Poor conservatives, I don't get it. Righties please explain.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Allow me to respond to the opening post:

As a white boy who grew up in a black neighbor, and whose mom raised four boys by herself, and whose family was eligible for all kinds of government assistance but accepted none...we Republicans believe that hard work and contentment, not government assistance, is the key to overcoming the cards that life sometime deals us.

[I am jmfcst and I approve of this message.]

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Allow me to respond to the opening post:

As a white boy who grew up in a black neighbor, and whose mom raised four boys by herself, and whose family was eligible for all kinds of government assistance but accepted none...

Well you may enjoy whipping your own back but that does not disprove the mountains of evidence that indicate investing in health care, adequate housing, and eduction for the poor benefits society as a whole.

my mother understood government assistance could end up as a way of life...so we got by.  We ate at home probably 99% of the time (McDonald's was a huge treat), and our vacations amounted to driving to OK and KS to visit relatives.  We didn't throw birthday parties, we simply had cake and a couple of presents.  We worked and saved as a family.  And now we are all out of the ghetto and my mother is retired with several hundred thousand dollars in life savings.

if that is whipping your own back, then more people should try it

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Would you mind telling me how many people in this country retire with "several hundred thousand dollars in life savings." 

she put into practice the word "No" and worked and spent less than she earned and she always taught us "it's not how much you make, it's how much you save"...which is why I drove a base model '97 Corolla from May 1997 til June 2011...and is why I spent several nights in the Logan airport to keep from spending $45 bucks on a cab ride.

saving 300k over the 30 years covering 1970-2000 is NOT that big of a deal, it only required saving $350/month earning 5%...or $200/month earning 7.5%...or $120/month earning 10%

but, nowadays, you could easily do the same with a matching 401k even with an interest rate of ZERO:  $417/month (plus matching $417/month) for 30 years = $300k...and putting money into your 401k is taxfree money.  In fact matching 401k's are such a good deal, you should NEVER risk your matching 401k in the stock market.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, your use of nominal dollars rather than real ones leads to the wrong conclusion, particularly the bit about never putting 401K money in the stock market. How much will $300,000 buy in 40 years?

I simply gave of an example of earning 0 percent return...if you stick it in bonds you'll most likely cover inflation.

---

Indeed, a case can be made that young folks with good earnings prospects should buy stocks on leverage, since most of their "net worth" as it were is in the form of human capital, not tangible assets.

i would never advise anyone to borrow money to buy stock

in a matching taxfree 401k, there is no reason to risk it in the stock market.  you're already getting a HUGE tax break and 100% instant return.  after you max out your 401k, then you can use any extra money you save to invest in stocks.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

i was heavily into the stock market until 2000, now I only jump in during recessions and get out after the recovery.

But, stock market aside, most Americans do not appreciate the power of savings (spending less than you earn), and it is reflected in our politics.  Just look at the dumb comments in thread equating living within your means as self punishment.  In fact, they would probably view an type of discipline/savings/work as punishing yourself.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, it's ludicrous. Just look at the net worth of folks in general. It is pathetically small. Exclusive of housing equity, and their social security expectancy (which is a big number, maybe around 300K in present value terms, for a person getting the max, and starting to take SS at 65), maybe 10% of the population upon retirement has a net worth of 300K or more.

and yet the vast majority of households have multiple TVs, cars, game systems...etc, etc, etc.  In fact, we have a large chunk of the population dropping $5-10 of post-tax dollars a day at Starbucks..and a sizable chunk have a swimming pool in their backyard.

That's one of the things SS has done - give people the false impression that government is going to take care of their retirement. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But you've got to agree that its quite impressive to see how frugal new immigrants(from developing countries) are able to be in the US and the unbelievably high savings rates they have on low incomes.

well, when you don't believe you have some God given right to have everything you want and that you're going to sink or swim on your own, it's easy to learn how to say "NO!"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Furthermore, it's possible to be too frugal - it is sometimes a good choice to borrow to invest in your health or education (or the health and education of your children).

oh...well...hmmm....I forgot to mention the fact that I worked my way through college while earning a EE degree...and never took out a student loan.

now, my wife, on the other hand, had 5k worth of student loan debt when I married her....I paid that off within the first year