The Democrat Thread

[CrimsonWeltall]

Conservative Voter ID mailer photoshops out black people

 

They photoshopped out "too small hoodie" black guy, but there are still at least 2 other black people clearly visible.

[CrimsonWeltall]

lol

 

In the top picture the lady in the hoodie has the same face as the lady standing next to her.

 

lol I didn't even notice. Jesus

[StrangeSox]

Why? What is even the point of doing something like that? To accomplish what, exactly?

 

who the hell knows. to me, though, a picture of a really long line of people waiting to vote would make me think positively about mail-in ballots.

 

lol

 

In the top picture the lady in the hoodie has the same face as the lady standing next to her.

 

 

They photoshopped out "too small hoodie" black guy, but there are still at least 2 other black people clearly visible.

 

that's the best part--the photoshop job is horrendous and they didn't even get everyone.

[StrangeSox]

Iowa state GOP legislators want to cut the pay of justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage

 

“It’s our responsibility to maintain the balance of power” between the three co-equal branches of government, Rep. Tom Shaw, R-Laurens, said Tuesday.

 

The justices “trashed the separation of powers” with their unanimous Varnum v. Brien decision and implementation of same-sex marriage without a change in state law banning any marriages expect between one man and one woman, added Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull.

 

Their amendment to House File 120, the judicial branch budget bill, would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision to $25,000 – the same as a state legislator.

 

It’s not meant to be punitive, Alons and Shaw said Tuesday.

 

“We’re just holding them responsible for their decision, for going beyond their bounds,” Shaw said.

 

I dunno, voting to cut the judicial branch's pay when they rule against you doesn't really seem to be keeping with the spirit of "separation of powers"

[Soxbadger]

Dont worry Im pretty sure that the supreme court is still the one who ultimately rules on whether a law is legal.

 

But Im not sure anyone wins playing this game.

[Balta1701]

Frontline on the great retirement caper:

Watch The Retirement Gamble on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

[Balta1701]

The discussion of how many different fees were buried into various mutual funds and the discussion of how little information you actually have about what is being purchased and sold by the mutual fund options made available in the plans I have available discussed in that frontline ep. are pretty much exactly what I was talking about when we had our last retirement-related discussion.

 

If nothing else, that made a pretty compelling case for moving everything into index funds.

[Y2HH]

The discussion of how many different fees were buried into various mutual funds and the discussion of how little information you actually have about what is being purchased and sold by the mutual fund options made available in the plans I have available discussed in that frontline ep. are pretty much exactly what I was talking about when we had our last retirement-related discussion.

 

If nothing else, that made a pretty compelling case for moving everything into index funds.

 

That's my exact advice to people, especially with retirement money. Use index funds. That's all I use when it comes to my 401k. As a matter of fact, if an S&P500 index fund exists in your fund choices, use that to simplify things. You don't really need anything else. That single fund IS diversified so you don't need to buy other funds along with it. Though it will never over-perform the market, it will also never underperform the market. Mutual funds not only carry large fees, but given enough time, they NEVER outperform S&P500 Index funds. They usually show little blips where they do, but given a timespan of 20+ years, they always come up short.

 

My S&P500 Index fund total cost basis is 0.10%.

 

I recommend people do the following:

 

80% of your 401k goes into an S&P500 Index fund,

20% of your 401k goes into an International Index fund, if available.

 

Bases covered, well diversified, and it will never -- ever -- underperform the market. You aren't gambling with this money, you're investing it, so don't look to out-perform, especially when it's not necessary.

[southsider2k5]

That's my exact advice to people, especially with retirement money. Use index funds. That's all I use when it comes to my 401k. As a matter of fact, if an S&P500 index fund exists in your fund choices, use that to simplify things. You don't really need anything else. That single fund IS diversified so you don't need to buy other funds along with it. Though it will never over-perform the market, it will also never underperform the market. Mutual funds not only carry large fees, but given enough time, they NEVER outperform S&P500 Index funds. They usually show little blips where they do, but given a timespan of 20+ years, they always come up short.

 

My S&P500 Index fund total cost basis is 0.10%.

 

I recommend people do the following:

 

80% of your 401k goes into an S&P500 Index fund,

20% of your 401k goes into an International Index fund, if available.

 

Bases covered, well diversified, and it will never -- ever -- underperform the market. You aren't gambling with this money, you're investing it, so don't look to out-perform, especially when it's not necessary.

 

That is incredibly aggressive.

[lostfan]

That is incredibly aggressive.

How so? Because it doesn't have cash or metal?

[southsider2k5]

How so? Because it doesn't have cash or metal?

 

No cash, no bonds. Not really recommended for retirement money. The rule of thumb is one percent in "safe" investments for every year old you are.

[Y2HH]

That is incredibly aggressive.

 

It's not that agressive at all. It's investing in the top 500 stocks in the American market, in a cheap index fund. The time to do what you're talking about is when you begin nearing retirement, (maybe within a decade of retirement), not while we're still young.

 

And bonds are dead. They're a dead investment at this point and their returns are below inflation, and it's only getting worse, and cash isn't an investment, whatsoever. What your talking about here is what you do when you're 55+, not when you're in your 30's.

 

If you had a 401k 100% invested in the S&P500 in 2001, when the market crashed, a few years later you would have had all the losses back and then some. Same goes for 2008. A mere two years later and you would have have it all back plus a bunch more. Aggressive my ass. More like safe.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

No cash, no bonds. Not really recommended for retirement money. The rule of thumb is one percent in "safe" investments for every year old you are.

 

AKA, a terrible rule of thumb unless you're well over 50.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

No cash, no bonds. Not really recommended for retirement money. The rule of thumb is one percent in "safe" investments for every year old you are.

 

I don't think any of the 401(k) options I've had through four different plans now offered bonds or just simply cash. Had to pick some sort of (fee-generating) security.

[southsider2k5]

It's not that agressive at all. It's investing in the top 500 stocks in the American market, in a cheap index fund. The time to do what you're talking about is when you begin nearing retirement, (maybe within a decade of retirement), not while we're still young.

 

And bonds are dead. They're a dead investment at this point and their returns are below inflation, and it's only getting worse, and cash isn't an investment, whatsoever. What your talking about here is what you do when you're 55+, not when you're in your 30's.

 

If you had a 401k 100% invested in the S&P500 in 2001, when the market crashed, a few years later you would have had all the losses back and then some. Same goes for 2008. A mere two years later and you would have have it all back plus a bunch more. Aggressive my ass. More like safe.

 

lol. This is your retirement, not your casino money.

[Y2HH]

I don't think any of the 401(k) options I've had through four different plans now offered bonds or just simply cash. Had to pick some sort of (fee-generating) security.

 

There is usually a bond fund, but like I said, bonds are a dead investment at this point and will be for the foreseeable future. They're returning less than inflation right now, and it will only get worse when interest rates rise.

 

They are "safe", but you shouldn't be worried about safe until you're within a decade of retirement.

[Y2HH]

lol. This is your retirement, not your casino money.

 

I don't see where the gamble is, and you've yet to show anyone.

[StrangeSox]

If you had a 401k 100% invested in the S&P500 in 2001, when the market crashed, a few years later you would have had all the losses back and then some. Same goes for 2008. A mere two years later and you would have have it all back plus a bunch more. Aggressive my ass. More like safe.

 

FWIW we only recently crossed back over the 2000 peak, so that was 12-13 years of essentially no growth for any of that money before taking inflation into account.

[StrangeSox]

I don't see where the gamble is, and you've yet to show anyone.

 

Well the 401(k)-in-lieu-of-pensions experiment has been a spectacular failure for a majority of people, but there's a lot more to that than just what your mix of investment choices were.

[Y2HH]

FWIW we only recently crossed back over the 2000 peak, so that was 12-13 years of essentially no growth for any of that money before taking inflation into account.

 

That's not quite how an investment into the S&P500 works, though.

 

You see, the way it actually works is this: An index fund sells you "shares", as these investments go, over time, just like buying a stock. So, during the peak, and after the peak, I've been buying shares, at high points, at mid points and at low points. So when it crashed, it actually benefited me (and anyone else that didn't panic sell), because now you're buying cheap shares. Now, as the market begins to rise again, and those cheap shares are no longer 12$, they're 50$, then 102$, etc. It compounds their value over time. It's not like you simply stopped investing in it when it crashed in 2000, and waited all the way until now to get back to where you were. If you did that, you should exit the market, because you don't belong here.

 

You can't look at it in line with the actual value of the S&P500. Just because it's back at the same level has nothing to do with how a 401k compounds. As a matter of fact, that's the exact WRONG way to look at investing with a 401k.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

Well the 401(k)-in-lieu-of-pensions experiment has been a spectacular failure for a majority of people, but there's a lot more to that than just what your mix of investment choices were.

 

Not for those that cared enough about their money to learn about it, it wasn't. The point is, most people don't care, they have no idea what they're purchasing, or why...and they also have no idea of the fees they're paying, or why.

 

Who does this? I simply cannot understand why a person doesn't take a more active approach with their own damn money. I guess what they say is true...a fool and his money are easily parted.

[StrangeSox]

That's not quite how an investment into the S&P500 works, though.

 

You see, the way it actually works is this. An index fund sells you "shares", as these investments go, over time. So, during the peak, and after the peak, I've been loading up on shares, at high points, at mid points and at low points. So when it crashed, it actually benefited me (and anyone else that didn't panic sell), because now you're buying cheap shares. Now the market begins to rise again, and those cheap shares are no longer 12$, they're 102$.

 

You can't look at it in line with the actual value of the S&P500. Just because it's back at the same level has nothing to do with how a 401k compounds. As a matter of fact, that's the exact WRONG way to look at investing with a 401k.

 

I understand dollar-cost-averaging. But that doesn't help the people who built up the bulk of their wealth in the years prior to 2000--those dollars still haven't seen any growth since then.

 

Most "retirement calculators" give some lifetime-return-average, but I'd like to see scenarios run with actual annual (or even quarterly) return rates along with realistic lifetime contribution inputs. Probably would take a couple of hours to throw together in excel (just make sure you're summing the right cells!)

[StrangeSox]

Not for those that cared enough about their money to learn about it, it wasn't. The point is, most people don't care, they have no idea what they're purchasing, or why...and they also have no idea of the fees they're paying, or why.

 

Who does this? I simply cannot understand why a person doesn't take a more active approach with their own damn money. I guess what they say is true...a fool and his money are easily parted.

 

As I said, it's more than just what investment options you picked in your 401(k). Decades of stagnant wages with rising cost-of-living meant people had less and less to set aside for retirement in the first place. Plus a lot of 401(k) plans, if your employer even offers one, have s***ty options and high fees.

[Y2HH]

I understand dollar-cost-averaging. But that doesn't help the people who built up the bulk of their wealth in the years prior to 2000--those dollars still haven't seen any growth since then.

 

Most "retirement calculators" give some lifetime-return-average, but I'd like to see scenarios run with actual annual (or even quarterly) return rates along with realistic lifetime contribution inputs. Probably would take a couple of hours to throw together in excel (just make sure you're summing the right cells!)

 

Those people should have been doing what SS stated, and moving into cash or bonds, AKA "money holdings". You don't stay in the stock market when you're nearing retirement. What messed those people up was greed. They saw their portfolios increasing in value, so they stayed in the market DESPITE being near retirement, instead of moving their money into cash or bonds. I'm no fan of cash or bonds for investing purposes, but I am for holding purposes, and when you're set to retire, you want to start holding value, not increasing it with risk.

[Y2HH]

As I said, it's more than just what investment options you picked in your 401(k). Decades of stagnant wages with rising cost-of-living meant people had less and less to set aside for retirement in the first place. Plus a lot of 401(k) plans, if your employer even offers one, have s***ty options and high fees.

 

Most of it is lack of education on how to invest. People simply don't know, because most simply don't care. They believe in what I call the Dr. Evil method of life planning. They put their money into highly elaborate schemes and simply assume "everything's going to work out in their favor". Yet they'll do research for weeks when buying a new f***ing television.