If you look you can see the economy stalling.

The White House has said that we have a "robust" recovery and many Obamatons have cited the stock market and 401Ks as proof of that. Is that true? Not really. The stock market has been artificially inflated with taxpayer money and a bubble has formed. 401Ks??? Let me lay it out for you...

I'm going to use percentages because you don't need to know how much I have. Two weeks before the 2008 bust I moved my money around in my 401K. My losses were 17% instead of the 30% + by many people. This should demonstrate that I keep track of my money and make some good choices regarding it. Anyway, my 401K recovered like so many other people. I had a milestone set up which I came within less than 1% of reaching...three years early I might add. I was 34% ahead of my actual deposits. What happened is what is important. That point was reached almost three months ago and since then I have been up and down but have never reached that illusive milestone. My balance has remained almost the same as it was three months ago. I deposit nearly 9% of my salary every week and I'm stalled. I checked my elections (I have 11 currently) and all but one were making money this last quarter. If it were not for my weekly infusions of cash, my portfolio would be going down! In fact, by my calculation three months ago I was at 34% above my contributions but now I'm at 23%. I'm still in the black but I'm losing economic latitude. I'm sure the same thing is happening around the country but maybe people just don't understand that holding steady is not good when your dropping money into your account every payday. The economy is stalled and GDP shrank last quarter. I have yet to hear anything really amazing about this quarter so can expect another minus zero result (and the start of an offical recession)?

Your piddly shit savings plan is a leading economic indicator? Please.

SNICK!

You are 100% correct. The economy has stalled somewhat. The DJIA reached its peak in February at 18,132. Today it is at 17,898. A drop of 1.3% in about 4 months. Of course, you fail to mention that from Feb. 2009 to Feb. 2015 the DJIA went from 7,063 to 18,132. An increase of about 157% in 6 years. This increase has absolutely nothing to do with a 401k. For every $100 invested in Feb. 2009, the average investor would have $257 in Feb. 2015.

I really don't care what you believe as to what caused the rise in the markets. Artificially inflated??? I don't give a crap. Money was there to be made and I, for one, benefited from it.

If I remember correctly, you are one of those on the forum who have been predicting gloom and doom for the stock markets for quite some time. Has not happened yet. Is this the start of a recession? Doubtful. But not out of the realm of possibilities.

You are 100% correct. The economy has stalled somewhat.

Money was there to be made and I, for one, benefited from it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I believe he posted:

"The White House has said that we have a "robust" recovery and many Obamatons have cited the stock market and 401Ks as proof of that. Is that true? Not really. The stock market has been artificially inflated with taxpayer money and a bubble has formed."

He said nothing about 401K's causing the markets to inflate or the bubble.

But it's nice to know that you made good money in the markets in a stalled economy. The Clintons have done quite well it seems also, even though they were "broke" when the left the White House (according to the economic wizard, Hillarious). At $500,000 a pop on speeches ... it helps the wallet.

Their economy, likes yours, is doing well.

Unfortunately the average person who now can only work 30 hours a week ....and lacks the discretionary funds to gamble in the markets ..... is not doing so well with little good news on the horizon. But hey: Fuck the little guy, right?

Your piddly shit savings plan is a leading economic indicator? Please. Originally Posted by timpage

How do you know the size of his "savings plan" or anyone else's for that matter?

I believe he posted:

"The White House has said that we have a "robust" recovery and many Obamatons have cited the stock market and 401Ks as proof of that. Is that true? Not really. The stock market has been artificially inflated with taxpayer money and a bubble has formed."

He said nothing about 401K's causing the markets to inflate or the bubble.

But it's nice to know that you made good money in the markets in a stalled economy. The Clintons have done quite well it seems also, even though they were "broke" when the left the White House (according to the economic wizard, Hillarious). At $500,000 a pop on speeches ... it helps the wallet.

Their economy, likes yours, is doing well.

Unfortunately the average person who now can only work 30 hours a week ....and lacks the discretionary funds to gamble in the markets ..... is not doing so well with little good news on the horizon. But hey: Fuck the little guy, right? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Where did anyone say that the "robust" recovery was referring to the last 3 months. Since Obama has been in office the recovery from the recession of 2008 has been very "robust". If JD meant otherwise, it was not stated.

Re-read what I stated about 401k's. All I said was if you take it out of the equation, the average portfolio increased 157%. If you took into account additional contributions made to 401k's then the portfolio increases even more.

Yes, I did well. Not amazingly well, but well. Since I have shifted my money into more conservative investments, the ups and downs in the market affect me less than before. How much Clinton is making is irrelevant to JD's statements. How many hours the average worker works is irrelevant to JD's statements. Nowhere did JD mention the "little guy" as opposed to the "big guy". JD simply stated that in recent months his 401k has decreased, even with additional contributions. I agree that if you look at just the last 3 months, the economy has slowed.

Try to keep it somewhat relevant.

Where did anyone say that the "robust" recovery was referring to the last 3 months.

Try to keep it somewhat relevant. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

When you are as far behind as you are, it seems like the others are behind you.

But you're just getting lapped. Put a note down.

When the SEC makes a rule change on valuation of reserves back to the proven reserve requirement, your piddly little savings account might look good.

The health of the economy is only a measure of a good economy to those in it. Picking and choosing the indicators depending on the quarter and the year, is poppy-cock. Someone else was playing numbers with the unemployment rates. Now you come along and play numbers with the markets.

What were you doing in 2000? In 1999 the traders were "selling" techs and pharmaceuticals to the little guys and bundling the big guys as sellers. Their institutional holders made a killing, and the individuals lost their asses. It had little to do with the direction of the economy in 2000 which was tanking. It had everything to do with the trading. EF Hutton and Rauscher Pierce did the same shit in the mid 80's. They were also doing it in the future markets.

.....from Feb. 2009 to Feb. 2015 the DJIA went from 7,063 to 18,132. An increase of about 157% in 6 years. This increase has absolutely nothing to do with a 401k. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Re-read what I stated about 401k's. All I said was if you take it out of the equation, the average portfolio increased 157%.

Try to keep it somewhat relevant. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You think a moving target dodges the bullet. I just quoted what you said.

You desire to change the argument to engage a conversation about 401k's, and imply that the 401k consists solely of cash. Like 401ks have nothing to do with the value of the stock market, which is "market" driven.

"This increase has absolutely nothing to do with a 401k" is what you said.

How can 401ks holding 80% stock have "absolutely nothing to do" with the increase in the markets? That's a rhetorical question. Your answer is immaterial if you try to argue it doesn't. May be yours, but you are the genius who would rather keep cash in a 401k at 1-2% than stock and earn 30-80% in a strong market.....depending on the stocks you buy.

You think a moving target dodges the bullet. I just quoted what you said.

You desire to change the argument to engage a conversation about 401k's, and imply that the 401k consists solely of cash. Like 401ks have nothing to do with the value of the stock market, which is "market" driven.

"This increase has absolutely nothing to do with a 401k" is what you said.

How can 401ks holding 80% stock have "absolutely nothing to do" with the increase in the markets? That's a rhetorical question. Your answer is immaterial if you try to argue it doesn't. May be yours, but you are the genius who would rather keep cash in a 401k at 1-2% than stock and earn 30-80% in a strong market.....depending on the stocks you buy. Originally Posted by LexusLover

My God you are stupid;.

I re-read my 2 posts in this thread and I can't find anywhere where I said "This increase has absolutely nothing to do with a 401k."

And please point out where I said I would rather keep cash in a 401k at 1-2%.

You continually make up what you want to.

My God you are stupid.

When you are as far behind as you are, it seems like the others are behind you.

But you're just getting lapped. Put a note down.

When the SEC makes a rule change on valuation of reserves back to the proven reserve requirement, your piddly little savings account might look good.

The health of the economy is only a measure of a good economy to those in it. Picking and choosing the indicators depending on the quarter and the year, is poppy-cock. Someone else was playing numbers with the unemployment rates. Now you come along and play numbers with the markets.

What were you doing in 2000? In 1999 the traders were "selling" techs and pharmaceuticals to the little guys and bundling the big guys as sellers. Their institutional holders made a killing, and the individuals lost their asses. It had little to do with the direction of the economy in 2000 which was tanking. It had everything to do with the trading. EF Hutton and Rauscher Pierce did the same shit in the mid 80's. They were also doing it in the future markets. Originally Posted by LexusLover

My God you are stupid. I made one simple statement which is FACT. The DJIA increased 157% in 6 years. What numbers are being played with by me. Are you saying the DJIA did NOT increase 157% in 6 years? If you do, you are once again wrong.

You probably still believe that 2014 - 1 equals 2014.

The only lapping being done here is you lapping your ass.

My God you are stupid. I simply can't wait until your next post to see what irrelevant drivel you will come up with.

How do you know the size of his "savings plan" or anyone else's for that matter? Originally Posted by LexusLover

His savings plan is probably about the size of your dick...tiny. 401k my ass.

How do you know the size of his "savings plan" or anyone else's for that matter? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Stupid people usually tend not to make a lot of money.

Just take a look at your bank account.

JD is on the government tit. Don't lwt him fool you with and investment talk!

Stupid people usually tend not to make a lot of money.

Just take a look at your bank account. Originally Posted by shanm

This /\

A fool and his money are easily parted. JD is the biggest fool on here. Look at the 777 and that bullshit he believes. I wouldn't use his '401k' as an indication of shit.

BTW, who looks at a 401k every month? And you realize we can make an approximation of what you make, since the maximum contribution is capped. And why is he putting 9%, when most employers only match up to 6%?