Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?

Back to blog

Ignorance isn't blissful

The way to reduce the volatility and attendant stress of long term investing is to simply buy the market - S&P500, Wilshire 2000, etc., from a low cost company.

The way to deal with the near-term change in status has always been to shift from long-term growth to income as the preponderance of the investment. Not only do many of the investment companies have their own models for this kind of distribution, but you can find other free information around the web.

Edcuation has always been the best way to prepare for decisions you'll have to make. Too many people wanted to get fancy and clever with their retirement portfolios.

When you gamble, you run the risk of losing big time.

Prudent Investor of MD @ Oct 23, 2008 14:52:52 PM

Clarificaiton on slight clarification

Joaquin Andujar you make a common mistake in that you assume that money that is initially put in the stock market from a 401K counts as Savings. Not so. (You can look it up). Thaqt is because for every stock purchase, there is a stock sale. So for that reason, money invested in the stock market does not increase our national savings rate as calculated in the official statistics. Only money put into a savings account counts as "savings".

James Gatz of MA @ Oct 23, 2008 14:51:38 PM

Exhibit A from the Stupid Files

Trusting retirement income to the Federal Government? Didn't Social Security teach anyone anything? Defined benefits are the cause of so many of today's financial ills. The defined contribution approach is the prudent financial policy for both the worker and the taxpayer.

This is a naked attack on the growth of the investor class, with two prongs to its thrust: suppress the conservative impulses that arise from ownership of assets and foster dependency on the Federal government.

Why do liberals hate the citizens of the U.S.? They are relentless in their efforts to reduce our freedoms and well-being.

MF of CO @ Oct 23, 2008 14:46:51 PM

Paning wrong-ering

"Panig Omgering" is a bit too optimistic. Whether a liberal or republican controlled committee, I doubt they would waste their time on moonbats. The fact that they haul Ghilarducci in itself suggests they would at leasst consider her idea seriously. Given that, people with 401ks should pay attention...closely -- just as much as they should do research before choosing a fund to invest in.

Last of the Mohawk Vegans of MN @ Oct 23, 2008 14:45:55 PM

By what means do you conclude that stocks are 'cheap'? By any historical standard they are still expensive. If you think we are near the bottom of this, then get ready for a nasty surprise. Don't believe me? Then listen to Richard Russle, who's been following the market since the stone age.

If you expect 7% returns this century, you are dreaming. Do you really think the DOW is going to be at 20,000,000 at the end of the century? Don't believe me? Read Buffet's 2007 letter to shareholders.

Didn't you see this current economic debacle coming? The writing was on the wall since '03. We needed Ron Paul, and get to pick between these two losers. Btw, Europeans are clamoring for a return to Bretton-Woods. We'll get there after the dollar fails.

jeff of ID @ Oct 23, 2008 14:44:45 PM

the government is not 'investing' anything.

I get angry when I hear them talk about how much they are investing in my 401k. Letting me keep the money I earn is not the same as the congress 'investing' and I resent him treating it as though the money belonged to them.

guess you'll have to get a job sanford.

remember that? having to work like the rest of us?

what makes you think any of us owe you a retirement?

sean of WA @ Oct 23, 2008 14:40:48 PM

<em>At 3% return for the defined benefit program, the Obama administration can move inflation up to 10-12% and eliminate the future social security meltdown problem.</em>

Ghilarducci's proposed scheme was 3% <em>inflation adjusted</em>. Which raises the question, how does Obama fund the monster? Presumably higher taxes on the rich.

george of ID @ Oct 23, 2008 14:37:15 PM

Panic Mongering? Don't be so sure

Miller and his staff members have made some favorable comments about this proposal although they have stopped short of actually endorsing it ... so far. This is how these things get started. They bring in an academic to float it out there as a trial baloon. Then if there's not too much negative reaction they go ahead and introduce legislation.

ERISA guy of OH @ Oct 23, 2008 14:36:42 PM

401(k) Plans

"Precious little attention is being given to those of us who are staring the poor house in the face as we watch our reserves dwindle to nothing!!! I will be broke in less than a year at the rate things are going. Just what will I live on then???"

No problem. Call President Obama at 1-800-NEW-TAXS. He'll wave his magic wand, sprinkle his fairy dust, and then crank up his money printing press. Yeah, I know, the resulting inflation will wipe out the value of the money he gives you, but I'm sure you'll feel much better after His Majesty eloquently tells you how much he "feels your pain."

MarkJ of IN @ Oct 23, 2008 14:34:00 PM

RE: Panic mongering

HillbillyBill:

Mr. Pethokoukis did not say this was a done deal. Hearing as many different views as you can doesn't make much sense unless you listen to the pros and cons of those ideas. It's called "debate".

Arnold of TX @ Oct 23, 2008 14:30:22 PM

Back to blog

Add Your Thoughts
About You
Capital Commerce

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!