Not sure why people are responding based on a title without understanding what she said. @VintageFreak, are you 30 years old? If not she is not speaking to or about you.

DODLX YTD 4.69 tonight.
PRSNX 3.35
PTIAX 2.48
Granted, not like some stock fund returns this year. I do put more weight on the fact that PTIAX and PRSNX pay monthly. It's just more convenient. Even though I'm still re-investing everything, there will come a time when I'll be using that income. The PTIAX div has become half of what it was during the easy money ZIRP years, but even so, a monthly per-share div these days of 7 cents is maybe the best I've seen anywhere. (And I got in just when the 7-cent regime took hold.)
Risk/Reward looks good to me on these three. Yes, I could get 3.5% in a 5 year CD with Navy Fed Cr Union, but rates over the intermediate and long term will go up, n'est pas? When I see a 5% or so CD, that's when I'll park money in such a vehicle.
My ethical filter has a long memory, too. I won't do business with the Big Banks that have been and continue to be pimples on the ass of progress, with no sense of right and wrong. ("The Big Short.") Credit Unions for me.

The POINT was retiring in your mid-thirty's with no further earned income. That's a long way from 85 minus "several years". If you had retired with no income when you were 35 how exactly would you now have a home with no mortgage?

Orman is responding to a question about 20 and 30 year olds "RETIRING"! I think she is probably right on the money with that statement since they will be foregoing 30-40 years worth of paychecks from a job. Just a poorly written article. The article is "nonsense".

Orman was responding to a question about the “financial independence, retire early,” or “FIRE,” movement, a growing online trend in which people in their 30s or younger just stop working.
‘You need at least $5 million, or $6 million. Really, you might need $10 million.’

“My error. I was mistaken: TRRIX (not TRRAX) did even better than you remembered: -18.39% in 2008. Up 22.07% in 2009, for a combined 2 year total return of -0.38%. So just standing pat would have broken even with this fund. TRRAX (target date 2010) gained 27.95% in 2009, for a combined 2 year total return of -6.23%.

“
@msf - I did not know you were capable of error. :) Thanks for continuing to check this out and for getting back with the correct numbers.
Once ‘08 returns dropped from the current prospectuses (after 10 years) I lost track. That was something I always looked at for every fund I owned (or considered owning) until it got harder to do. An easy error to make. TRRIX is different from their other retirement funds in that it bears no date, nor does it follow a glide slope. As such, it’s not a target date fund.
Anything near 20% is still a steep loss for TRRIX.
Thanks.

My error. Since REATX was a 2010 target fund, I compared its 2008 performance with that of T. Rowe Price's 2010 target fund (TRRAX)'s performance in 2008.
I was mistaken: TRRIX (not TRRAX) did even better than you remembered: -18.39% in 2008. Up 22.07% in 2009, for a combined 2 year total return of -0.38%. So just standing pat would have broken even with this fund.
TRRAX (target date 2010) gained 27.95% in 2009, for a combined 2 year total return of -6.23%.
Domestic or foreign didn't seem to matter. Similar swoons in 2008, similar rebounds in 2009:
The domestic S&P 500 index fund VFINX went from -37.02% in 2008 to gain 26.49% in 2009 (per M*).
The international EAFE index fund VDMIX (Vanguard Developed Markets) went from -41.62% in 2008 to gain 28.17% in 2009.
The annuity salesman picked the worst year, but not the worst case (max drawdown). That was something like -38% for REATX (based on Yahoo data - I'm not rechecking this now). Target date funds are sold as sleep at night funds, so IMHO it's fair to look at bad years and ask whether they delivered on their promise. Lots of columns were written after the GFC faulting target date funds for their failure.
Principal protected notes, market linked CDs, index-linked annuities do deliver, in the sense that they protect against market risk. (They still expose the investor to issuer risk, except for FDIC-insured CDs.)
I'm not fond of these products because I feel one is paying to insure against a relatively low probability event happening (long term, multi-year nominal market decline). But I also don't think that FDIC-insured accounts are worth using either, except in very low interest environments or for emergency cash. I'm not their target audience.
My biggest complaint against these products is that they are usually sold in the most expensive format - as annuities - even though the annuity may add nothing but cost. Especially if the investment is already in a tax-favored account such as an IRA.

I thought the linked article from @JohnN good - but pretty rudimentary.
On a different (I hope related) note, a slick 30-minute TV infomercial - from one of those free dinner annuity peddlers provides occassional comedic relief Sunday mornings (especially if you missed SNL Saturday night). Always interesting observing their various scare tactics designed to dissuade folks from investing in mutual funds. Lots of big impressive looking charts. They seem to prey on poorly informed seniors and those nearing retirement.
The guy today was focused on frightening people away from mutual funds (and Target Date Retirement funds in particular) by highlighting the performance of American Funds Target Date 2010 REATX during 2008 (hardly a representative year). He claims it lost 28% in 2008 despite having only 38% in equities and over 60% in bonds (75% of them rated A or higher).
Can’t confirm his numbers. I’m surprised if REATX actually lost that much. However, in 2008 those invested in it would likely have been working (and importantly still contributing) and at least 2 years from retirement. For comparison, Price’s TRRIX runs a similar 40 / 60 allocation and lost around 20% in ‘08. What these hucksters did not mention was that 2009 was a strong up year. Likely REATX recouped most (not all) of that 2008 loss.
Obviously if you want to frighten folks away from target date retirement funds, highlighting the worst stock market / financial year out of the past 30 or 40 is the way to do it.

@ Lewis The problem goes back way before Trump. If I'm not mistaken the Fed. gas tax hasn't been raised in 25 years. Fuel taxes in the United States. The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. The federal tax was last raised in 1993 and is not indexed to inflation, which increased by a total of 64.6 percent from 1993 until 2015.
Regards,
Ted

Added two funds I have owned for the longest time about 15 years. https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?VDIGX,SPY,OAKBX,SGENX

( The Closing Bell will be updated sometime after 4:00 PM CDST to include the latest update from IBD and Bloomberg and will be moved to the top of the board.)
FYI:
Global stocks and bond yields slid Friday as weak manufacturing data deepened investors’ anxiety about the health of the world economy.
The Dow lost points 459 or1.77 % to close at 25502. The S&P 500 lost 1.90% while the Nasdaq was down 2.50%..
A report Friday showed factory output in the eurozone fell in March at the fastest pace in six years, while a gauge of U.S. manufacturing activity slipped to its lowest level in nearly two years. The data sent bond yields tumbling, with the German 10-year bond yield trading in negative territory for the first time since 2016 and the yield on the 10-year Treasury note at 2.453%, a fresh low for the year.
Meanwhile, stocks across the world retreated, and benchmark indexes in France, the U.K. and Germany ending down more than 1% apiece.
Bank stocks slid again Friday, putting the KBW Nasdaq Bank Index of large lenders on track for its biggest one-week slide since December. The group has been hit particularly hard by recent stock declines, in part because lower interest rates and slowing growth bode poorly for lending profitability.
Bank of America shed 4.5%, while Morgan Stanley declined 3.6% and Goldman Sachs fell 2.5%.
Commodities prices and stock sectors tied to them retreated, underscoring the dimming outlook for the global economy.
The S&P 500 energy and materials sectors each lost nearly 3%, while copper futures-—which tend to rise when investors expect growth to boost consumption of industrial materials-—retreated to a one-month low.
Of the eleven S&P 500 Sectors only one, Utilities finished with a gain. The other ten were down with Materials and Financials
Regards
Ted
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-22/your-evening-briefing
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-futures-point-lower-after-europe-data-underlines-growth-worries-2019-03-22/print
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/markets-show-calm-after-brexit-delay-11553244944
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-21/asia-stocks-to-edge-up-as-u-s-gains-dollar-rises-markets-wrap?srnd=premium
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-loses-460-points-stock-market-today-nike-gets-slammed/
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-st-tumbles-as-weak-factory-data-fuels-slowdown-worries-idUSKCN1R31IA
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/stock-market-wall-street-in-focus-as-growth-concerns-persist.html
U.K.:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/ftse-100-sinks-as-sterling-gains-on-brexit-relief-idUKKCN1R30XV
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/european-shares-dive-after-grim-flash-pmi-surveys-idUSKCN1R30X8
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-markets-mixed-as-investors-process-feds-outlook-2019-03-21/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/us-bonds-treasury-yields-move-lower-as-investors-await-economic-data.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/forex-market-brexit-extension-sterling-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/oil-market-opec-supply-cuts-us-sanctions-in-focus.html
Gold
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/gold-market-us-economy-brexit-extension-in-focus.html
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
https://markets.wsj.com/us
Major ETFs % Change:
https://www.barchart.com/etfs-funds/etf-monitor
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

In a separate but related article, The Wall Street Journal also reports that "factory output in the eurozone fell in March at the fastest pace in six years, while a gauge of U.S. manufacturing activity slipped to its lowest level in nearly two years. The data sent bond yields tumbling, with the German 10-year bond yield trading in negative territory for the first time since 2016 and the yield on the 10-year Treasury note at 2.453%, a fresh low for the year. "
Additionally, the article notes that "stocks across the world retreated, with the S&P 500 losing 1.7% and benchmark indexes in France, the U.K. and Germany ending down more than 1% apiece.
“The global economy has clearly become an issue, with big headwinds there,” said Tim Anderson, managing director at broker-dealer TJM Investments, pointing to mounting worries particularly in Europe and China.

Almost bought OAK about two years ago; "for the dividend", and because of my faith in Marks.
Oy, which might have been (ever play that game ?).

To be clear, I'm not advocating that anyone follow this portfolio. I merely offered what I felt to be an interesting illustration of one persons experience.
The question was raised regarding how fine and dandy this portfolio did over the years since the great recession but how did it perform in the years leading up to same. I don't know but ask yourself how your allocation worked out. My stocks have a combined beta of 0.7-0.8, or 20-30% less volatility then the S&P 500 if you prefer. On paper, if the market tanks I would expect my stocks to tank less. I can't guarantee that of course, it's just how it's supposed to work. The kicker is, even if they don't work that way my 'INCOME' from the portfolio doesn't suffer and as OJ mentioned/suggested that's mostly all I really care about. My bills continue to get paid with plenty left over for other pursuits.
Finally just so you know, my portfolio is not 100% stocks. It ranges between 70-80% with the remaining in primarily PIMCO CEF's. Included in that 70% stocks are my meager mutual fund holdings.

Stopped libertarian clock. He said the same thing nine years ago:
He also said the same thing in February 2009, one month before the market bottomed: https://mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/buy-and-hope-investing-mwo022709
But here's how I agree with him. The U.S. should pay down its debt. But it should raise taxes to do so. There's no reason we can't have government policies and a social safety net with less debt. The problem is, neocons like Mauldin want to get rid of or dramatically reduce the social safety net so there'll be less debt and older Democrats are too scared to raise taxes. So the can just keeps getting kicked down the road.

@Starchild
I'm just goofing with the years, some funds and the resulting numbers.
I'm away to the pillow for an early rise tomorrow; but give a few tickers for some funds you would like to compare.........as with the 60/40........my first easy choice is FBALX
Same time frame????
Ok, I'm away and will check Thursday morning.
Regards,
Catch

Ya. I threw in Wellington VWELX and it fared better during the meltdown. Of course, PIMIX punched them all in the gut. Goodnight catch and thanks for the post :-)

@Starchild
I'm just goofing with the years, some funds and the resulting numbers.
I'm away to the pillow for an early rise tomorrow; but give a few tickers for some funds you would like to compare.........as with the 60/40........my first easy choice is FBALX
Same time frame???? Keep in mind that some data with not be available if the fund has not been in place for much time........If one enters "x" number of tickers, the chart will only look back wards to the youngest fund when comparing.
Ok, I'm away and will check Thursday morning.
Regards,
Catch

Good question Derf and the answer I believe is 'who knows.' What I can say with a fair degree of certainty is that barring a dividend cut or elimination the portfolio's income will continue to increase no matter what the value of the equity components do. Those components I would expect will do no worse than the market in general i.e. up-down just like always and just like every other equity/fund/baseline etc..
FWIW, I have such a portfolio of dividend growth stocks. My portfolio was down approximately 2.98% on price alone. My 'income' from that portfolio was up >10% from the prior year. I realize that's just one years results but the income generated has been doing that for the last 8 years. I'll stick with it until it's broke.

Ted: I don't have 49 years left in my tank !
Derf

My Question : Will the next 8 years be so generous to the dividend growth portfolio ?
Derf