3 Ways Obama’s Saving Initiatives Will Affect Your Retirement

Reader Comments
Back to blog

You are wrong. We are being taxed without being represented. Our Government representatives are not listening to us and doing what we the people want. We don't want the US to become a third world country with socialism at its core.
The British Government had full control over the 13 colonies. They were an ocean away. The US government today is seeking full control over the 50 states. It is taxing and spending on programs and eliminating the middle class in the process. And they're NOT AN OCEAN AWAY!
Less government is the answer. Force people to take care of themselves more and rely on daddy government less. BUT DONT RAISE FEES,SURCHARGES,TAXES,COSTS,PRICES, NOR CONTROL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE!! Maybe all of us middle class workers should all stay home tomorrow and apply for government aid!!

chenz of NY 5:55PM September 22, 2009

BTW, the Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation, so it doesn't really work as a historical parallel. But at least you got the Boston part right.

Betty Bup of MA 2:28PM September 22, 2009

Your memory completely overlooks the role played by those who recklessly bundled mortgages into securities. After a certain point, most interested home buyers who were qualified to have mortgages already had mortgages--but the demand for the mortgage-backed securities continued. Mortgage brokers and banks dramatically loosened the loan approval rules to feed the hunger for the securities.
Blaming it on the Clinton administration's desire to increase minority ownership is a red herring. The administration acted to prevent illegal discrimination against qualified minority buyers in the form of redlining--not to encourage bankers to lend to unqualified borrowers. And the Clinton administration is hardly the only one to constantly push the "American dream" of home ownership.
TJ--your reading comprehension is clearly lacking. The government will play no role in these retirement savings--it's up to you whether you want to participate. And I assume you will because you'd never want to become socialist by relying on Social Security in your golden years.

Jane Dough of CA 2:26PM September 22, 2009

If I remember correctly, most of the banking and s&l dereglation occurred during the Clinton administration. They were the ones who had a goal of more low income and minority homeownership. They essentially forced loosening (?eliminating)of loan approval rules allowing untold numbers of people to own homes. People who would never have been approved under the rules that existed for decades. There was a reason for those rules. People with no significant investment in the property (ie-down payment)had no reason to stay. Creative financing allowed people to pay on their loans, for a while.
The end result was that a whole lot of people who never should have been approved for loans, were approved. And they lost their homes. And the institutions that backed them tanked as well. Tragic all the way around. Just remember to thank the correct administration.

Peg of CA 3:43PM September 20, 2009

The Governmrnt Has NO Right to Control and Dip Into Our Pocketbooks/Wallets in the ruse of saving for our retirement when we have our family's expenses to cover. We already pay Taxes on the money we work hard for, and the Government can't balance & budget the books with all it collects now.
I'll control my own hard-earned money, thank you. Not The President, and the Government.
Boston Tea Party all over again!

TJ of WA 1:45AM September 18, 2009

Give The President a chance he just got in the whith house. You didn't rag on Bush he had eight years to mess up the economy. You never did find any weapons of mass destructiion. the only that Bush accomplished was to KILL off our SOLDIERS.

Chris. of NC 4:25PM September 16, 2009

When are folks going to realize that President Obama has only been in office since January. Look to those who ran the show the previous eight years and made their killings at the expense of the rest of us. Why is it so hard to figure it out? By the way, those same people who gave us this stupendous meltdown want to get back in and get MORE! Remember those Republicans who wanted to put Social Security into the stock market too! Oh, My Goodness. Wouldn't that have been horrendous? Think about that.
There are always difficult medicines to down to help to get better. Give the President a chance. Look at the economy already. It is getting better, but he never has said it would be quick. Read the record. Think how close the the edge of the cliff we were just a few months ago. Would you have done NOTHING?

Bob H. of VA 3:10PM September 16, 2009

The state of Nebraska had both the 401K and the Defined Benefit Pensions for its employees. After a decade or more, they evaluated which provided more secure retirement for its state employees, the Defined Benefit came out on top. It was interesting to note, the 401K architect, was hit hard by the 2008 meltdown, his answer was, there was no model that suggested bonds, stocks, and International investments would ALL lose money at the same time. Wall Street packaging bonds in securities, rating them at AAA, and selling them world wide, knowing they would fail, buying Credit Default Insurance and Derivatives on them failing was all created by the deviant minds of the Financial Wizards of Wall Street with the help of our government removing safeguards that protected the average Joe for the benefit of the wealthy. And then, after these creative Fraud instruments, the taxpayer bails them out. And today, nothing has changed to prevent Wall Street from repeating the same Fraud. We need to learn from Nebraska and the elimination of the 401K in favor of the Defined Benefit plan. Remember, when a retiree and his/her spouse dies, if there is still money in his "pension fund", it can be used by other fellow employee retirees, in the Pot therefore providing more retirement assets for the plan verses 401K's if there is anything left, is just left to the kids who blow the money in less than 3 years, having not earned it. Less Money in a Defined Benefit Pension plan is required to equal the same amount in a 401K. A lot less money in the Defined Benefit plan is required to provide a higher level of retirement income verses the 401K plan. Just ask the Greatest Generations, those who retired in the 60's, 70's, and 80's when there were 125,000 DB plans verses today of less than 15,000 DB plans since Corporate America did away with them, boosted their profits, increasing CEO compensation from 40 times entry level employee to 400 times, all with the excess DB assets thanks, again, to our Congress passing laws and doing nothing about the theft of the Defined Benefit plans of the Babyboomers by Corporate America. Best money any Corporation spent in Congress to enable Defined Benefit Plan theft. Bring back the Defined Benefit plan.

Mike of UT 12:29AM September 16, 2009

President Obama's financial policies since taking office have been shabby at best. The Bailout project was primarily a pork payout to his supporters. The Healthcare project is an attempt to socialize medicine. He can best serve America by leaving all financial programs alone. His underlying motive seems to be to bring this country closer and closer to a socialist state.

Jerry Brothers of MD 3:53PM September 15, 2009