Wisdom wanted on savings

[rose-colored-coolaid]

I don't usually like to get political, but out of context, but here's a few thoughts.

A) Isn't Clinton the only (or at least most) criminal president since Nixon? I believe perjury is generally a felony.
B) While neither W Bush has little justification for attempting to bankrupt the country, Reagan was also trying to bankrupt (successfully) the USSR, and Bush Senior attempted to reign in the massive budget deficits of Reagan. Senior just just happened to be president during a major recession however, which is the worst time to be fixing budget deficits (as some deficit spending during economic downturns is justified).
C) Our fiscal policy was screwed up during the Carter administration as well. And at least some of the credit for Clinton's budget surpluses can be attributed to economic growth of the time, some portion of which was its own dotcom bubble.
D) C can be partially blamed on Nam, which was started during a democratic presidency.

Not that I am trying to support the republicans per-say, but lets admit that both parties make mistakes, and both parties commit unethical or criminal actions.

[Markor]

[david_mcmanus]

If the history books don't give Jimmy Carter his credit for how bad he fu*ked things up and all the crap that Clinton did, then I don't want my children reading those history books.

Are you so politically biased that you are blind? Don't forget that the popping of the dot-com bubble and the recession we had in the early 2000's was CLINTON's recession. Any economist will tell you that. But I guess you don't believe that because Bush was in office. And what if there just happens to be a recovery in 3Q of this year? Will you give him credit for that? Or will credit go to individuals with (D) behind their name, namely in the Congress that has a LOWER approval rating than the president and hasn't done shit except for to push their uber-liberal agendas through only to get vetoed? This is a party that will waste our time and taxpayer money trying to impeach a president who only has 9 more months left in office (see Boulder City Council, Vermont Legislature, etc). Now, if the D's don't win the White House (you still won't win "flyover" country or the south) in November, what is the solution? Violence? Riot? Moving to Canada? Or just pouting like the last time? I think there's going to be a lot of surprised people the morning of November 5, especially in the media and Seattle.

What happened? What the f**k happened?

Sorry for the political rant, but I feel the need to call people on their shit.

[deejayoh]

Excuse me, but can anyone tell me where to find the "on topic" forums?

[david_mcmanus]

Ok, my recommendation for savings is a nice MMA.

[Markor]

Thanks. That's the direction I'm going, because it will keep the money in "house dollars", so that as house prices fall, the money in the MMAs should buy more house (but not more of much else, since MMA rates are probably below the rate of inflation).

I found that credit unions offer higher rates. They are insured not by the FDIC, but by the NCUA (National Credit Union Association), also backed by the US gov't (for now), and also for $100K per account. Here is a list of them in the Seattle area:

http://local.yahoo.com/WA/Seattle/Legal ... dit+Unions

Here's a gov't search form for banks. You can search for credit unions in Seattle:

http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/SearchForm.aspx

I'm limiting the credit unions I use to those with multiple physical branches in the Seattle area. The big ones will take almost anyone as a member.

The one question I've not found an answer to is, can MMAs return a negative rate? The rates are variable, and underlying money market funds can lose principal in theory, so can banks pass that on to the customer?

On politics, my opinion is that the party most culpable for the US' downfall is encapsulated in this chart:



You can see that it took Clinton many years to eliminate the overspending of the Reagan / Bush Sr. years; it takes years to turn around a ship the size of the US. (And yes, Clinton gets credit. I remember reading in the paper almost weekly about him harping to Congress about the need to spend less--you hear the opposite from Republican presidents. The executive branch proposes the budget.) I think history will show that 99+% of the reason for the US' downfall is due to excessive deficit spending. As long as the prez balances the budget, he can have hookers in the Lincoln Bedroom for all I care.

[ira s]

Tax lien investing is high yield and fairly low risk, in certain states. In Texas, for example, you buy a tax lien ( the amount of unpaid taxes, fines, penalties, etc ) on a particular property, and the owner has a six month right of redemption. The vast majority of properties do get redeemed, and then they have to pay you a minimum 25% additional fine for redemption. If they don't redeem, you get the property;
I know, that's all you need, some godforsaken mosquito infested property in Texas.
But you can research the properties and make sure they are in good areas and worth far more than the lien costs.

[TJ_98370]

Ira,

I worked with a guy who bought land via a tax lien. He became the proud owner of 40 acres of undeveloped grassland near Poteau Oklahoma. I think he said be paid about $3,000. I couldn't quite understand why he thought he had a great deal. Maybe there was an undiscovered oil well on it or something.

[ira s]

That's the thing: there is tax lien an tax deed investing. The tax lien investing you generally do not get the property, it gets redeemed, with tax deed investing you get the property. I own some tax deed properties in Hot Springs, Arkansas..I went there to find the properties before I bid on them, and just sold a lot there to the Southern Baptist church, as they sent me an unsolicited offer to buy the lot, which was adjacent to the church and they wanted to expand...
But generally, the liens are less risky than the tax deeds, but also less fun.

[Alan]

Markor,

While I don't disagree with your political views, your chart might look different if it were graphed against who controlled Congress.

[explorer]

Markor -- I am currently in a similar position on savings, but with a smaller amount. Despite the big bounce up today, my conservative IRA MF's have lost too much prinicipal since I purchased them over year ago. I am bailing out soon to cut my losses, as I see this getting worse, and not getting back to what it was in March of last year for a long time, if ever.

Going with a Credit Union is also one of my possibilities. Group Health Coop offers share certificates (both IRA and not), for anywhere from 6 months to years for a decent rate. The 9 month certificate is around 4.25% APY right now. Can't say what it will be next month.

The other is in a TIPS fund, as the yield is considerably higher than a straight indexed fund, and expenses are very low. Vanuguard (VIPSX) is one I'm considering, that you might want to take a look at. You can always sell it when ready, and know you won't lose principal to inflation, at least that is the theory.

[ira s]

Twinstar Credit Union offer 4.25% on checking accounts.

[rose-colored-coolaid]

[Markor]

[ira s]

markor,
Loved your graph. Makes me yearn for Gerald Ford.