Dedicated to Deposits: Deals, Data, and Discussion
About Ken Tumin About Ken Tumin - Founder and Editor

Ken Tumin founded the Bank Deals Blog in 2005 and has been passionately covering the best deposit deals ever since. He is frequently referenced by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and other publications as a top expert, but he is first and foremost a fellow deal seeker and member of the wonderful community of savers that frequents DepositAccounts.

Featured Savings Rates

Popular Posts

Featured Accounts

Senator Asks Bernanke About Savers Being Punished

POSTED ON BY

Last week I reviewed Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's testimony before the House Committee on the Budget on the economic outlook for 2012. Yesterday, Bernanke gave a similar testimony in the Senate Budget Committee Hearing, and like last week, Bernanke was asked a few tough questions about zero interest rates.

I think it's important to know what members of Congress are asking Bernanke and what Bernanke is saying to them. First, it's nice to see that members of Congress are expressing similar concerns that we have. It probably won't change Bernanke's plans, but at least he's hearing the concerns. Second, it can guide us on an online petition that I discussed on January 26th. I will have more on the petition later this week.

This Washington Post article has a good review of Tuesday's Senate hearing. The main takeaway from the article is that it's going to take a lot more reduction in the unemployment rate before the Fed changes its commitment of ultra low rates until late 2014.

I reviewed the C-SPAN video of the Senate hearing. In the two hours of Chairman Bernanke's testimony, I found the following exchange between Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Chairman Bernanke most relevant for savers. This exchange started at approximately 1:28:30 into the hearing. I transcribed this exchange below, and I highlighted the exchange that specifically talked about savers.

Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA):

It seems unlikely to me anyway that the Fed would pursue such a extremely accommodative monetary policy as it has been pursuing and is pursuing if it weren't for the employment mandate. I'm concerned about some of the unintended consequences of maintaining zero interest rates, negative real interest rates. And I wonder if you would comment on some of these.

When I think about some of the implications, we have savers being punished for this, at least twice, once by virtue of the fact that after sacrificing their whole lives to accumulate savings, they get no return, and then, the very real possibility that the value of those savings will be eroded.

Secondly, we're encouraging excessive risk taking.

Thirdly, it seems to me this drives a misallocation, certainly has the potential, to drive a misallocation of investment, and I would argue, the risk of creating bubbles. In fact, it's hard not to see the U.S. Treasury market as a bubble right now.

Lastly, doesn't this enable the excessive deficits that we're running here, in part because they're funded at artificially low interest rates?

So these are some of the concerns I have from this policy, and I wonder if you would just comment on them.

Chairman Bernanke:

I don't know if I can cover all of them.

Let me first say that there are single mandate central banks like the Bank of England and the ECB, which have policies very similar to the Fed. Given that inflation is close to target, I don't think we would be doing radically different things if we had a single mandate at this particular point in time.

We're quite aware of these costs and risks. I've talked about them in speeches. It's one of the reasons we discuss the efficacy and risks associated with the policies as part of the overall discussion.

With respect to say savers, for example, it's true that low interest rates reduce the returns that savers get on their savings, but I would make the general point that savers just don't necessarily hold say Treasury bonds. They also hold corporate debt, stocks and a variety of other securities. And the returns of those securities depend very importantly on the strength of the economy. So we're trying to strengthen the economy. We're helping to improve the returns to savers.

To some extent on risk taking, to some extent, part of the reason for the policy is to move people away from very conservative liquid positions slightly more into riskier positions that involve investment and lending and so on that would help promote strength in the economy. We don't want to go too far, and we're very attentive to that, and we have greatly expanded our ability to monitor the financial system and to watch out for problems and to try to address them. I've been in many conversations with insurance companies, pension funds, and so on.


On misallocation, we're trying to get the economy back to a more full employment situation. When we're this far away from full employment, it's not obvious that the investments that are being made are the right investment. They may be insufficient, for example, because there's not enough demand for product.

I guess the last comment I would make, you asked me before about deficits, and I understand that concern, but I think that the effect of fed policy, independent of all the other factors, on Treasury rates is modest, and in any case, rates will rise eventually, and if the investors would lose confidence in U.S. federal fiscal policy, there is nothing the Fed could do to prevent those rates from rising. So I trust that Congress would understand that independent of the Fed's policy here, which is aimed at strengthening the economy which also helps deficits, that it's extremely important to be looking ahead and making appropriate plans for stabilizing the deficit.


Related Posts

Comments
39 comments.
Comment #1 by smokeboat (anonymous) posted on
smokeboat
Thank You, Senator Toomey

17
Comment #2 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Also.....since 0% interestc rates obviously reduce savings income.....people are not spending as much. That hurts the economy. And older people are not retiring but staying in work force which is increasing unemployment. These two factors are never discussed or added to the equation. Why?

15
Comment #3 by Anony/Paoli (anonymous) posted on
Anony/Paoli
Did I read that right?? Did Stinky Bernanke actually admit he wants to PUSH savers into RISKIER investments??  Oh great!  It's not enough he has eroded what income we can make from our savings but he also wants to get us to lose what savings we DO have before he is done with us!  Thanks Ken for sharing.  There has to be something more we can do to stop his plot to ruin savers!

25
Comment #5 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
I wish i could deposit all i want into a none deductable IRA or a ROTH retirement acount Why wont this Goverment let us do this.

4
Comment #8 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
>> "savers just don't necessarily hold say Treasury bonds. They also hold corporate debt, stocks and a variety of other securities."

It is amazing to me, that Mr. Bernanke fails to even mention those (part of the "99%") who do not own bonds or stocks or have an IRA.

After assuming more risk to get what used to be safe returns from your bank account or CD, the next predictable step (already underway) is to vacuum money from the saving population to pay off other people's debt (or help corporations maintain their profit margins) through non-core CPI inflation (food, gas, health insurance etc. cost increases). This will allow the Fed to fullfill its 2% inflation mandate, yet continuing to erode saver's principle.

22
Comment #9 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Anon #8 is exactly right. The communists must redefine inflation to manage the debt. They must also redefine employment numbers in order to give the appearance of an improving job market. Communists, by definition, must lie,cheat,steal....whatever it takes. "The end justifies the means" Americans need to wake up before our country is stolen from us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

12
Comment #10 by ClickClack posted on
ClickClack
Get your tin-foil hats on, boys and girls, it's time for more ranting about wacky conspiracy theories: "Eek, Obama is a communist! Eek, George Soros! Eek, 'cronies'! Eeeeeeek! They're evil! EVIL, I tell ya!" 

Good grief. Also, is there some kind of prize awarded to those who pointlessly.... pepper.... their paranoid posts..... with.... the.... most..... ellipses..........? It looks like a text representation of a speech impediment.

I don't like the current Fed strategies, and I think that Bernanke should be challenged on his broad claim that "savers" all hold stocks and other securities. To me, he is describing investors rather than savers. His assertion overlooks the fact that there are many people who avoid the risks inherent in the stock market, and therefore deliberately keep their savings in FDIC-insured bank accounts and time deposits (i.e., CDs). However, it is difficult to read the comments on this site without snorting derisively at these claims about "communist plots" and suggestions about how Obama must "have something on" other officials. Can we please try to be serious here, and put aside all such crackpot nonsense?

29
Comment #11 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#10:  "If it quakes like a duck, it "is" a duck"!  I just think Obama does a "lot" of quaking!  Isn't it great we still live in a country where we can discuss our leaders and not have our heads chopped off??  Let's hope it can always be that way in the US.

9
Comment #12 by ClickClack posted on
ClickClack
And now, breaking news: "Obama is a Quaker!"  :^)

Joking aside, we are indeed fortunate to live in a country where we are permitted free and open discourse, including criticism of our leaders. What's been happening in Syria is truly horrifying.

Here's hoping for better news all around, on all fronts, as soon as freakin' possible.

9
Comment #13 by Shorebreak posted on
Shorebreak
RE: ClickClack - #10, Wednesday, February 8, 2012 - 3:03 PM

Good post. Thanks.

7
Comment #15 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
I, for one, do not snicker when someone comments that our President is a communist , as I believe his policies are clearly indicative of being such, I am a realist, I am in my senior years, and I have been around the block more than once or twice.  I believe a  "KA-BOOM" of sorts could happen if Obama is re-elected and we should all prepare for the worse case scenario, not just with investments, but lifestyle as well.   Our country as we know it is at a crossroads, this is not crackpot nonsense, it is reality.  How many trillion in debt, and growing, really!  In the meantime, while we continue to eek out little interest under current fiscal policies, with no change in sight, I shop wisely, pairing sales with coupons and store incentivies, and have built over the last 18 months, a one year stockpile that my family can surive with. I also have the means to grow some of my own food and live in an environment where I am able to hunt and fish. I am buying now what I want and think I will need for the future.  If this president is re-elected I will continue to expand that stockpile.

12
Comment #16 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
It is no mystery why those in Congress are asking these types of questions of the Fed Reserve as it is an election year and savers make up a huge percentage of the voting population.  A greater mystery is why this issue couldnt get any press 2 years ago when the policy was well under way and the Fed Rate had dropped approx. 3 percent in the previous 2years.  Yes, the drop in the Fed rate started in 2008, while Bush was in office, so those wanting to blame Obama should rethink that rationale.  The Fed Reserve operates rather autonomously and I believe that there is little either Commander in Chief could do to influence the direction of the Fed Reserve.  The only thing that is keeping our government's head above water is the Fed's Zero % rate during these astronomical Federal deficits.  Bush is the one that wanted the USA to fight wars on two fronts and spend trillions of dollars  that we didn't have to fund his war on terrorism.  I disagree with Bernake that the Fed Reserve should consider the unemployment rate when setting interest rates.  And it is clear that his stategy was a big fat failure if that was one of his goals because he has maintained these low rates for 3 plus years and it has had little effect on the unemployment rate and has not encouraged businesses to release some of their huge capital reserves and invest in this economy. Only a fool continues to stick with a  policy time after time  and expect that there will be a different result after QE1, QE2, QE3....    When you reduce the interest rate to ZERO, there aren't any more weapons in the Fed arsenal to really spur on the economy.  So, the policy did allow the Fed Government to bail out the banks, bail out GM, pump more money into foreign wars, and generally spend ungodly sums of money that we didn't have.  I think most voters are fed up and not interested in supporting politicians who represent only Corp. America and the richest 0.001% citizens.  If I was drafting a petition about savers, I would demand a drastic change in the Federal Reserve including the firing of Bernake, and I would encourage an independent movement in politics, (NOT the TeaParty) as an alternative choice for middle class Americans fed up with politicians sold out to corporations.  We need an independent alternative that will get our country back on top, investing in our workers, our students, our infrastructure and who can right the ship of the Federal Budget to eliminate deficit spending and reduce our debt to other nations who don't have our best interests at heart (China).  We need to stop acting like it is our responsiblity be peacekeeper over the entire world and rather invest in Research and Development, domestic education , and supporting internal endeavors benefiting all Americans.

13
Comment #17 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#16  Your candidate is running.  I think he calls himself Ron Paul and he seems to feel a lot like you.  Too bad he is too radical on certain issues for my liking or I would vote for him myself!

7
Comment #18 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Savers are not just being punished.  Rather, the weight of the recovery is being placed on their backs.   It apparently does not occur to Bernanke that some people might have ethical objections to investing in corporate America, whose greed led to the economic downturn and who have gone unscathed.  The administration is hardly socialist or communist as the McCarthyites claim: if we had such a system instead of one of unbridled capitalism, the real estate bubble and all the other corporate excesses would never have occurred.  And, at the present time, there would be more concern about the average person, including savers, than about propping up the stock market and the real estate industry.

9
Comment #19 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
One would think that most people who come to this blog must have significant savings and unless it is money they inherited they must be intelligent people to have achieved this kind of financial success. However, some of the posts are so bizarre that I have to question if these people really are savers or are here just to spew their political hatred. Both political parties have contributed to the situation we are in. Lets not forget policies of Alan Greenspan, a Republican and a Reagan nominee, which resulted in housing and stock market bubbles and his opposition to regulation of derivatives which resulted in market melt down. Now we have Ben Bernanke, also a Republican and a Bush appointee, who thinks that he can save our economy by printing money and propping up stock market. These policies are going to have a devastating effect on value of dollar leading to high inflation.

18
Comment #20 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
What an incredible turn-off these posts are....full of stupid people spewing bile.  

 

Blog owner: is it your intent to have such garbage here?  I would hope you could moderate it so that people stay on topic.   Or is it your intent to feed the flame here with such posts as this one by Bernanke?

 

Listen, I come here to learn about where to put my savings and alternatives to CDs and MMAs.  I once learned something very valuable in one of the reader posts and it is earning me an extra $5k/year (PenFed 250K$ website "trick", if that rings a bell)  but if I have to read this crap in the hopes of finding another such nugget, forget it.

5
Comment #21 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
To those who don't like listening to savers complain about Bernanke --- Bernanke is in charge of this mess we are in with savings rates.   When the readers call or write to their Congressional representatives they get nothing more than lip service.   This is the only place they feel they are being heard -- heard by a community of others who are in a similar situation --- each of them reacts differently so some might put the blame on the current administration which just spends, spends and spends over and over again digging us deeper and deeper into debt.   I have heard Bernanke say he is doing what he is doing because Congress does not act to do anything which in his mind will help the economy.   Well, I resent his helping the economy on the backs of savers.  Savers get punished and borrowers and gamblers get rewarded.  He pushes up the stock market with his policies on the backs of savers, some of whom are seniors and cannot or will not risk all they worked for all their lives in this casino like stock market.

I, for one, will celebrate when Bernanke either resigns or gets fired !!  So I am waiting, waiting, waiting!!!
 

6
Comment #22 by Dan B (anonymous) posted on
Dan B
I don't know if it's been said here before, but there seems to be a lack of differentiation between "savers" & "investors". It appears that Bernanke is lumping the 2 together as if they were the same or just an extension of one another.

7
Comment #23 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Comments made about #16.....   to #17   I dont see Ron Paul as a viable candidate. He is way too radical and connects with a population that I do not identify with.  I was refering more to our elected officials in general.  Regardless of party, if an incumbent is running in 2012, they should be replaced if they contributed to the deadlock in Congress and refuse to represent the constituents that elected them in the first place, and are swayed more by corporate supporters, lobbyist, and the guy who is having candidates sign a contract prior to election commiting to his selfish goals to get backing for their campaign.

# 20  What you are objecting to is the very thing that defines a blog.  Sorry you are being so inconvienenced reading through posts to find your special nugget for personal gain.  The topic of this thread, started by Ken, the owner of this blog, was Congressional hearings of Bernake policy.  If you dont like the title of a particular topic, simply don't read it.  No one is holding a gun to your head if you skip over a topic that obviously you would not have interest in. 

#22  I too thought that Bernake's response about the average saver being more of an investor enlightening as to his desire for the direction of savers as they face long-term ZERO interest rates, and less reality, since many savers have no reason in putting their principal at risk by entering the securities casino.  These savers didn't create the nest egg they have now by entering risky investments.  Most are holding their principal in liquid accts. and CDs that pay next to nothing, waiting for the next upswing in rates.  The savers that decide to risk their savings in the stock market may regret their decision the next time a European financial crisis, a US budget stalemate or inflationary pressures send the markets tumbling.....  1999, 2008, 2011 .   Most savers are not privy to the inside information that Wall Street holds to fare very well in the fickle securities markets.

11
Comment #24 by Smokeboat (anonymous) posted on
Smokeboat
If you know the Brooksley Born "saga" and have read "13 Bankers" you can connect the dots.  Due dilligance or pay the piper, your choice.  This blog blather is wearing thin. 

3
Comment #25 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Wow #20:  You made an extra 5M from this forum and all you had to do was put up with a lot of other info you don't like?  I think that's a great payback for just flipping through threads!  Like the other poster wrote, if we don't like something, no one is forcing us to read it.  IMO, I think Ken realizes that the same people who are posting the stuff you don't like may just be the ones who share that bank or cu the rest of us don't know about which is giving the best interest rate.  That's what makes this forum worth reading or skimming through every day for me!

7
Comment #26 by Bozo posted on
Bozo
I see little meaningful distinction between the term "investor" and the term "saver." Perforce, anyone who spends less than he or she earns is a "saver." The amount thus "saved" is, presumably, "invested." It may be invested prudently, or not, but most assuredly it does not evaporate into thin air. Folks on this blog sometimes assume they have only one investment vehicle, namely CDs. Trust me, there's a whole universe of investment vehicles out there, and a prudent "saver" diversifies across as much of that universe as his or her risk tolerance permits. Now, if you don't trust the Fed, or Congress, or the banksters, or the gold-hawkers on Fox, or realtors, or the FDIC or the NCUA, your investing universe shrinks a bit. To the size of a pin-hole. So, conspiracy theorists, if you can't trust anybody, kindly explain what it is, exactly, you do if, perchance, you consume less than you earn. My guess is you rant on blogs while trying to figure out who else to blame (other than yourself) for earning a negative real rate on your "savings". That's pointless.

10
Comment #27 by 51hh posted on
51hh
Anon. #25:

An extra of $5M??  Or $5K?

4
Comment #28 by Rosedala posted on
Rosedala
TO #20:  I can't believe your arrogance, selfishness and ignorance!!!  For the benefit that you mention you gained thanks to Ken's blogs, you would have had to pay very dear fees to a financial expert...whose focus and results not always bring you benefits!  Where is your sense of appreciation for goodness sake??? 

6
Comment #29 by Over6T posted on
Over6T
This discussion fails to address another class of people - gamblers.  The masses have been slowly lulled into thinking that our current stock and bond market institutions represent places to invest their money.  I suggest that spending money on stocks and bonds today is nothing more than a simple gambling bet, much like the games in Las Vegas.  The only difference is that in Las Vegas you can understand the rules of the bet, the probable odds and see the person who takes your money. 

Placing a bet (aka investing) in the Stock and Bond market ss actually a much more obscure bet since you really don't know the rules of the game, can't predict the odds and can't see the person who takes your money. 

So, Bernake needs to modify his terms - the Stock and Bond markets are not for investors, but rather gamblers.  Indeed, the Stock and Bond market is nothing more than an elaborate, deceptive and legalized Capitalist Casino.

So, all of us have a choice to play the casino's games ... or not. 

 

9
Comment #30 by rosie43 posted on
rosie43
Do you really think anyone can make money in the market and compete with the computerized trades? 401K's were a godsend to companies because the money managers in a company pension plan could not make enough profits for the  plans. The pensions were just another big expense for the company.  Now they want the individual to do it. Let the uneducated individual make the decisions of their investments.  IF THE MONEY MANAGERS IN THE BIG PENSION PLANS CANNOT MAKE A DECENT PROFIT WHY WOULD AN INDIVIDUAL WITH ONLY LIMITED BOOK KNOWLEDGE THINK THEY COULD.  THIS IS JUST ANOTHER PLOY TO SUPPORT BUSINESS AND NOT TO MAKE A GOOD RETURN ON YOUR INVESTMENT. Give me slow guaranteed earnings anytime vs the market. IF YOU CAN CONVINCE ME THAT THE PROFIT IN THE MARKETS ARE NOT ALL HYPE AND PEOPLE FOLLOWING TIP AND THE NEWS ARTICLES  I MIGHT UNDERSTAND A LITTLE. If you think what you read on the computer is fresh news and you are going to get in to make a profit you are silly. The news has already been floating around for 3 days and the people who put their money in then will get their profit as soon as the suckers buy in. I have spoken to traders. Do you remember all of the investment advice on the radio and TV and the people getting prosecuted because this is what they were doing? They would give advise about a stock they already bought and then sell it after it went up a during the following week after all their listeners bought in.

If you can explain the market in the 90's and why profits in the market were so high even if the company did nothing special I would like to hear it. The only time I was in the market was from 95-96 to 99 and I was so nervous  because there was no reason for the market to go up as it did. ALL HYPE. Got out in Dec 99 and WILL NEVER GO BACK IN. Give me compounded interest anytime in my IRA's and if you want to gamble in the market do it outside the pension so at least your gains are taxed at a lesser rate right now and losses are deductable. In the IRA you pay the top rate of tax bracket when withdrawn unless it is a Roth. Can't deduct losses in a pension plan.

12
Comment #31 by Over6T posted on
Over6T
Rosie43 - you've expressed the views that many of us have - right on target.

To demonstrate the dismal climate of today's "market", I talked recently to an investment broker (aks bookie) and he gave me this story: don't invest in buy and hold equities, avoid mutual funds - don't invest in the single equites or bonds.  But... his answer to the insane form of capitalism we have ... is to place bets on derivatives.  He is placing bets using covered calls and playing the options game as a means to avoid the deception of how stocks are traded. 

That's what the "stock market" has become - no longer an "investment" but a gambling game based on derivatives.  And, I'll suggest that the derivative market is absolutely no different than playing the tables in Las Vegas.  Well, except that you might enjoy losing your money in Las Vegas rather than to a stock market bookie.

11
Comment #32 by Anonymous (#20) (anonymous) posted on
Anonymous (#20)
To number #23, no this is not the very definition of a blog.  You are thinking of a "forum".   There is a difference...although in this case, less so.  And OF COURSE I read this blog for personal gain--certainly not to learn from all the hating political types  that post here ....

#25, you are right in that I should ignore the blog posts that don't seem promising to me.    And, yes, it was about $5K so it was worth it.

#28, you don't know me and you don't know if I have been appreciative in the past or not.    Or if I have "paid back"  or not.   

 

My preference is that this blog stay focused on rates and not venture into politics.    

2
Comment #33 by Jake posted on
Jake
Could #20 or some other kind person please re-post the info about the "PenFed $250k website trick"?  I could sure use the extra $5k right now.  Thanks.

1
Comment #34 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
The PenFed deal may have been the 5% APY CD offer only to those whose CD matured over a narrow window over a year ago, which more than those qualified were able to take advantage of, even though it was a targeted deal. 

To # 20    This is not a Forum thread for discussing deals. This thread , started by Ken, focused on discussions between Congress and Bernake.  If you don't like the topic, fine.... Stop complaining and just dont read or contribute to it. Yes, this particular thread was about politics... Not all the topics on these threads are going to be of interest to all readers.  Respect the right other readers have to share their opinions ON TOPIC , rather than berating the author of the thread and the contributors who stayed on topic.

5
Comment #35 by librtyship (anonymous) posted on
librtyship
More and more spin from our glorious leaders, sounds typical of what we used to hear coming from Soviet Propaganda organs back in the 50s and 60s.  I think that is exactly where we are heading. For sure we are seeing a lot of redistribution of wealth, an activity common to communist regimes. If we fail to vote the Democrats out in November we are indeed "dead meat".I would advise anyone with sufficient money who is comparatively skilled to check out and head for either Australia or New Zealand which are two nations with greater stability than we have and they both have far greater economic freedom than we do here!  If I were younger  I would be outta here in a flash!

2
Comment #36 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
I guess this is not Off Topic since Bernanke is probably responsible for what I was told by a bank yesterday.  I was calling a bank from some I got off of the internet with rates of at least 2% to find out their EWPs.  One asked me if I was already a customer.  When I said "no" but I was considering purchasing some CDs, I was told they only sell their CDs to current customers.  They would not sell me even "one" CD!  Is this what we are coming to? 

I can't afford to cash in any more CDs early to buy more at these low rates and I fear by the time a good bit of mine mature this year, interest rates will be toast!  I am using more credit unions now but fear they may keep dropping their rates.  This is truly a horror for those of us who did not see this coming this fast and get a chance to prepare.  I really don't think Bernanke is going to raise rates even in 2014 so if I can get a decent long term rate, I am going to bite the bullet and go longer than 5 years.  This is very concerning to those of us who need to survive on our interest income!

6
Comment #37 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Remember the Fed is not just hurting savers but everyone. Here in Connecticut we lost significant tax revenue due to low interest rates..Of course this resulted in a tax increase to make up for the lost. Also the income that many retired people lost is now making them qualify for food stamps and other tax payer funded programs...I can imagine the lost of revenue that the Treasury has experience.

4
Comment #38 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#37  I didn't think one could apply for food stamps or other federal programs to help the "poor" if one has savings accounts he/she is lossing interest on.  The fact they have savings would not make them eligible for food stamps etc., imo.

1
Comment #39 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Why should we worry about return on investment?I plan to spend

principal so that I have lower taxes.It doesn't pay to get more income than

what is needed to get by on. With all the redistribution,inflation and planned

taxation.....I am not going to strive for anything. 

3
Comment #40 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#39:  I sure hope you are in your "real" elderly years and/or have quite a few million to last you while you spend all that principal.  Adult children in need, medical bills, unexpected debts, can eat up that principal real quick!  Just be sure you move alone to some island and plan on not having any unexpected bills hit you.  Best of luck!  As for me, I will grab whatever interest I can find!

2
Comment #41 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
Bernanke will go down in history as having destroyed the most amount of wealth of any man in living memory.

2
Comment #42 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
To #41

It was Wall Street that destroyed wealth and the bankers and home appraisers. The hype of purchasing stocks and buying homes to flip with low tax on the profit after listening to these guys is what raised stock prices and homes. Where were you?  Low interest rates are a result of the crash--Mtg brokers shopped appraisors to get a higher appraisal for higher bank loans and higher commissions and then talked parents into helping their kids for the needed down payments. Then the bankers talked home purchasers into buying adjustable rate or interest rate only mtg for higher commissions. WHERE WERE YOU? People trusted their bankers. Until bankers, Wall Street, brokers etc are paid salary and not commissions don't trust them.

3
Comment #43 by Anonymous posted on
Anonymous
#42  It is BERNANKE and his Federal Reserve policies that were and ARE helping to fuel this financial castastrophy!  Where ARE you?  You may be right about what brought it all about but Bernanke is the Captain of the ship that is drowning us except, I don't think he plans on going down with the ship!

2
Comment #45 by Mary Jean Mayer Golden posted on
Mary Jean Mayer Golden
So, because SOME savers hold more risky investments, it okay to pay the savers of money  nothing.  I read that one of the goals of Bernanke and his clone is to "prod savers into taking more riisks."  As though we were some kind of recalcitrant cattle instead of people who expected some award for scrimping their whole **** lives so they could have dental care and home maintenance after they retired and still have a pittance to leave to their kids.  That is all gone now, and we worry now about what will happen to us next, now that the sociopaths have taken over the economy.   And of course, those who did invest in the stock market lost half of the value of their stocks, had to seel to those who could afford the risk, and now the values have tripled. And the richest of the rich own way more of what used to be our treasures than they ever did before.  And those who had to sell because they couldn't afford the risk are getting almost NO INTEREST on their money. The FED is a criminal organization and both poltiical parties ought to be in jail along with the bankers who have bought the loyalty of congress. And Obama ought to be very ashamed of himself for promising that lobbyists would be out of power in his administration...he just appointed one to head the FCC....an oaf from the cable tv biz.  As John Oliver said, "where we needed a babysitter, he hired a dingo." Add your comment

2