That would be the Groucho party. My problem is, that when I was a reg. Indie., I almost always voted Rep.
So, I was a Rep. in sheep's clothing. Fortunately, we are all free to be Indies. when we get in the voting booth.

Don't count on that if what it did with Sam's Club is the example for the future.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-25/wal…

In reply to your remark, “I still think one should choose the party that has the core issues you agree with and then vacillate on the smaller ones.” That would be the None-Of-The-Above Party.

Or, to paraphrase Groucho Marx: any party that would have me as a member, I wouldn't join.

My brother is a guitarist, I play bass, and we *try* to play Yes, but man, that is some really difficult stuff to master. Good luck!

Btw, I also voted for John Anderson…hardly before my time.

OK, now I'm really impressed!

Half serious. I still think one should choose the party that has the core issues you agree with and then vacillate on the smaller ones (including voting for the other party individuals once in a while). Also, I had a problem when I was a registered Ind., in that I couldn't vote in Rep. primaries.

Oh my god. Not another thing we agree on!

Be careful. Next you will find yourself visiting and enjoying Libertarian websites!

I knew you were teasing (as was dduck), but saw it as an opportunity to make a point. The teasing you engaged in represents serious belief or bias on the part of some. Feel free to direct any non-serious remarks you wish my way in the future. Many Independents have a sense of humor.

I'll take you at your word that you are not a partisan and respect that in the future.

Btw, I also voted for John Anderson…hardly before my time.

That also assumes that they have the good sense of kicking the bucket before eighty. If they live on past eighty, they better acquire a taste for cat food…

Probably won't be eating the food I feed my cats, that stuff is 35 bux a case.

My favored solution: start teaching people they need to flippin' save for retirement.

The average yearly wage in the US is 39,652.61, the Median is $26,514.38.

Assuming that the average earner saved 10% of his gross income for forty years, it would not be enough to maintain their 75% of their current standard of living…. That also assumes that they have the good sense of kicking the bucket before eighty. If they live on past eighty, they better acquire a taste for cat food…

If a system fails 70% or more of the people, the system has failed, not the people…

I think we can agree on the problem.

My favored solution: start teaching people they need to flippin' save for retirement.

First of all, I don't assume anyone is a spokesperson for “independents” even to the extent of being able to define what they are. (I did however vote for John Anderson back when he ran as an actual “Independent” – but that may have been before your time) I think your own definition of an independent is a great one though – as an ideal, a goal to shoot for (perhaps more than the reality) and of course I accept that the definition applies to yourself and probably a great many other independents as well. And by the way, thank-you for describing your positions. I think most of the people who care enough to post here are people who are consistent in their views, although I do believe there is a fair portion of the electorate that is fairly clueless and suggestible.

As for your assumption that I am a partisan (and you've made it clear you think I am one) I have to reject the label. As I've said before, I am issue oriented and consider myself a realist. To the extent that my views line up with the democrats then it's because I see certain of their views as more realistic, or at least more directed toward a positive longrange outcome than what I see from other quarters – for now. But in my lifetime of excercising my rights as a citizen I've voted republican, democrat, independent, green, and even for write in candidates. It's no secret that I lean toward a more “liberal” ideology, but again, I care about issues; whoever is representing them best gets my vote. Party loyalty has nothing to do with it.

Despite a comment or two I've made in the past about the fickle nature of some so-called independents (not anyone on TMV) I have no vendatta or desire to “diminish” them… maybe just tease them a little when it seems they may be acting a little too ahh… suggestible. My own positions have been pretty consistent for decades now. If the republicans, or the libertarians, or the independents, or some new party I've never heard of starts advocating for the issues I care about (starting with matters related to the environment and the uncontrolled way humans have negatively impacted the planet and are continuing to do so – with human rights and how they relate to society a close second) then they will get my vote, regardless of what they want to call themselves.

Again, thanks for describing your views. I won't make the mistake of directing any silly comments toward you in the future. Well, maybe only one or two.

Q: What are average retirement savings?

A: Here are some average retirement savings statistics that I have gathered:

The typical American household, headed by a 43-year-old, has retirement savings of $18,750.

The typical pre-retiree household (age 55 and up) has a retirement savings of $60,000.

Baby boomers between the ages of 41 and 54 have typically a retirement savings of $30,000.

Baby boomers have median total household personal retirement savings of $35,000.

Baby boomers who save in a 401k have an average 401k account balance of $80,000.

According to a survey, 51 percent of workers age 55 and up have saved less than $50,000 in retirement savings (not including the value of a primary residence). And 39 percent of workers in the same age group have saved less than $25,000 in retirement savings.

Another survey estimates that one in five pre-retirees age 50 to 64 has less than $5,000 in retirement savings.

A recent survey found that almost 70 percent of Generation Y workers (those 18 to 25 years old) don’t bother to contribute to a 401k.

I hope these have shed some light on your average retirement savings question.

The Typical 401k Plan Participant

Some facts about the “typical 401k plan participant” (circa 2007):
The median Age of 401k Plan participants is 44 years. Following is a breakdown of 401k participants by age group:
401k Participants By Age Group
20's 30's 40's 50's 60's
12% 25% 30% 24% 8%
The median tenure (time with employer) is six years. Following is a breakdown of 401k participants by tenure:
401k Participants By Tenure
0-2 Yrs >2-5 Yrs >5-10 Yrs >10-20 Yrs >20-30 Yrs >30 Yrs
19% 19% 25% 21% 11% 5%
At year-end 2007, the average 401k account balance was $65,454; the median 401k account balance was $18,942; Following is a breakdown of 401k account balances:
401k Account Balance Sizes, 2007
<$10,000 $10,000-$50,000 $50,000-$100,000 $100,000-$200,000 >$200,000
39% 30% 13% 10% 8%
60% of all 401k plans allow plan participants to take out loans. 18% of all 401k participants who were allowed to borrow from their 401k accounts had loans outstanding. The average outstanding 401k loan balance at the end of 2007 was $7,495, or about 12% of participants' 401k account balances.

Americans are Unprepared for Retirement

Moreover, only 37% of Baby Boomers who are about to enter into the post-employment world have a traditional pension coming from their employer. That's down from 60% in 1983.

In addition, the shift to defined-contribution pensions – the most common types of which are 401(k)s, IRAs, and 403(b)s – from traditional defined-benefit ones has had mixed results. On the plus side, the percentage of households with no pension coverage has declined slightly, to 34% from 37% in 1983. However, in 2004, the median 401(k) plan for people in the 55 to 64 age group was worth only US$60,000 – not enough to provide for much of a retirement. (In 2006, the average 401k balance for people in their 60s was $157,727.)

And once more Cheap Labor Conservatism bites, you can expect to see a lot of eighty year olds working as greeters at Walmart and having cat food for dinner…

Lots of Baby Boomers better hope that they are on very good terms with their children…

Using principles and core values to determine your position on issues is not jumping back and forth across the fence. As an example, my core values/principles are freedom, fairness and fiscal responsibilty. You can take any position I have advocated here and that position can be explained in accordance with one or more of those principles. I would say that partisans jump back and forth across the fence of principles because they determine their stance based on what gives them political advantage, or opposing whatever the “other side” supports.

Here are some examples of positions openly on TMV, and why.

- support for gay and (and polygamist) marriage…freedom and fairness
- opposition to corporate welfare and subsidies…fiscal responsibility
- support of the Ledbetter Act…fairness
- opposition to the continuing resolution, with 2000 earmarks…fiscal responsibility
- opposition to hate crime legislation…freedom
- support for repeal of DADT…fairness
- pro gun…freedom
- opposition to Citizens United decision…freedom and fairness (for individuals)
- opposition to HRC…freedom(individual government mandates) and fiscal responsibility (broad economic impact)
- torture prosecution…fairness, equal justice
- immigration reform…fairness (btw, including equal access to healthcare for “illegals” if HRC passes)

Now, if you look at that list, you'll see some positions that you might call “conservative” and some you might call “liberal”. They are neither. They are positions consistent with principles and core values.

The myth that Independents are wishy washy know-nothings is BS promulgated by partisans. The truth is that Independents have the courage to evaluate issues based on fundamental principles and to make decisions that are logically, morally and ethically consistent, rather than compliant with partisanship designed to oppose another group. It also allows us to evaluate positions without getting personal. I don't have to hate or love someone because that person is R or D, lib or con.

Finally, Independents have the wonderful opportunity to appreciate nuances rather than being forced to gloss over nuances in pursuit of a hardline partisan stand. We have the unique privilege of being able to appreciate that both sides have something to say and that, perhaps, neither is completely right. We can, thereby, respect opposing views without hating those who disagree or getting sucked into false praise of partisan idols.

No, JS, the reason partisans fear and try to diminish Independents, is because principled Independents have the courage to think instead of follow. Nothing personal, just defending myself from a couple of attacks on Indies in this thread.