It sure seems that way, PLC1. Those who tried to be prudent and saved their money in 401ks for retirement have also seen a lot of their savings go up in smoke.
Not really. First, it's only assumed value that is gone. For example, let's say you put $1K in a mutual fund. Then it increases over the next five years to $10K. Then it dives to $8K. Have you really lost $2K? No cause you never had it. Of course you can't pull your money out of a 401K until you retire (at least not without losing tons more in taxes). So you haven't lost anything. Of course the stock market will recover, unless the country spirals into anarchy. So you will regain most if not all of what you "lost" in assumed value, unless you pull it out.
For example, my 401K is already growing.
Certainly the system has some flaws. At least most of the rest of the US is taking the entire stimulus package. Alaska has a Governor who wants to govern Alaska and remain a viable candidate to run for President in 2012. Part of her platform is being a conservative. Something which she certainly is not in the fiscal sense previously.
So for her own personal agenda, Sarah Palin has vetoed 28million and change for weatherization upgrades for homeowners. Because she is under some illusion that there are all sorts of federal "strings attached". When in fact that could have easily been decided on the local level. But her agenda trumped what was for the good of Alaskans. Especially rural Alaskans who pay by far the highest energy costs in the nation. $8 a gallon for gas and $10 for diesel/heating fuel is the norm.
So, when it comes to the federal system being broken, I am sure that is the case, as usual. But it bites hard when those who truly need it, have it vetoed at the state level when we need it most. What a shame. That it comes as a result of larger political agenda and ego makes it twice as bad
Interesting... So there is no possible way that Sarah Palin, who is governor of Alaska could possibly know more about the bailout package, than you do? There's no possible way the federal government put strings on the bailout package, when other governors have declined the money on that very basis too?
This is the same federal government that offers school lunch funding, with the qualifications that schools have to have a specific curriculum to qualify for funding. What does funding for lunch for needy children have to do with curriculum?
Can you give me one example of federal funding that doesn't have strings attached? Remember the bailout? There's so many strings attached now that companies are trying to pay back the bailout immediately.
Look at the IMF and Africa. In order to get a loan, the countries have to do dozens of things, many which cause serious economic problems.
So you are certain, that in this case, Palin couldn't possibly have any reason to not take the stimulus? And moreover, all these spending programs have been going on since August. Look at what's happened. Nothing. At least nothing good thus far.
