for a bail out, and despite the fact that only 5% of the US population was in favor of the bail out(and that is the high end of the estimates), by some miracle it passed in congress.

I have a rental house. It would not be responsible of me to require that my renters signed a two year contract that indicated that for the first 18 months their rent would be $400 a month, AND for the last 6 months of the contract their rent would be  $1,200 a month, especially if I had no verification of their income. But, this is exactly what happened in the real estate market.

Americans should be upset about this, but this article seems to suggest that we blame our neighbors for making poor choices and stop there. Why stop there, every bank that engaged in the behavior that created this crisis should be scrutinized by it's customers. Would you hire a plummer or electrician or mechanic that had a history of poor business practices when there was a more reliable option? I wouldn't! I used to have two banks, now I only have one bank, I'm sure you can guess why, that's right, one of my banks was heavily involved in this subprime mess, maybe my opinion doesn't make a difference when congress votes on a bail out, but I will absolutely let my opinion be known when I choose to be a customer of a bank, and I told them exactly why I was closing all three of my accounts with them.

If you want to make a difference, if you want to act, then research your bank(s), and do not do business with a bank that has a bad track record, also if you have a financial advisor who you feel has led you astray, reconsider your relationship with that person/company. And, while you're at it look at the company that serviced your retirement fund, if they tell you they never saw it coming, then you should think about replacing them with someone who did see it coming. Just my thoughts.

I've told you guys a 100 times... Communal living where we share expenses and can afford a more efficient/self-sufficient home IS the only REALISTIC way of living not only for economic hardships, but nearly any kind of disaster or energy crisis you can think of.  When done right, in homes specifically designed to maintain our privacy and standard of living, we can truly gain more than we might ever think we are giving up.  Go figure though... you true Americans who view privacy on a level of ISOLATIONISM, never got the message.  Hopefully it's not too late!

i saw some stats this morn. Total hourly pay for GM workers, including health ins, pension, SS was $78 per hour. Total hourly pay for Toyota workers including same benefits $35 per hour. anyone want to guess which company is losing most money? And in my opinion better quality in the toyota product.

as someone said, unions need to make some concessions at GM. Execs need to voluntarily take pay cuts and they need to develop some cars that people want to buy. Same would be true at Chrysler and Ford.

OK, I think people are losing sight of a very important fact here -- retirement is a privilege, not a right. Are we so entangled in a sea of entitlement that we feel like the world owes us our right to retire? Give me a break. I'm 28, I've been working and contributing to my 401k for 12 years now -- I started early. I have no plans to ever retire. I hope to have work that is a little less taxing by the time I'm of retire age, but I will never stop working. Let's try this, no social security, no medicare, no medicaid for anyone born after 1980 (my birth year). Lower future contribution rates, pay the remaining people who still collect until they all die off, and let future generations take care of themselves. By the time I receive my AARP card, I will have had 40 years to prepare for that stage of my life. It's not the governments job to support a standard of living. If you are 60 years old, and have less than $2 million in retirement savings, and still somehow think you are ready to retire -- wake up. I'm not paying for your lifestyle. We all need to take a dose of reality and stop expecting so much from others. If you can't do it yourself, don't do it at all.  

The suggested strategy in retirement investment dictates getting out of higher risk bearing investments when nearing retirement. It seems the lucrative returns has caused many to this ignore this advise in spite of the risks involved.

I chose to vest my plan only in guaranteed fixed annuities which didn't pay as much  as other higher yield investments but it was very stable. I never believed in gambling and never regretted that move with my retirement that I worked hard for. 

Others that I knew in the same plan chose the high yield, higher risk investments and gained a lot of returns but later lost it all and much more when the market tanked some years ago. They had to start over again.

goldfish4obama: FDR got 4 terms because there were no Presidential term limits at the time. A Constitutional amendment was eventually passed limiting Presidents to 2 terms.

Now if we could just do the same with Congress members....

Anyway, I feel bad for those whose expectations have been disappointed. I am sure all of us have expected one thing to happen and then something happens that requires us to reassess our actions.

However, I think we need a fundamental change when it comes to retirement age and what can be expected from retirement. To some extent that is already happening, but a person who is 62 (like the guy mentioned in the article) with today's life expectancy might have another 30 maybe even 40 years of life left to live.

NOT working for that entire time, counting on "retirement" funds seems short sighted to me.

Wait until they start needing long term care and have no insurance... according to guidetolongtermcare.com over 60% over 65 will need it... 

Also if you have control over your 401 etc then why the heck did you leave it in a risky fund? My wife and I moved our 401 and IRA into a low risk fund when the market started to drop months ago (putnam stable value)... but not everyone can move their money around, check with your HR or fund manager... but you have to be vigilant about your money, no one else it.

MtMike, the market will come back, just when is the $64 question. Those who bail will be the big losers. It will take years but those of us who continue to buy while stocks are cheap will be glad we did when the tide rises.

You should never put any money in the stock market that you can't afford to lose.

It's not secure, it's never been secure. 

It's gambling.

I am 75 , never played them stock market. My wife has bought  3 different stock which see watches closeley, not to trade just see what they are doing. The good thing is if they all 3 go belly up today it won't change my life style one bit.

Lu,

Very well said. It's too bad more people do not realize that!

Here is a quote from a book my Dad gave me:

"There are only two times when you shouldn't invest in the stock market: when you can't afford it, and when you can."

I wouldn't totally blame the republicans for this one.  The last time I checked Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid were democrats.  These are the guys who forced Fannie and Freddie to grant loans to people who had no ability to pay them back, and it was Jimmy Carter who started it.  But if you want to blame the republicans for all of it, go ahead.  That's just what they want you to believe so you'll keep on voting for them....the truth is we're all to blame for this.  We charge, over charge and finance stuff we don't need and can't afford, both nationally and in our own personal lives.  Phil Graham was right, we are a whiney group of people.  I'd also add stingy and selfish.

I agree with TJ380547. The problem with the implimentation of the theory of Reagonomics is that there has to be , #1 an existing structure to prevent the exact thing that has happened among the ranks of the wealthy and bought politicians, and #2 a nonreversable entity that forces the hand holding the money to make sure that if they are recieving the kind of shelter they are requesting, that they are required to support the system that is supporting them, instead of pocketing the cash. I'm not speaking of a socialistic nature just accountability that should have been in place many moons ago.

When are people going to stop blaming repubs and democrates? We need to blame all of the government they are just as stupid as the corp giants. We need to stand up and vote all the returning pukes out and in with the new.

Our leaders in the legislature who by the way we just reelected are more responsible for the current mess than any other group, their lack of oversight and general incompetence is historic in its scope.  Bad government is truly bipartisan and only the partisans who blindly support them only on the basis of their party affiliation defend them.  Unfortunately the lack of real choice makes any true reform impossible and we find ourselves in a situation where finger pointing and tongue wagging are the order of the day and the road to power.  They are spending money at an alarming rate and it isn't their money ts ours! 

anne, the Democratic congress members did no such thing.  Barney Frank did NOT hold a gun to the head of Fannie and Freddie execs and force them to give bogus loans.  When they told Fannie and Freddie to increase home loans to "low class" and/or underpriveleged folks they kinda assumed the banks would give GOOD loans that the customer could pay back.   Instead banks gave unrealistic loans, packaged em up, and sold em off as options to other parties.  It's a little embarassing to Frank etc. now, but they are not the only people to blame, and they take substantially less blame than the bankers themselves.  It is THEIR JOB to protect their investors, and they did not do so. 

Also, last I checked Republicans had control of all 3 branches and could have FORCED fannie and freddie to accept oversight.  ALL of the congress, senate, and president are at fault for this mess, along with the general Reaganite mantra of extreme deregulation and no oversight for the market which even the Democrats unfortunately fell for..

Poor people got @!$%#ed, the rich made out like bandits, or should I say "robber barons."

I have yet to see where anyone was "forced" anybody to give irresponsible loans.  Banks still had the right to check people's credit, income, and anything else involved in getting a home loan. 

Thomas, if onlyl it was that simple! You are partially right - the change in lending practices, generally blamed on Clinton, the Democrats in Congress back in 2005, etc. contributed to the problem, but there was a long chain of events, beginning from the late 60's that set the stage. The fact of the matter is, our addiction to live beyond our means is really at the heart of the problem - making it easier to get credit cards, to buy, refinance homes, etc. only prolonged a bull market that was unsustainable, which made the crash to earth that much harder. We're still not at the bottom yet and things are going to get worse before it gets better because as the economy continues to recess, so many people have little/no savings to carry them through when they lose their jobs...

Sorry bucsfan. You need to get up to date on the term "subprime loans" and what could happen to a bank who didn't grant enough of the.

This is factually incorrect. The Community Reinvestment Act prevented banks from 'Redlining' or 'Blockbusting' - avoiding giving loans to minorities or people/businesses in minority areas regardless of their financial stability. The CRA did not tell banks to give out unsecured loans, it told them to stop discriminating.

Banks are allowed to make bad loans. Banks can make whatever loans they wish, but they have to show they are not discriminating. That does not mean they have a quota or % that they have to meet, they merely have to show they are not denying loans to people unless they don't meet the banks criteria. Everyone applying must be treated to the same standards.

The goal of the CRA are to find prime borrower prospects and allow them to borrow. That is the whole original intent of the CRA - to locate prime borrowers in low and moderate income neighborhoods that are being ignored by credit institutions, and lend to them on the same terms that other borrowers get.

This bashing of the CRA is just a hit job, a smoke and mirrors attempt to give people the same 'its the minorities/governments' fault that we always hear.

Bucsfan,

I'm surprised that you "have yet to see where anyone 'forced' anybody to give irresponsible loans".  The data is everywhere and easily accessible, which is why I actually laughed when I saw that you put the word forced in quotes, as if it didn't happen.

Here are the ways that the banks were forced.  After Clinton passed his changes to the CRA in 1995, assigning a monetary penaltyfor loans that were found to descriminate against those in the sub-prime group, the Fed produced a manual for mortgage lenders that stated: "discrimination may be observed when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower–income minority applicants."

Some of those "outdated" criteria were credit history, ability to provide a downpayment and pay closing costs, and the source and type of income considered for loan qualification.  The Fed ordered Freddie and Fannie to accept income types such as overtime and part-time pay, second jobs, unemployment, welfare, child support, and welfare.

Accepting Clinton's new rules was hardly voluntary.  Failure to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or Regulation B subjected a financial institution to civil liability for actual and punitive damages in individual or class actions. Liability for punitive damages was as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the creditor’s net worth in class actions.

Additionally, changes were made to the CRA to establish a system by which banks were rated according to how much lending they did in low-income neighborhoods. A good CRA rating was necessary if a bank wanted to get regulators to sign off on mergers, expansions, and even new branch openings.

Janet Reno explained it by saying "No loan is exempt, no bank is immune.  For those that thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement."

So, bucsfan, do you still think the banks weren't forced into handing out sub-prime mortgages? 

/palmface

you're retarded...

Oh and Jolly Rogers, again you are wrong.    Yes, banks were supposed to give a large number of "subprime" loans, HOWEVER THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO GIVE LOANS THAT THEY KNEW THE LOANEE COULD NOT PAYBACK.  Congress said "hey, how about giving loans to poor people and racial minorities" and the banks responded by giving half million dollar loans to janitors...  The banks were greedy and thought they could use the opportunity to give loans to a new segment of the market and make ridiculous profits.  And they did, for about 5 years or so, and then the Ponzi scheme started falling apart.

Telling someone to "go give loans" is entirely different from telling someone to "go give loans you know the customer can't afford."  Congress said the former, and the banks did the latter.

DrowningGrover,

I won't stoop to calling people retarded, but people like you shouldn't respond on public forums unless you know what you're talking about.  Your response is a complete opinion that doesn't agree with the facts at all. 

Congress didn't "ask" the banks to give loans; they created punitive fines that could be levied against banks if the banks didn't give loans without consideration of a person's credit score, or their ability to provide a 20% down payment, or even pay the closing costs.  The Fed, in it's own manual, warned banks that they could be sued for discrimination for using "antiquated" criteria like those I have named in this paragraph. 

Congress mandated that banks hadto increase the number of sub-prime loans they were giving, otherwise the bank's CRA rating would decline, and the bank wouldn't be able to create any new business through mergers, expansions, or even opening new branches.  That's not "asking", that's coercion.

If the banks were already giving loans only to people they felt had the ability to repay, how exactly were they to do what Congress told them they had to do?  Unless of course the banks planned to freeze their business and suffer massive lawsuits.  Uh...... Give bad loans?

Congress was fully warned about the negative impact of the new penalties.  In 1995, Congress was warned during congressional hearings that the CRA with it's new changes would be disastrous to banks and the economy.  William Niskanen, Chair of the Cato Institute warned Congress that there was no assurance that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss. He predicted the proposals for changes to the CRA would be very costly to the economy and banking system, and that the primary long term effect would be to contract the banking system.  Hmm, that certainly sounds like Congress was being told that banks would be forced to give out bad loans, which is precisely what was meant by saying the banks would be "operating at a loss".

How about this quote from a speech that Janet Reno gave in 1998 to the CRA coalition:

"It has been my experience in these five years in office that most bankers want to be good and responsible corporate citizens, or they're willing to be if they're nudged in the right direction by vocal, knowledgeable, constructive groups such as the NCRC members and by Justice Department lawyers who care and want to do the right thing."

There you go, just a little "nudging" to force the banks to give loans they didn't want to give.  Janet Reno actually said, in that same speech, that the government had to educate the banks.  To show them that these weren't bad loans, but instead they were investments in their communities that would improve the neighborhoods and cause money to fall like rain.  

Flowery, touchy-feely, B.S.  It was an attempt by Clinton, Reno, and Dems in 1995 to socialize home ownership, and it failed on an epic scale.  Granted there was personal greed and corporate trickery by smaller corporations that were generally below the government's radar, but in the end we get to reap the whirlwind of seriously bad policies that were put into place by the 1995 CRA changes. 

Actually not a bad life.  Good luck to ya!

Go for it, as it may be the only way you can stay "afloat".. in these times........

I agree.

The nations educational system is an absolute joke. They should be teaching this stuff in school. But unfortunately, school are so underfunded, and horribly staffed that we are lucky to have 2/3 of the population literate.

I would suggest you learn a little sympathy since their are people out there that don't even know that they need to know about the finacial aspects of life. Futhermore, you have to be lucky enough to have the oppourtunity to generate enough cash flow so that you can tuck away a nickel here and there.

Remember, as this country goes down the toilet we will have to learn to be more family and community oriented in order to survive, so once again a little sympathy would be good to learn.

I also Agree.  What in Gods name are people doing in the stock market right before retirerment.  

We all have to stop crying for sympathy and look the facts.  The U.S. markets have lost 40% but it would be worse to the tune of 60-80% if you dind't live in this great country.  Also if you didn't live in this country you probably wouldn't have extra investment money to invest anyway.

How much are these people losing? $50,000 $100,000 $200,000 more???  To the 62 year old guy who has his house paid off.  An option may be to move to a retirerment friendly state like Florida.  They have low property taxes, no state income tax AT ALL and you can buy a brand new house that was $300K two years ago for just over $100K.  That would more than offset your stock losses. 

 Take a deep breath, realize how lucky you are and start planning how to beat this thing.  Crunch the numbers, make some adjustments to your retirement expectations.  If retiring at 62 is what you want get creative cutting your costs and make it work.  Many people in this country and around the world would kill to have your problems.

Ryan, not to be mean but you are naive!

Ryan, not to be mean but you are naive!

Our government does not want an educated populace!

SicknTired, I agree, an educated populace not accept the tripe the politicians spew at every opportunity.  The will not accept partisan banter as facts, they will expect results and demand accountability.  And finally they will change leadership regularly because they will understand the need for fresh ideas and more importantly not allow the leadership to become so complacent.  They will not accept blaming the other side for their own failures to govern. If we ever open our minds the herd will thin radically and the old way of doing business will be a distant memory. 

Ryan, you are absolutely correct. That is exactly what I did some time back and am mighty glad I did. And Janet, I don't know what you're trying to say. And Rugbymuffin, these people probably haven't been in school for 40 years so blaming the education system doesn't make sense to me.

They don't need to educate themselves. The government is coming to save all of us!

We won't have to think for ourselves after that.

We don't need the government to educate us through any program, school system whatever.

People can educate themselves: Parents TEACH your kids about personal finance. For those whose parents don't, get a clue and teach yourselves. My parents never taught me crap about personal finance, nor did any school. I have made mistakes along the way because I did not educate myself (I won't blame my parents or the schools). I have learned from my mistakes and educated myself and I am now better off for taking the initiative to educate myself.

Your education does not rely on schools or your parents (for those who are adults).

I am only 38 and I switch everything to fixed income. I play odds and the odds tell me sit in fixed income and wait for the dust to settle for a bit. Kids we haven't seen nothing yet.

By March it will be worst. Yes, you can quote me on that!

EXACTLY RIGHT.

But people would rather blame politicians for their own mistakes.

Guys - too many people don't have a clue about investing stocks and bonds and may not realize what they should do.  Not all of us can afford a good "advisor" - to whom should we turn to?  There's a lot of slick salespeople out there - if you don't really know what you're doing - who do you trust? 

The majority of us rely on our 401Ks or 403bs or whatever else is out there to make our investments.  Fat lot of good that helped.

This isn't meant to be a slam against those who don't know - heck, investing in general gives me hives because I just don't really understand it.  If you do - good for you - now help those who don't instead of sitting there all smug about it and spewing insults.

I'm not trying to be smug, but if a person doesn't understand something, including the risks involved, they shouldn't be putting $'s into it.

Dear Jolly, You should be very careful, your demonstration here indicates that you see black and white, but fail to acknowledge shades of grey; there are people in this world who will find a way to take advantage of you.

Maybe the secret is to avoid the grey areas.

BJ, you can never count on others. You need to educate yourself. Start by reading books on investing. Read the financial news. Talk to anyone you know who has done well in the markets.

Then make up your own mind based on what you have learned.  You don't need an "expert".

And if you don't understand something, don't put your money there until you do. If something seems to good to be true, it probably is.

Nothing is ever guaranteed in life. Risk is part of what makes life worth living.

BJ, you can never count on others. You need to educate yourself. Start by reading books on investing. Read the financial news. Talk to anyone you know who has done well in the markets.

Ok, I can do that.  Whose books would you read?  Financial news?  What, rely on the media?  I don't know anyone who has done well in the markets.

What now?

You see, this is the kind of stuff that perpetuates the problem.

Keep making incindiary comments about Bush or Obama, whichever you happen to not like.  Ignore the fact that both parties are bought-out by special interests.

Both parties supported the $700billion bailout.  McCain voted for it, Obama voted for it, Bush signed it.

The Republicans have run up the deficit with unjust war. 

The Democrats want to run it up further bailing out mismanaged SUV corporations.  Does anybody not get a bailout?

Picking between Republicans and Democrats is like choosing sides in a sh*t-throwing contest.

REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS are spending your kids' and grandkids' money as fast as they can borrow it from China..

a Thomas Jefferson quote.

I would have guessed that he could have found 73 out of 140 people that voted for Obama. Since 52%, a clear majority, was Obama's % of the popular vote.

But within the margin of error.

LOLOLOLOLOL, live in your dream world sneil. Obama won by a landslide, a larger % than bush won(stole) in both elections and a larger % of the popular vote than what Clinton garnished.

Dream on loser!

RF are you suggesting I voted for mcCain? I would suggest you are wrong and anyway I was joking.....lighten up a little bit, you will enjoy life more.

Oh My God!  peopel are being fired for whom they vote for?  I thought it was your constitutional RIGHT to VOTE for whom ever you wish.  But to fire someone because they voted for Obama and have a Obama bumper sticker.  I hope those you fired get an attorney. 

There was no landslide. 48 percent of voters voted for someone else. That is a FACT that is significant.

And since we do not have a pure democracy, that 48 percent has a right to be heard and represented.

Tyranny of the majority is disallowed in this country.

I surely hope we do not have a political witch hunt based on one's vote this past election. It is our right to vote for whom we will.

Desertgirl, you are correct.  Winnign 52% of the voting population, a landslide in the electoral college at 364 to 174, all while PICKING UP seats in the house and senate is not a landslide...

Winning 50.7% of the vote, the EC 286 to 252, and LOSING seats in the house and senate...  now THATS a mandate!!!

The government is working on that now.  They caused the underground earthquate in the Indian Ocean that killed hundreds of thousands.  And yes you are correct. Disease is the quickest and least expensive way to cull the herd.  And I am not taking those damned flu shots. Who knows what they are putting in those things.

You and me and millions of others.

You should have put all your money in cash and CDs just before retirement, this whole stock market thing was a big scam, prove me if i am wrong. It can't be sustained, it can't give us 6% like the so called "learned financial advisers" tell us. You dont need financial advisers to tell you how to protect your money, just do some reading YES somereading, read magazines journals, do research online and turn off that TV, those talking heads wont save you. Again do some hard reading and research, that financial advisor guy is your WORST enemy.

coulda woulda shoulda.  It's a tad late for many Shaka.

Again, some folks are admittedly clueless when it comes to investing in stocks and bonds.  It's all mumble jumble so yeah, we rely on 401Ks and 403bs.  Mistake?  You betcha!

With all the slick salespeople out there selling snake oil disguised as retirement funds - what is the average Joe Schmoe supposed to do?  Who does he trust?

All the research in the world isn't going to help someone like me when it's all MUMBLE JUMBLE.  So you understand it - good for you.  Now help others understand it instead of insulting them!

Shaka, you are so right!

The only people making money from those so-called experts and advisers are the experts and advisers themselves.

But seriously, dude, read? You really expect people in THIS country to read? To educate themselves rather than tuning into Dancing with the Stars?

That's some serious optimism you practice.

BJ, there are MANY books out there that provide a good place to start learning about all kinds of investments. Here are some ideas to get you started (you will need more than one): ANY of the Dummies/Idiots guides (I am not necessarily saying they are the "best" but they usually have a "further resources" in the back.  Nor am I insulting your intelligence. Usually the matter in these series is spelled out in an easy to understand way). The Wall Street Journal also has some guides that are a place to START and also provide further resources both hard copy and electronic.

If you don't understand something, you have a powerful tool right at your fingertips: The internet.

A term doesn't make sense to you? Google it!

Want to find books about a concept? Go to Amazon.com and type the term or concept into the search box.

That's what I do when I don't understand some financial term or concept. I will read more than one source (a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing) and eventually I begin to understand. If I don't understand one source, then I move on and try to find another. And another. Until I understand.

Don't think you have time? If you have 5 minutes to post HERE, you have 5 minutes to contribute to your financial education.

If you are not willing to do any of these things, then you have no reason to complain.

Toulkien: You are still 40 years old, probably still employed. Wait until for some reason, you can't find a job, or become seriously ill, you will change your tune.

So the Unions are the reason for the outsourcing of jobs? why? because they want a decent pay for their hard work? Jobs are outsourced, workers are laid off, because the CEO's fire people ( apparently their pay that is 400 times bigger than their employee's pay is not part of the cost) so that the shares of their companies go up . Workers do their jobs, CEO's are responsible for the bad decisions that hurt their companies. They still get away with golden parachutes. Hasn't that sunk in yet? In Japan, the CEO's pay is only 11 times that of their employees, in Europe around 20 times more. How can we justify this discrepancy?

Social entitlement: How about billions and billions dolled out to countries in foreign aid? Is that not social entitlement for foreigners? This aid does not even prove to be beneficial to our strategic interests around the World . Some of the countries are getting our aid, and still despise us or work with our ennemies. How about the billions and billions wasted in unprovoked wars of aggression? You don't seem to think that this is part of the problem.

Would also like to remind you that the collapse of our present economic system is due to Capitalism and greed in its most primitive form. Apart from the eight years of prosperity and budget surplus in the Clinton era, I would like to remind you that it is the Republicans that have been in charge of the country for over two decades. The result: Our banks are falling like dominoes due to deregulation, insurance companies are looking to be bailed out instead of bailing us out, the car industry is on the verge of collapse, not a day goes by without a retail chain or store is going out of business. And who is coming to the rescue: Government, socialism, Us.

wow toolkien, you are in desperate need of an education...

I didn't read all your drivel but lol at "The jobs moved overseas due to UNIONS and OVER TAXATION,  socialist mechanisms"

Um, jobs moving overseas is pure capitalism at it's worst, and since when are unions socialist?!? 

Oh well, whatever you say man...

took the words right out of my mouth...

I will probably get labeled an idiot or called worse names for what I am about to write, but here goes anyway:

I recently came to the conclusion that all the "retirement funds" in which people can put money (IRAs, 401(k)/similar type programs) are NOT worth it.

They all lull people into a false sense of security about their retirement which leads people simply to trust that their money will be safe without actually learning more about personal finance and investments. That is VERY dangerous.

Further, even with the match in 401k type accounts, the employee is still subject to whatever "plan" the employer puts together. Well, what if you don't like the plan?

Okay, so you can put money in an IRA. The max contribution limit is 4k (5k for some). And there are income limits. True at some point in the future you can take that money out and maybe it's tax exempt or maybe not. But that is based on TODAY's laws. What certainty do you have the law won't change? It just doesn't seem worth it to me.

None of these allows for what many want: Wealth later in life (okay, maybe you get lucky with good planning and a 401k)

Better to really educate oneself on non-retirement type investments. The learning curve may be higher, but it does not breed a false sense of security and the long term payoff has the potential to be much much greater. It simply takes a little discipline NOT to use it all up.

Desertgirl, on this assertion you are correct.  For some reason everyone thinks that IRA's and 401k's are like savings accounts that earn standard interest.  They do, when the market is up.  And they tank when the market is down...

We are over invested in this country...