I'm not willing to riot, but I'm ready to march, where's my sign?

My thoughts are with you Rosie, many hugs.

Congratulations!

Thank you for posting. I needed that today.

Isn't it silly that my filter won't let that site through? It allows through plenty of things it really shouldn't. I'd like to see the pictures, so I will find a work around, I need a new hairdo, I'm 51.

My parental control filter thingy won't let me access the sites Scarlett linked! Are you guys being naughty?

I agree that funding 401K plans is no guarantee of financial success. Some of the funds offered through 401Ks have ridiculous fees attached. Why are the employers not simply giving us the option to invest in Vanguard index fund or an equivalent fund with very low costs? It's borderline criminal.

Sorry to distress you. The biggest benefit I may ever receive from Social Security (and Medicare and Medicaid) is that I am not having to pay to support my parents, MIL, and disabled sister-in-law. My family would be expected to provide for all those people and it simply wouldn't be possible. Frankly, some of these people would probably be dead if their medical expenses weren't paid for by Medicare and there weren't laws requiring care to be provided. Because the government provides for all these people, I am able to save money for my own retirement and for the education of my children. Medicare and Social Security: What You Paid Compared with What You Get http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

Why do you think Social Security is telling you that you will not get the amount of money you put in? Currently the SS cut off is $118,500, with 6.2% paid by employee and another 6.2% paid by the employer. So the maximum you can pay in per year is $7347 by employee and $7347 by employer for a total of $14,694. Regular folks can expect to receive $15,000 to $30,000 per year from SSI when they retire. So if you make $100,000 per year for 40 years, you will pay in $248,000 and your employer pays in another $248,000. You retire and with that high of a salary get $30,000 per year from SSI (estimated), you live another 25 years and receive $750,000 in total SSI payments, which is more than you and your employer put in. For your payments in you've gotten a lot more than a reasonable retirement, you also get disability insurance for you and your loved ones if it is needed, and you get to live in a country where our elderly aren't dying in the streets of starvation. If SSI needs more funding it isn't that hard. Raise or eliminate the cut off, increase the percentage paid, or increase the age of retirement. Or maybe a little tax on stock and bond transactions.

I increased the investment total to $300,000 and the success rate was 98.3%. FIRECalc ResultsYour spending in every year after the first year will be adjusted for inflation, so the spending power is preserved. FIRECalc looked at the 120 possible 25 year periods in the available data, starting with a portfolio of $300,000 and spending your specified amounts each year thereafter. Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 120 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $-15,917 to $1,499,579, with an average at the end of $515,478. (Note: this is looking at all the possible periods; values are in terms of the dollars as of the beginning of the retirement period for each cycle.) For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 25 years. FIRECalc found that 2 cycles failed, for a success rate of 98.3%.

For example, let's say a couple is getting $2,000 a month from SSI, $24k a year, but needs another $12,000 for a total of $36,000 per year to get by. They have investments of $250,000 and plan to live another 25 years. They are invested 75% in stock fund, 25% in bond fund. Here is what Firecalc returns on that experiment (fancy graph left out): FIRECalc Results Your spending in every year after the first year will be adjusted for inflation, so the spending power is preserved. FIRECalc looked at the 120 possible 25 year periods in the available data, starting with a portfolio of $250,000 and spending your specified amounts each year thereafter. Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 120 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $-160,840 to $1,115,548, with an average at the end of $312,303. (Note: this is looking at all the possible periods; values are in terms of the dollars as of the beginning of the retirement period for each cycle.) For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 25 years. FIRECalc found that 20 cycles failed, for a success rate of 83.3%. A success rate of 83.3% isn't too bad. Let me do a bit more experimenting...

I agree with you and fully expect Social Security to be there when I retire. Firecalc can take SSI into considerations in its calculations, if you go beyond the simple calculator on the first page of the website. Or using the simple calculator you could enter only the amount you need above and beyond SSI. I guess the yearly expenses times 25 mostly pertains to those planning to retire early, and who follow the 4% rule. Which means only withdrawing from investments 4% each year, which is what is recommended.

All of this is my humble opinion. First don't despair, it might not be as bad as you think. Read the Boglehead books on Retirement and Investing. There is also a Boglehead's forum. Bogleheads are investors who follow the advice of John Bogle who founded Vanguard Funds. Vanguard is the place to buy Total Stock Market (and Bond Market) Index Funds, while paying the lowest amount in management fees. From the books you will learn to take into consideration that you may have several streams of income in retirement. Social security, investments, house you can downsize from, part-time work, etc. Go to the Social Security website and find out how much you can expect to receive, it may be more than you think! I know I was surprised. Then think of just how much more frugally you can live when you are retired. I don't believe that I will need anywhere near the 70% of current income that is often stated.

Take your expected living expenses at time of retirement, say $50,000, multiply by 25, so 1.25 million. That is what you need to have saved for retirement. This is according to Mr. Money Mustache, I'm pretty sure just started perusing his site. Firecalc.com is a fascinating site which you can use to run projections. Love, love, love Firecalc Do think about how much your expenses will change in retirement. Some things we can't plan for, but many we can. I probably will only be feeding two people, who will eat less and I will have a paid off house, things like that, so I will need far less in retirement than I do now.

Clark Howard often discusses how to reduce funeral costs. http://www.clarkhoward.com/plan-for-your-funeral-in-advance-to-save-big-bucks Remember not to pre-pay anything...

Yes, it's truly sickening what they think we can afford.

Arctic Mama, It only takes a moment of Googling to find out RCP leans conservative. I am always hoping to find something unbiased but I don't think it exists.

The founder of Real Clear Politics claims that the site is conservative: From wiki: The web site was founded in 2000 by McIntyre, a former trader at the Chicago Board Options Exchange, and Bevan, a former advertising agency account executive.[4] Philosophy[edit]In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, McIntyre said, "We're trying to pull together the best political stories, op-eds, news analyses, editorials out there. The proliferation of content is enormous. Part of what we're trying to do is distill it in a clear, simple way for people who don't have hours to spend searching the Net".[12] He told the Chicago Sun-Times that RealClearPolitics strives to feature "serious intellectual pieces" and that they're "not looking for the over-the-top, vitriolic, red-meat craziness on either side".[13] Patrick Stack of Time magazine has described the site's commentary section as "right-leaning".[14] The site has been described as being run by conservatives, and containing "opinion pieces from multiple media sources".[15] In 2009 RealClearPolitics was described as a weblog "in the conservative pantheon" by Richard Davis.[16][17] In an interview with the conservative magazine Human Events, McIntyre described the philosophy behind the Web site as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values". Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions". He further stated, "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives".[3] In a 2001 article for Princeton Alumni Weekly, which noted that "The articles selected invariably demonstrate McIntyre and Bevan's political bent, about which they are unabashedly forthcoming." McIntyre said, "I'm not really a die-hard Republican because my interests are less on social issues, more on taxing and spending...But I definitely don't want the government telling me what to do with my property...Nevertheless, any political junkie—even a liberal—would enjoy our site because the topics we choose are current."[18] RealClearPolitics was listed among conservative political weblogs in a 2005 conference paper on mapping the political blogosphere by Robert Ackland of the Australian Centre for Social Research.[19]

Arctic Mama, I am unable to read the WSJ article as I don't have a subscription. I think WSJ leans conservative. Here's a left wing source http://www.occupydemocrats.com/newly-leaked-emails-indicate-michigan-republicans-didnt-poison-water-to-save-money-2/ it's very brief. It suggests that this debacle may stem from republicans desire to privatize The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department. I think that this tragedy might be very interesting to follow as a study in how the right and the left present the facts. Who do you all think are the most objective sources? I would say NPR or The New York Times, but I know conservatives think those sources are liberal.

You might want to watch the video again. The speaker asserts that Shire and Oregon came to different conclusions.

I know many of the posters haven't had time to watch the video. I encourage watching it. The speaker simply states the findings of research done on the outcomes of using ADHD medications, without a lot of opinion. There have been no long term studies that point to positive outcomes. There are negative consequences. He does address the two studies that state some positive outcomes and explains the failings of those studies. It is worth the time to watch, thanks OP for posting.

Congratulations!!!

Would you elaborate on how you have organized Facebook? How, why and when Facebook posts to my Timeline is a great mystery to me.

I agree, I want one too!

Just saw this, thinking good thoughts for you...