Are we stupid for being conservative and responsible?

[sweeps]

Being conservative and responsible with our money may not pay off in the short run, but in the long run it is the only safe way to go. Like somebody said earlier, the government may be here this time (maybe because an election is coming up?), but that won't guarantee that it'll be here the next tme or ever again. Playing it safe is the only guarantee that you won't get in trouble with your finances.

The problem with that theory is if our country continues on this path, our financial system is going to break. It doesn't matter how safe you've been playing it. All that money you've saved up will become worthless. And even if you've hedged your bets with gold or foreign currency or whatever, the ensuing financial instability and civil unrest will finish the job.

[jIM_Ohio]

The problem with that theory is if our country continues on this path, our financial system is going to break. It doesn't matter how safe you've been playing it. All that money you've saved up will become worthless. And even if you've hedged your bets with gold or foreign currency or whatever, the ensuing financial instability and civil unrest will finish the job.

the best investment in this case will be guns and ammo- not the stocks, but the commodity. And nothing like owning the real thing.

[cschin4]

The govt is encouraging and teaching dependence. And, why should I get up at 5 am, take my young kids to daycare, slave all day while someone bosses me around, go home tired and worn out and get up and do it all again the next day while my neighbor sits on his rear end and watches dish TV all day? Sorry, but "integrity" wears thin after awhile.

[disneysteve]

Our government has shown that it bails out those who make poor choices and take excessive risks. Are we actually playing the risky route by being conservative and responsible? Being reckless and irresponsible with financial decisions seems to be the more prosperous way to go. Your thoughts.

I haven't read all the responses (I will later) but I think there is a HUGE difference between being the recipient of a bail-out and truly prospering. For example, folks who bought homes they couldn't possibly afford using subprimes, ARMs or interest-only loans may get a reprieve with the lower interest rates, but they are still living beyond their means and it will surely catch up with them at some point. There are still millions of folks losing sleep at night worried if they will be able to keep their homes or dealing with loads of other consumer debt.

Those of us who CHOOSE, and it is very much a conscious choice, to be responsible and live below our means, don't have those worries. When others are scurrying to avoid disaster, we are swooping in to take advantage of things. Melody Hobson on GMA the other day said the best time to make money in the market is when there is blood in the streets. It is us responsible folks who are able to take advantage of those things. I'm watching rates with my eye on refinancing. Not becaue I can't afford my payments. I can with no problem at all. But I can benefit from the troubles affecting others and save even more money. If SS collapses or gets cut back significantly in the future, I know I'll still have a comfortable retirement because I'm saving for it on my own. If I were to lose my job, I know I've got a more than adequate EF to hold me over until I get back to work. If I can't work because I'm sick or injured, I've got adequate disability coverage. If I were to die prematurely, I know I'm well insured and my family will be taken care of in my absence.

It is all those things and more that make me quite happy to be someone who chooses to be responsbile with our money. I don't regret it for a second.

[sweeps]

Well put, Steve. I liked your response.

[poundwise]

It is all those things and more that make me quite happy to be someone who chooses to be responsbile with our money. I don't regret it for a second.

Well put, Steve. I liked your response.

Ditto.

[Aleta]

Poundwise: You changed your avatar.

[NumberCruncher]

I'm furious about the bailouts...I did not have the opportunity to be included in the contracts these people signed...yet, I (and my children) now bear the responsibility of their actions??? WTF! Why do we stop there...let's bailout every person that makes a bad investment decision. Stocks went side-ways...no worries, relief is on the way.

This is bad, bad, bad. Take your medicine. Pull yourself up, dust yourself off and figure it out. This dependency thing will be our demise. "To those according to need, from those according to ability." - K. Marx...still crappy advice.

To the original question...I'm not stupid, I'm responsible...it's the policymakers that are stupid.

[rob62521]

To the original question...I'm not stupid, I'm responsible...it's the policymakers that are stupid.

Well put!

[LivingAlmostLarge]

It's not the bailouts, but I am 28 years old. I am married to a 30 year old. We will never see Social Security.

Because we are saving for our retirement now, we will have too much to ever get anything. What social security is left in 35 more years will go to irresponsible people of any income bracket who didn't save a penny. Thus the government will handout money to people who spent every paycheck but didn't save.

I am not against SS for people of a certain income level, if they said it will only go to people who worked their whole lives but never made more than $45k, great. I have no issue, they paid in, and didn't make tons to save, fine.

But seeing SS going to someone who made $100k but spent it all makes me mad. I was financially responsible my whole life and I'll get squat.

That I actually followed what the government preached (but didn't do), live below one's means sucks. That I bought a house I could afford instead of buying a house I couldn't also sucks.

Yep, and DH and I went out of our way to be fiscally responsible to not have children we couldn't afford. We use birth control and will do so after we have kids to not have accidents. Sometimes I wonder is it really fiscal responsibility or social conscience as well?

[cschin4]

Yep, and DH and I went out of our way to be fiscally responsible to not have children we couldn't afford.

If you want to have children, have them. Children are only as expensive as you choose to make them. I figured why shouldn't I who am fiscally responsible have children if those who are on the govt dole have them? I choose to have 3 kids and am glad of it.

[PrincessPerky]

Yep, and DH and I went out of our way to be fiscally responsible to not have children we couldn't afford.

If you want to have children, have them. Children are only as expensive as you choose to make them. I figured why shouldn't I who am fiscally responsible have children if those who are on the govt dole have them? I choose to have 3 kids and am glad of it.

but if having a kid when you cannot afford things you feel you 'aught' to do will make one kinda depressed..so IMO wait if you want.

I don't even fall into the thinking of 'band trips should be the parents responsibility'. I figure food, shelter, educating and 'civilizing' them are my responsibility..anything else is icing on the cake.. (and those 4 needs are pretty cheap)

But that is me, many folk feel they have to pay for special camps, a seasonal sport, and more....those folk would be happier waiting for better finances IMO.

[cschin4]

I figured why should the welfare queens be able to have as many kids as they want? I wanted children of my own so I decided to have them. And, none of them have "suffered" as a result.

[disneysteve]

It's not the bailouts, but I am 28 years old. I am married to a 30 year old. We will never see Social Security.

Because we are saving for our retirement now, we will have too much to ever get anything. What social security is left in 35 more years will go to irresponsible people of any income bracket who didn't save a penny. Thus the government will handout money to people who spent every paycheck but didn't save.

I don't believe SS is going away, though I do expect it to change.

However, those folks who earned 100K and more will not receive anywhere near enough to maintain their lifestyle so don't be angry about that. You'll be living well on your savings while they are finally forced to cut back and give up all their luxuries and free-spending ways. Either that, or they'll be forced to keep on working while you are relaxing on the porch with a cold drink or traveling the world.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

SS isn't going away, it will just be means based. That means because we saved for retirement we won't be eligible to receive anything.

And yes while kids don't need a lot PP, I feel any parents who use state/government provided insurance, WIC should not have kids. They are using government fund as well. Why can't they afford to pay for healthcare for their children? Why do they need help and still have children?

I think being responsible I am stupid.