The Irish Doggy Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I :heart: dollar cost averaging. It works. However, I have no problem throwing a few extra bucks in the pot when it looks to me like the market is under-priced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I :heart: dollar cost averaging. It works. However, I have no problem throwing a few extra bucks in the pot when it looks to me like the market is under-priced. Just confused. The way you phrased that, it sounds like the second part was an exception to the first part. Am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Sorry to hear that Big J and Timc - that sucks big time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Just confused. The way you phrased that, it sounds like the second part was an exception to the first part. Am I missing something? Â Â I'm saying that in general, I use dollar cost averaging for investing - about 80-90% of my investments are automatic buys every month. However, if I have the extra funds available and see an opportunity to buy at what I think is a discount, I'm going to follow my nose and use those extra funds to buy. I'm not trying to time the peaks and valleys of the market, only buying a few extra shares at what will hopefully be the valleys. I may be wrong, but I'm prepared to take that risk as it is not the lion's share of my investment strategy. And I've been a lot more right than wrong... so far. I have 25 years before switching to less risky investments, so it's not the end of the world if I occasionally make a bad buy. Besides, its kinda fun too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MojoMan Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Sorry to hear that Big J and Timc - that sucks big time. Â +100,000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Sorry to hear that Big J and Timc - that sucks big time. Â Sorry to hear this as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Sorry to hear that Big J and Timc - that sucks big time. Â +1 that is really bad news guys. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 The thought that we can have viable deficit reform, at this point, with spending cuts only, is not unlike thinking you should just starve yourself to get healthier relative to eating good and getting more exercise. Â Just to play some Devil's Advocate here... With the Bush tax cuts and at the spending levels of 2007, the US was facing a roughly 160 billion dollar deficit. Why not cut spending back to 2007 levels? If we did this the current deficit would shrink from a projected 1.1 trillion down to 100 billion (based on projected 2012 tax revenue.) $100 billion is manageable and could be easily covered by a small rebound in the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 (edited) Just to play some Devil's Advocate here... With the Bush tax cuts and at the spending levels of 2007, the US was facing a roughly 160 billion dollar deficit. Why not cut spending back to 2007 levels? If we did this the current deficit would shrink from a projected 1.1 trillion down to 100 billion (based on projected 2012 tax revenue.) $100 billion is manageable and could be easily covered by a small rebound in the economy.  You need to look at this. link  Economic and political commentators have noted a pattern between changes in US national debt and US presidential terms since the mid-1970s. Mike Kimel has claimed that US national debt (as a percentage of GDP) had increased under Republican Presidents, but had decreased under Democratic Presidents.[1] However, according to Brad DeLong this pattern has only been strongly pronounced in the last three decades, and was not observed earlier, during the Post-World War II period.[2] [edit] CommentaryEconomist Mike Kimel notes that the last five Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness.[3] Economic historian and liberal J. Bradford DeLong observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt), and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt).[4][5] Similarly, David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, as op-ed contributor to the New York Times, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s.[6] Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, attributes the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of "starve the beast" and an aversion for tax increases.[7][8] Edited August 9, 2011 by MikesVikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 +1 that is really bad news guys. . Â I'm going to be sending positive vibes...hopefully the two of you can bounce back...and quickly.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 You need to look at this. link   Maybe I'm missing something Mike, but how does that editorial remotely touch on SEC's point? We have a definite spending problem. We MIGHT have a revenue problem of a much SMALLER degree. You take care of the heart attack before you start treating the cold man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugar Magnolia Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I will take your challenge at this late hour. Let's say you had accumulated $100,000 in retirement investment savings by the end of 1928 (obviously no 401ks then but we can pretend). Assume you are making 50,000 a year and saving 10% or $5,000. I will ignore matching for the sake of simplicity. We will even assume no raises. So start 100k with adding 5k/ year (assume at the very end of each year) and run it through the market and see what you end up with in 20 years. Using these historic returns (for lack of a better source at this hour) here is what you get. After 10 years, you had 150,000 total investment and your portfolio is worth $155,452. After 20 years, you had 200,000 total investment and your portfolio is worth $372,803  Raw Data (can't figure formatting right now)    If you knew exactly when the market bottom was you could have done better sitting in cash but ultimately in 20 years it didn't matter AND and this is a big and - you didn't have to worry about being wrong.  THIS! Thank you Animal Cracker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 THIS! Thank you Animal Cracker. Â Â "animal" cracker. Just struck my funny bone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Dow was up as much as 240 points today before the FOMC. In the last 3 minutes I've seen the Dow go from even on the day to now -189. Â No mention of QE3 and Fed said they intend to keep rates low for another 2 years (until mid 2013). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Dow was up as much as 240 points today before the FOMC. In the last 3 minutes I've seen the Dow go from even on the day to now -189. No mention of QE3 and Fed said they intend to keep rates low for another 2 years (until mid 2013).  QE3 definitely was not going to happen today and probably not tomorrow...  if this keeps up another day, we'll hear something by Friday most definitely.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 QE3 definitely was not going to happen today and probably not tomorrow... if this keeps up another day, we'll hear something by Friday most definitely.... I sure hope not but it wouldn't surprise me either. However, they still have to get approved by congress and with people trying to audit the Fed and whatnot, it might not be such a gimmie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 (edited) You need to look at this. link  Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted....  ETA: What WV said. Edited August 9, 2011 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 You need to look at this. link  Also, why do I need to look at that? When did the WWII generation and the first of the Baby Boomers start retiring and receiving more aid from social programs? Also, when did the US economy go through one of the largest growth cycles in history due to a new industry being created?  Now, during the Regan years there was also a big recession we were coming out of. We built up our military to fight the Soviet union and we began to update our military from the post Vietnam era, new technology was becoming available and our military equipment becoming obsolete.  End of the Regan years/Bush years, recession. The fall of the Eastern Bloc also lead to some issues, then you have the war in Iraq.  Clinton Years: Very prosperous, a new industry was born and evolving. Also, this era demonstrates what can be accomplished with a D executive and an R congress. Though, I will attribute most of the growth to the .com/personal PC boom.  Bush II: Well, we all know that the bubble burst and he started off with a recession. Lowered taxes not once, but twice, the second one may have been a bad idea, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Though, we did start pulling out of the recession and in 2007 were within 100 billion of balanced budgets. We all know what happened next.  I have absolutely hijacked this thread and I apologize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Dow now +325. Another highly volatile day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Dow now +325. Another highly volatile day! Â Up 430 now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Up 430 now. Yep, bought into the close - Dow closes +430. This market is highly volatile, increased volatility accompanies a bear market. Be careful, huddlers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Though, we did start pulling out of the recession and in 2007 were within 100 billion of balanced budgets. We all know what happened next. Does that include the accounting gimmicks that Bush used to minimize deficit projections? As I understand it the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan were kept off budget and authorized as "emergency supplemental appropriations". There have also been accusations that Bush would budget less than actual cost for payments to physicians in Medicare. Here is a small article on it that talks about some of the accounting gimmicks that Bush used and that Obama is stopping. It makes the picture look worse for Barack, but if true I applaud the step towards being more transparent (one of those things Obama promised but has sorely under performed on since being elected). Whether you agree with the war or not, we shouldn't hide cost and play games with the Alt min tax just to get some "magic accounting" number talking points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Does that include the accounting gimmicks that Bush used to minimize deficit projections? As I understand it the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan were kept off budget and authorized as "emergency supplemental appropriations". There have also been accusations that Bush would budget less than actual cost for payments to physicians in Medicare. Here is a small article on it that talks about some of the accounting gimmicks that Bush used and that Obama is stopping. It makes the picture look worse for Barack, but if true I applaud the step towards being more transparent (one of those things Obama promised but has sorely under performed on since being elected). Whether you agree with the war or not, we shouldn't hide cost and play games with the Alt min tax just to get some "magic accounting" number talking points.<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html?George Foreman Grill" target="_blank"></a> Â This is what I'm basing my numbers off of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Does that include the accounting gimmicks that Bush used to minimize deficit projections? As I understand it the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan were kept off budget and authorized as "emergency supplemental appropriations". There have also been accusations that Bush would budget less than actual cost for payments to physicians in Medicare. Here is a small article on it that talks about some of the accounting gimmicks that Bush used and that Obama is stopping. It makes the picture look worse for Barack, but if true I applaud the step towards being more transparent (one of those things Obama promised but has sorely under performed on since being elected). Whether you agree with the war or not, we shouldn't hide cost and play games with the Alt min tax just to get some "magic accounting" number talking points.<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html?George Foreman Grill" target="_blank"></a> Â those "gimmicks", using supplementals and such (a process obama HAS continued), had to do with proposed budgets going forward. the numbers at this point are all actual spending during those years, including supplementals and whatever else. Â as far as that bit about debt under various presidents...see how it looks when you run that regression for party control of congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 (edited) yep, here too   very sorry to hear this...praying that the good Lord is simply cleaning house to make room for new and even bigger blessings for you both Edited August 9, 2011 by Scooby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.