Senate rejects $250 checks for elderly

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Why do you hate old people? What if everyone hates you when you get old?

My beef is with boomers, to be perfectly precise about it. They just happen to be old today.

[ValerieA 350]

wing-nut-slayer

But he is a wing-nut. He slays his own kind?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

But he is a wing-nut. He slays his own kind?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The stock market is back where it was in 2005 - which is double what it was in 1996, and 50% higher than 2002.

I guess they didn't have a problem with the stock market when their investments doubled in value

between 1996 and 2005, but now that they've lost 25%, it's suddenly Teh Evil.

Old people are such whiny children!

[mawilson 2,133]

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning...ock-market.html

I couldn't really find a good article, but I know my grandma lost a HUGE chunk of her 401-K and the little she has left is running out.

The article is dated October 8, 2008. The stock market is up 25% since then.

Again, why did I hear no complaints when their 401(k) doubled in value in 5-10 years?

The stock market is risky, duh. Close to retirement? Choose safer investments.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The stock market is risky, duh. Close to retirement? Choose safer investments.

Every financial counselor I have ever talked to advocates this. In fact, they advocate reducing positions in equities as soon as you hit 50 and ramping down till you hit 0 shortly before 60.

And every old person who I know well enough to know where they put their money ... has ignored this advice.

[mawilson 2,133]

And every old person who I know well enough to know where they put their money ... has ignored this advice.

Because they are greedy bastards. The stock market is good when it makes you money, and when

it doesn't, it's the rich capitalist bankers' fault.

[ValerieA 350]

Because they are greedy bastards. The stock market is good when it makes you money, and when

it doesn't, it's the rich capitalist bankers' fault.

Ummm...it WAS the bankers' fault. Remember? Subprime mortgages and all that?

Edited March 4, 2010 by ValerieA

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Every financial counselor I have ever talked to advocates this. In fact, they advocate reducing positions in equities as soon as you hit 50 and ramping down till you hit 0 shortly before 60.

And every old person who I know well enough to know where they put their money ... has ignored this advice.

Of course! Because CD's don't pay ######!

Edited March 4, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[mawilson 2,133]

Ummm...it WAS the bankers' fault. Remember? Subprime mortgages and all that?

Sure, let's pretend that greed and reckless behavior on the part of the borrowers played

no role whatsoever.

Speculating house-flippers and people who used their homes as ATMs to live beyond their

means had absolutely nothing to do with it. The poor, financially unsophisticated,

working-class people who were "conned" by the greedy bankers into "teaser rate"

mortgages get no blame for this.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Of course! Because CD's don't pay ######!

Firstly, there are investments that carry less risk than equities and more than CD's. It's not a binary choice between one and the other. Had you paid attention to your financial advisor, you'd have known that.

Secondly, you're supposed to reduce overall risk when you're old. That's the advice. The advice holds whether you like the returns you get on CD's or not. If you didn't take the advice, you really can't go blaming the industry. They told you to reduce your positions after 50 and you didn't listen. Shame on you.

Ummm...it WAS the bankers' fault. Remember? Subprime mortgages and all that?

If you're within a decade of retirement and were hurt by the crash in equities, that means you did not heed the advice of the financial industry.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, many people that are still of working age and actually working have seen their incomes go down or stay flat over the last couple of years and they have to deal with that. People who have lost their jobs have seen their income crumble beyond belief and have to deal with that. In the midst of all of this, there was a 5.8% increase in entitlement payments under Social Security because of the inflation largely driven by gas prices. Of course, higher gas prices hit the working guy - who took a beating on the income but presumably has a commute - much harder than those on Social Security benefits who don't have that commute. Now, there's no inflation. Prices stay flat and so do the benefits. What's the big deal?

[ValerieA 350]

Sure, let's pretend that greed and reckless behavior on the part of the borrowers played

no role whatsoever.

Speculating house-flippers and people who used their homes as ATMs to live beyond their

means had absolutely nothing to do with it. The poor, financially unsophisticated,

working-class people who were "conned" by the greedy bankers into "teaser rate"

mortgages get no blame for this.

I agree that many people initially benefited from this #######. And a lot should have known that, when it seems to be too good to be true, it IS. However, this crashed everyone, not just the people taking advantage of the shifty mortgages. Really, it is the fault of government, for not keeping tighter controls on banks. As soon as they loosened the reins and let banks fulfill other roles, to make even more money, the banks ran amok with it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I agree that many people initially benefited from this #######. And a lot should have known that, when it seems to be too good to be true, it IS. However, this crashed everyone, not just the people taking advantage of the shifty mortgages. Really, it is the fault of government, for not keeping tighter controls on banks. As soon as they loosened the reins and let banks fulfill other roles, to make even more money, the banks ran amok with it.

Banks exist to make money. There was opportunity to do so and they did. They share in the responsibility but so do consumers and the Feds. To paint the banks as the only party responsible as you did earlier is just not right and mawlson rightfully called you out.

[ValerieA 350]

Banks exist to make money. There was opportunity to do so and they did. They share in the responsibility but so do consumers and the Feds. To paint the banks as the only party responsible as you did earlier is just not right and mawlson rightfully called you out.

I think my last post pointed out that I thought the government was also at fault? Did I not make that clear?