can someone tell me...
Oct. 15th, 2008 09:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyear...what the hell it is Pelosi has against the 401K? Uncle Newt in his reply to a Washington Post question brought it up as a side point of everything the business world should fear about Democratic Party rule. Googling around is showing quite a few "tax the 401K" postings around Pelosi, some going back to 2002.
So far, most of those sites have strictly been conservative blogs whose interpretation of proposals I find questionable at best, but words around October 7th are all on a proposal for government guaranteed bonds (at a mere 3%).
Now, anybody who really studied the numbers knows that the constant feeding of cash into the investment system is one of the things that has made our economy generally strong and stable, and would point out the slow descent that had already started in 2000 (before the actual real tech bubble burst, nevermind 9/11 the next year) and how that can be partially credited to the withdrawal of funds from 401ks that were in turn reinvested in real estate (or the early retirements of COBOL programmers now that y2k was done).
Yes, the stock market has its ups and downs and we're in a down. Big deal. The only people really affected by it right now are those who planned to retire "real soon now". Anybody under 50 should just ride it out.
Gee, the last time some Democrats were this loud about ditching the 401K? 2002 - right in that aforementioned post-9/11 down-turn in the markets. It shows a REAL short-term view of the market and the economy, and I expect better.
The REAL solution to investment, and real security from short-term losses like those right now, is simple and is what it always has been: diversification. The 401K should not be seen as the be-all-end-all of retirement planning, just as the pensions it replaced shouldn't have been. You're only going to get people to handle their future well through education, not hand-holding. And so long as you keep giving biased, distorted views of how particular programs work (Republicans, this means you and Social Security as well), and use those to foster uncertainty and ambiguity in the system for political brownie points, the fewer people will actually plan for their future wisely and the more people will either starve or have to be supported by pure welfare in their old age.
So far, most of those sites have strictly been conservative blogs whose interpretation of proposals I find questionable at best, but words around October 7th are all on a proposal for government guaranteed bonds (at a mere 3%).
Now, anybody who really studied the numbers knows that the constant feeding of cash into the investment system is one of the things that has made our economy generally strong and stable, and would point out the slow descent that had already started in 2000 (before the actual real tech bubble burst, nevermind 9/11 the next year) and how that can be partially credited to the withdrawal of funds from 401ks that were in turn reinvested in real estate (or the early retirements of COBOL programmers now that y2k was done).
Yes, the stock market has its ups and downs and we're in a down. Big deal. The only people really affected by it right now are those who planned to retire "real soon now". Anybody under 50 should just ride it out.
Gee, the last time some Democrats were this loud about ditching the 401K? 2002 - right in that aforementioned post-9/11 down-turn in the markets. It shows a REAL short-term view of the market and the economy, and I expect better.
The REAL solution to investment, and real security from short-term losses like those right now, is simple and is what it always has been: diversification. The 401K should not be seen as the be-all-end-all of retirement planning, just as the pensions it replaced shouldn't have been. You're only going to get people to handle their future well through education, not hand-holding. And so long as you keep giving biased, distorted views of how particular programs work (Republicans, this means you and Social Security as well), and use those to foster uncertainty and ambiguity in the system for political brownie points, the fewer people will actually plan for their future wisely and the more people will either starve or have to be supported by pure welfare in their old age.
