Not that I agree with him but according to Bernanke:

"To the charge reduced interest income to savers from quantitative easing is a 'tax' on savers, Bernanke responded that it’s in everyone’s interest, both savers and borrowers, to have an economy performing at highest level of capacity."

I'm really hoping that all that is happening will split the two main parties and will offer some more choices. The dems have become a complete leftist nightmare. I truly hope this does not appeal to the majority of dems.

Yawn. Seniors have lived through better times than anyone on the planet. That anyone ever felt entitled to this luxury called "retirement" without having to draw upon their own savings is indicative of a wildly skewed set of expectations and the mistaken belief in a free lunch.

The problem is the "winner takes all"/"first past the post" voting system here - which is, unconstitutional (maintains a lock on the two party system).

The passing of Rule 12 on Tuesday at the RNC just made it more difficult for variety within the party. I am pissed.

Something needs to change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Third parties will never make it because...It's a mathmatical problem.

Alternative vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

PS. My posts were in response to Stinky. (Otherwise they look like they are out of left field - well, more so than usual).

:0)

I concur w/ Feebie. Enough alternative votes could make a difference.

That anyone ever felt entitled to this luxury called "retirement" without having to draw upon their own savings is indicative of a wildly skewed set of expectations and the mistaken belief in a free lunch.

What do you think taking the interest is? that's drawing on one's saving. If you have to draw on your principle, then you're living on the raggedy edge. If you live long enough, then the principle goes to zero, and bye-bye supplemental income. Now all you have is social security, the same as the guy who never saved a penny.

IRA, most people don't even make it to the raggedy edge.

I live on about $2,000 a month, two-thirds of the $3K per month they are talking about here.

I'd have to save half a million dollars to earn $25K a year in interest alone, even at a 5% rate of return.

Half the people in the country only make $25K a year to begin with - they earn so little, it takes everything they make just to live while they are still working, let alone save anything. If anything, they go into debt.

So this is why I say retirement is a luxury. If people actually had to prepare for their own retirement, most people could never afford to do it at all. They have come to expect it because the government is borrowing money to make it happen, not because it's realistic for most people.

Incidentally, you can buy an annuity insurance policy that will guarantee that you don't outlive your money.

This isn't a Democrat \ Republican issue. There are many factors, including worldwide instability and concentrated wealth accumulation that have forced trillions of dollars of savings into American treasuries.

Corporate America has been hoarding cash, and is willing to accept dismal interest returns rather than invest in new technologies and\or face the double taxation of dividends.

There are "safe harbors" that are actually bought at negative returns before inflation. It's another bubble that will end incredibly badly when investors finally say no to the burgeoning debt, and investors demand higher rates of return for their risk of loaning America money.

Think Germany vs. Greece. And BTW, want to see something terrifying?

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/germany/

Bond yields should go up with the duration of the bond. Simple economics, the longer the horizon the higher the risk\reward. Note how yields are all over the board in Germany.

OOps- not the yield, the coupon rate. Read it wrong. They're fine.

My mother is in this situation. All her investments earn less so she has to make due with less. The only thing saving her ass is that she owns her home outright, and prop 13 kept her property taxes from going up when the market went crazy.

I sure find it hard to be sympathetic to seniors in this dilemma. Social Security might not be there when I retire.

As a teacher in a public school, I do have lots of benefits. I believe I've heard you criticize the amount of money teachers make. I am putting away a couple hundred tax free dollars every month. I need to put more back if I want a comfortable retirement, but since with taxes, I only bring home $1574 I don't have much opportunity to contribute more.

Yes, I know that you think that I was an idiot for not purchasing portable insurance back when I could, but now I'm stuck working for insurance. Yes, I hope that I help students - that's why I became a teacher. However, high risk insurance cost $1750 per month 19 years ago. I can't imagine what it would cost now. At least seniors have Medicare.

Corporate America has been hoarding cash, and is willing to accept dismal interest returns rather than invest in new technologies and/or face the double taxation of dividends. -- Eric at August 30, 2012 1:25 PM

They are also facing what is the next regulation Obama/Congress is going to come up with? What will the health insurance company charge next year under the ObamaTax? If they bring profits back from overseas that will be taxed. Will the Bush tax rates be extended?

Look at what the current administration is doing to energy -- no offshore drilling, no fracking.

Get the government out of the way and you'll see businesses doing business.

""Corporate America has been hoarding cash, and is willing to accept dismal interest returns rather than invest in new technologies and/or face the double taxation of dividends""

One thing about Corporate America, they have singular focus: Grow to make $$$. You're growing or you're dying is a main principle they live by. So if they are disregarding one of their prime corporate business principles and sticking their cash under a mattress, maybe public policy is not helping or is the outright problem.

This public policy they are concerned about, like it or not, is an Obama-Dem public policy. It's a policy that, in part, says big business causes the problems (at least some of them). That government involvement is needed at a greater and greater level. That they need to pay more taxes. They are outright demonizing corporate America to drive home this policy (and gain political power).

Hey, so be it. If they believe business is part of the problem then Obama/Dems should argue that. But spare me the 'it's both parties fault'. This particular public policy direction that worries business CLEARLY belongs to Obama/Dems.

Jim P writes: ""Look at what the current administration is doing to energy -- no offshore drilling, no fracking.""

Exactly Jim. I don't think the average American has any idea whatsoever how potentially huge these coming government decisions are. If the upper estimates are accurate (source: Amy Jaffe article), the $$$ that will come from our ability to frack is staggering. With that big of an energy source, it can't help but be at least a partial game changer. But it can only happen if public policy makers are agreeable to fracking.

As far as oil, keystone is one example (among other). Greater energy independence, jobs and wealth to be made. Yet the policy, as it stands now, is a hindrance to the industry and to our energy best interests (but is a plus for China, perfect!).

Gee, Pirate Jo, nobody forces you (or anybody) to take the low-paying job. That wasn't always true. I got a non-negotiable offer for $128.50 a month from Uncle Sam long ago...

I make more now. I have skills that got me more. Skills, I might add that were developed back in the days of really expensive computer hardware by working an extra, unpaid day every week - Sunday, to test and try things. Almost every Sunday for nearly two years.

It doesn't take much to be better than average, because a lot of people won't do more than the minimum. I spent my own money on books and tools for my job. I count thirty technical books that I bought on the shelf behind me alone. That's easily $500 I invested in me. I've probably tossed twice as many that have become obsolete.

I'll never be a millionaire, but I won't be living on $2,000 a month either. I earned it.

You misunderstand me, MarkD.

$2,000 a month is what I spend - I make a lot more than that. I also have no kids, no debt, and a paid off home. So yes, I'm saving money, mainly just trying to tax defer all I can and keep the government's hands off of it.

But the S&P 500 is in the same place it was 14 years ago, when I first started putting money into a 401K. And interest rates are in the doghouse. I haven't lost money investing, but haven't made much, either. You can't use those old models that assume you'll earn 10% a year on your investments. The people who pitched that stuff were just salesmen. We'll be doing good to keep up with rising prices and preserve principal.

What I'm saying is that even with a GOOD interest rate, I'd have to have $500K saved in order to generate the cash I CURRENTLY use to cover expenses. With a more realistic current interest rate of around 1%, I'd need $2.5 million just to generate that $25,000 a year. And that's assuming my expenses don't go up, which they might, as I get older and the price of food and gas goes up.

I'm still going to be way better off than most people, who as you say don't do more than the minimum, and who also make horrible decisions. But even for someone like me, who's probably in the top 10-15% as far as wage earning, the kind of retirements people have enjoyed over the past 30 years or so is probably beyond even my reach.

This is interesting:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/half-of-americans-die-with-almost-no-money-2012-08-29

46% of Americans die with less than $10,000.

That doesn't necessarily mean they had a terrible standard of living - the article points out that many of them still had enough income to live just fine between Social Security and a pension.

For those of us under the age of 50, who have never worked for a company that offered a pension and won't get much (if any) Social Security, better start saving and plan to work until you're 75.

Then again, if you work your butt off saving money, only to have it all rendered worthless in a hyperinflationary bust, you're going to feel pretty stupid.

Money is interesting. You can use it for almost anything, right up until the point where you can use it for nothing.

Maybe you're safer with continued income generation than accumulated wealth. If that's the case, maybe I *should* take the lower-paying job that I like better, and plan on doing it until I croak.

I breathlessly await the Chairsatan's next utterings.