Why isn't Washington aiding savers?

[hegemony]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26270443/

 

maybe savers don't whine enough?

[radi8]

Saving just isnt' attractive when so many banks pay 0.25% on simple savings accounts. But you know the deal Hege, responsible folk don't get bailed out, lol. They pay for the bailouts.

[Uncle Leo]

It's a good question.

[Kevin20]

I don't think that's a good question at all.

 

Washington is supposed to magically increase savings rates? We're supposed to have some massive new entitlement program to give extra money to people who don't even need it? We don't need more sheep expecting nanny to solve all their problems.

 

And BTW we already have an entitlement program for retirees who didn't bother to save enough. It's called social security. And Lord knows it must be perfect because any politician who suggests changing it gets crucified.

Edited August 30, 2008 by Kevin20

[Uncle Leo]

I don't think that's a good question at all.

 

Washington is supposed to magically increase savings rates? We're supposed to have some massive new entitlement program to give extra money to people who don't even need it? We don't need more sheep expecting nanny to solve all their problems.

 

And BTW we already have an entitlement program for retirees who didn't bother to save enough. It's called social security. And Lord knows it must be perfect because any politician who suggests changing it gets crucified.

 

You misunderstood my statement. It was more thoughtful than what it appeared. Not 'good question' in that there should be more bailouts, but 'good question' as in "why are there so many to begin with?".

[Xecuter2]

Is this yet another excuse for not saving?

[LBCS]

You misunderstood my statement. It was more thoughtful than what it appeared. Not 'good question' in that there should be more bailouts, but 'good question' as in "why are there so many to begin with?".

 

Why not? Bailouts are good.

[athensgaguy]

I don't think that's a good question at all.

 

Washington is supposed to magically increase savings rates? We're supposed to have some massive new entitlement program to give extra money to people who don't even need it? We don't need more sheep expecting nanny to solve all their problems.

 

And BTW we already have an entitlement program for retirees who didn't bother to save enough. It's called social security. And Lord knows it must be perfect because any politician who suggests changing it gets crucified.

 

I don't call putting about 15% of my money (7.65% individual + match by company, or 15.3% self employed) for my whole life, and then getting a tiny monthly check in return entitlement, really. It's a crappy retirement plan, but it's not what you're calling it. It subsidizes the government, not the other way around, at least until it runs low on money.

[hegemony]

Is this yet another excuse for not saving?

 

excuse for not saving? did you read the story? savings are getting hosed.

[jayrandom]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26270443/

 

maybe savers don't whine enough?

 

My thoughts exactly...plus, savers don't make for sympathetic sob stories for the news. A single mother being forced out of her foreclosed home engenders more emotion and support than someone who's savings is dwindling, even if the single mother deserves to be foreclosed because she bought more house than she should have.

 

I think we have a reactive government and population in general that gleefully presses ahead until something becomes a crisis. Whether its the driven by the media, the politicians, or the population they serve, we seem mostly focused on short term solutions to short term problems. When gas prices are high everyone is worried about energy security, when gas prices were low everyone was buying SUVs. The biggest media concern of the late summer in 2001 were shark attacks. Saving is a long term solution to a long term problem, and it seems like society doesn't have the attention span for that sort of thing anymore.