revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 08:31 am
Sanders' last shot to shake up the race
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 09:19 am
Also, Sanders' biggest issue is wealth for the poor and middle class. The single best way for the poor and middle class to move up in class is to save money. A 25yr old couple making 55k per year that can live within their means and save JUST 10% of their money (and a low 6.2% rate of return) will retire with over a million dollars in SAVINGS. This doesn't count their hopefully paid off home and the increase in value there. It doesn't take into account any increase in salary.

A couple making 55k/year can retire as millionares saving just 10% of their income.

If that couple earns the historical average of 10.2% then they'd only need to save 3% of their income.

To make 55k/year means two people working full time (not including 2 weeks vacation), making $13.75/hr.

That NEEDS to be the message that government is telling the American people. Instead all we hear is SPEND SPEND SPEND BUY BUY BUY.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 09:46 am
@maporsche,
Yeah!! Those lazy poor need to grab their bootstraps.

Republicans.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 09:54 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Yeah!! Those lazy poor need to grab their bootstraps.

Republicans.


Just stop.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 10:03 am
@revelette2,
Quote:
you appear to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth

Sorry that you think this way. I am speaking as clearly and plainly as I can. None so deaf etc.

If it is true that the US is saddled with a dysfunctional congress for the foreseable future, the US presidency becomes a largely symbolic function then, and it does not matter very much which democratic candidate you pick for it, because he/she won't be able to get anything passed congress anyway.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 10:05 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Those lazy poor need to grab their bootstraps.

And God forbid anyone only worth half-a-million bucks to ever enter the oval office.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 10:12 am
@snood,
Yes it did, I get you now. Thanks for clarifying. Also I'd change my wording from liking him slightly more than Hillary - to liking him somewhat more than her as a potential president. Some of my caution is about if he can get anything done.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 10:21 am
@Olivier5,
Yes it is important if we get a republican or a democrat for President because of the recent Supreme Court vacancy. It will be hard for any democrat president to get much passed, but there are a lot of thing a president can do on their own, plus I doubt congress will have it in for Hillary or Bernie in quite the same way as they did for Obama, in fact quite a few republicans seem to favor Hillary over Trump. So they may be willing to work with Hillary on some issues.

Donald Trump Versus Hillary Clinton: A Quarter Of Republicans Would Vote For Clinton Says Poll
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 10:25 am
All this "he won't get anything done" is politicking for the other candidate. If he gets the nomination, it will show congressional candidates where the nation wants to go and they will be persuaded by the need to keep getting reelected to give Sanders a break.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 10:28 am
@edgarblythe,
Do you not remember the republicans calling Obama a socialist? What makes you think they are suddenly going to care about being re-elected by Sanders supporters enough to vote for say, government controlled health care with the single payer system, not to mention free college for everyone? Their constituents would throw them out of their seats if they did. You guys act like the whole world except Hillary and her supporters support everything Bernie stands for when there is a whole republican conservative party who would never vote for those things.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 10:34 am
@revelette2,
So the supreme court is important, accordinfg to you, not the president per se. But then, Bernie will probably name someone better at the supreme court than Hillary...
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 10:38 am
@edgarblythe,
Are Texas voters are going to support candidates who plan to back a socialist/independent president?
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 10:40 am
@edgarblythe,
I am not politicking.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 10:47 am
@revelette2,
Thanks for the link. Interesting article on the upcoming debate.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 10:54 am
@maporsche,
Living within one's means will vary according to where the 25 year old couple you mention, happens to live. It will also depend on how much student debt they accrued. In other words, that $55,000.00 might not have a 10% remaining for savingd, and possibly they could be operating in the red each month.
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 10:57 am
@Olivier5,
Quote Olivier5:
Quote:
My point was that the president is also the commander in chief, and by your logic, he should have proven his personal value as a soldier before becomming commander in chief...

Your argument says more about YOU and your criteria for a good president than it says about Sanders.


No, it actually doesn't. Because going into the service is a choice that a minority of Americans make, we give these people extra esteem but there is no shame in not choosing to go into the service. Financial planning, especially from someone who has had a much higher than average income, is something we expect.

If somebody just hasn't had a good income for most of their life for one reason or another, that's one thing. Bernie's jobs have been several times the income of the average worker.
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 10:58 am
@revelette2,
Bernie Sanders has already shaken up the race. Hillary the shoe in candidate that the mucky-mucks anointed Queen even before President Obama first set foot in the Oval Office in 2008, was never supposed to have even needed to come up with a campaign logo or slogan as far as they were concerned.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 11:48 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
there is no shame in not choosing to go into [military] service. Financial planning, especially from someone who has had a much higher than average income, is something we expect.

Well, that's also what I'm saying. You expect your president to be money-wise but not necessarily battle-proven. My point is that this makes sense in a culture which VALUES money quite a lot more than military glory, like the American culture.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 11:59 am
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:

Living within one's means will vary according to where the 25 year old couple you mention, happens to live. It will also depend on how much student debt they accrued. In other words, that $55,000.00 might not have a 10% remaining for savingd, and possibly they could be operating in the red each month.


Sure Sturgis, I know this is a generality. I'm just trying to point out that A LOT of people have what it takes to become a millionaire in their lives right now if they take the right steps.

A forced 5% 401k plan for all Americans based on their income would make more millionaires than free college tuition would.

Our society doesn't value savers, they reward spenders. If there's one thing that separates millionaires from the middle class it's SAVING money.

$55,000/year won't be enough to save a lot of money in San Francisco, but it's enough for just about everyone in Tennessee making that much money to retire a millionaire. They just need to save $4.50 per day (and get a 10.2% return on investment).

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 14 Apr, 2016 12:13 pm
@maporsche,
Quote:
A couple making 55k/year can retire as millionares saving just 10% of their income.

If that couple earns the historical average of 10.2% then they'd only need to save 3% of their income.

You are ignoring inflation in your calculations and investment costs. The historical stock market average is not 10.2% after inflation. It's closer to 7%. Investments in retirement funds can lose 60% of the stock market average from fees charged by investment firms. By the time they retire that million would be equivalent to about $250,000 when they started working. That's if they could manage to achieve the million. While it is possible, it isn't as easy as you want to make it out. It still requires some luck and not getting ripped off by bad investment choices.


Quote:
A 25yr old couple making 55k per year that can live within their means and save JUST 10% of their money (and a low 6.2% rate of return) will retire with over a million dollars in SAVINGS.
Not according to my calculations. $5500 per year for 40 years at 6.2% interest is only $895,000. While it is nothing to sneeze at it's value isn't over a million and you have to include inflation to really compare.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bernie's In
  3. » Page 177
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 12:51:41