Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

gtbritishskull

Subscribe to gtbritishskull's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Monday, November 11, 2019

Donald Trump Jr hoped to prove what he had just argued in his book -- that a hate-filled American left was hell-bent on silencing him and anyone else who supported the Trump presidency. But the appearance backfired when his own supporters, diehard Make America Great Again conservatives, raised their voices most loudly in protest and ended up drowning him out barely 20 minutes into an event scheduled to last two hours. read more


Sunday, November 10, 2019

Though separated by multiple generations, one of the common threads running through Buffett's, Bezos' and Zuckerberg's professional successes are the foundationally conservative cultures of their youths " childhoods that prepared them in ways no socialist culture ever could or ever would. read more


Wednesday, November 06, 2019

Sen. Lindsey Graham criticized the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry on Wednesday while also issuing a rebuke, and potentially a new talking point, that the Trump administration was too inept to carry out a quid pro quo in regard to Ukraine foreign policy. read more


Comments

Lol... you righties are such gullible idiots.

Trump is just trying to corner the market. Trump gets rich foreigners US citizenship through real estate deals (through investment). He is just trying to get rid of the competition so that more people are funneled to his scams (and their money is funneled into his pockets).

#45 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

Lol... I appreciate the respectful disagreement. And I will apologize for the "stupid" comment. Not because I don't feel it is an accurate description of a system that you support and help perpetrate, but because I do not actually intend it to be a personal attack.

It is how I feel. Probably the biggest thing that I disagreed with in Obamacare was their attempt at having "long term care" insurance. And luckily that was one of the first things that got axed. And I disagree with it not because I don't think it is needed. But because I don't think that government can administrate it effectively. They can administrate regular insurance just fine (as I touched on in #46) because it in theory can "zero out" every year. But things like life insurance or pensions that require a long term planning horizon and investment I believe are doomed to fail with the way our political system has been shown to operate.

So, I dont want the government administrating pensions (SS is a pension). And I have a couple conservative views as well in that I believe that the government should be encouraging people to take personal responsibility and plan for their own retirement, instead of forcing them into a one-size-fits-all program. I would much prefer that we cut both benefits and the SS tax, and just have it as a safety net, so that if you fail to plan properly for your retirement you still get something to survive on. But it is not an amount intended to live comfortably on. And, if you do save properly for your retirement, then you don't get it because you don't need it.

And like other insurance programs, the premiums being paid by TODAY's policy holders are used to pay the benefits of those who are collecting TODAY. When you buy a life insurance policy, do you honestly think that it's your money that is being put into some bank account which will be held there for your heirs until you die? What if you died three months after taking out the policy, don't you think that your heirs will get 100% of the face value of the policy? Of course they will. But is that fair to the other policy holders who didn't die and are still paying their premiums? Yes, because that's the way insurance works.

#35 | POSTED BY OCUSER

You are taking a very simplistic view of insurance. And to answer your question... Yes, they do have big bank accounts that money is put in and invested. Not tied to individual people, but tied to risk pools.

If you were talking about homeowner's or car insurance, then you would be correct. The actuarial risk to insurance companies for those industries is in theory constant year to year (the chance of your house getting hit by a tree this year is in theory the same as the chance it will get hit by a tree next year). But, that is not how life insurance works. As you get older, there is a higher likelihood of the insurance company having to pay out, but the premium stays the same. So, there is no way that it could work unless they can guarantee that they can get an even distribution of people across every age group. And if they were unable to get young people to buy life insurance, then the whole system would collapse and the people who had already paid in would not get their benefits (like SS would if young people stopped paying in).

Instead, life insurance companies rely on investing premiums. If they have all young people, then they build up money at the beginning. And they invest it. And then as people get older, more money goes out than comes in, and those investments get drawn down.

That is kinda like what happened with social security. They had a surplus, so they "invested" it, knowing . But, the investment was in IOUs (Treasury bonds) and the boomers spent the actual money on tax cuts and wars.

#25 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

#26 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

Who forced you? Oh yes... the government. The one you voted for. YOUR politicians that you CHOSE are "forcing" you to pay for the older generation's retirement. If you had a problem with that, you should have voted them out, and put someone in who would not "force" you.

Again... because you were stupid enough to think that you had to pay for the last generation's retirement, you think that you are "entitled" to have me pay for yours.

Those piles of "IOU's" are US Treasury Bonds, the single most safe investment in the world.
Banks own tons of them as they provide a stable return along with security of principal.
What would you rather they invest the money in? Bitcoin? Gold?

#36 | POSTED BY NIXON

And what is a "Treasury Bond"? It is a loan you give to the US government. So, the US government is "loaning money" to itself and calling it a "trust fund". What happens when that "trust fund" needs to be tapped? Where does the money come from to pay for it? I will tell you. The government either has to issue more Treasury bonds (to the general public) or raise taxes to get the money. Because the money does not exist. Because it is just an IOU.

Think of it like the "trust fund" is a 401(k). But, instead of investing it in stocks or something, you invest in "yourself" by instead lending all the money that you put into your 401(k) back to yourself. So, when you retire, you have this account "worth" $200k, but you are also $200k in debt to your 401(k). So how big is your retirement account? In reality it is worthless because it is just an IOU to yourself. You will still have to work to pay back the "loans" that will allow you to withdraw money from your 401(k). Now doesn't that sound stupid? Because that is what the "trust fund" is.

And I don't want them to invest the money. It is stupid for the government to invest money (for a future monetary return). It never works. If you want to have a safety net (insurance), then make it one. Cut the benefits. Means test it so that you only get it if you absolutely need it. Because right now it is not "insurance", it is a pension. And government is terrible at administrating pensions. As shown by the boomers, if you give the government the option to put something off into the future (like paying for a pension, or paying off debt) they WILL do it.

That is a direct result of a lack of strong public support for removal. Spare me any conspiracy crap about Senate Republicans backing Trump no matter what. If the public strongly wanted Trump removed the Senate would act accordingly, and not out of principle, but because the 11th Commandment is: Thou shall be re-elected.

#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Lol... We haven't even had the trial yet. Why should there even BE "strong public support for removal"? Shouldn't the people wait for the facts to come out at trial, and listen to Trump's defense before coming to a conclusion about whether he should be removed?

You are claiming, basically, that if people do the moral and ethical thing of RESERVING JUDGEMENT until a trial has been conducted that gives both sides a fair chance to present their case, then that JUSTIFIES the Republicans putting on a sham trial that is tilted towards acquitting Trump.

Based upon the evidence already presented, I think that Trump should be removed. But I realize that all the facts have not been presented yet (though the ones that have look pretty damning). So I want a FULL AND FAIR trial so that I can hear Trump's side of things and am willing to change my opinion based upon what is presented. You are the one advocating NOT having a full and fair trial. And you think your immorality is justified by the actions of others.

I teach my children that they are always supposed to do the right thing, regardless of others' actions. If someone steals your toy, it does not give you the right to steal one of theirs. If they are not sharing, it does not mean that you don't have to share with them. If they hit you, it does not give you the right to hit them back. If conservatives are teaching their children the same morality that conservatives use for politics, then it is no surprise that conservatives think that "values" in the US are going down the toilet. Because conservatives are the ones flushing them.

Jeff... YOU built that.

You think conservatives would have actually opposed terrorizing populations by bombing cultural sites before? Or even genocide of non-white people? Since 2001, I have heard plenty of conservatives talk about "turning the middle east into a parking lot" while they pop a ----- at the thought.

Now, I don't like the word "evil" because it is very non-specific and open to interpretation. But, specific acts that a lot of people consider "evil" (genocide, concentration camps, terrorism), conservatives have been fully behind for a long time. It is just that their politicians were smart enough to know that these methods were counter-productive and against international law.

But, now conservatives have elected someone "just like them" (just as unintelligent as they are) that is willing to follow through on their emotional impulses. Trump is not the problem here. He is just a reflection of who conservatives really are.

The only problem is that a "real" conservative actually got elected (Trump) instead of a "conservative elite", who are really just people who manipulate the gullible little conservative sheep by talking big and making promises, but never actually following through. Trump is the essence of the average conservative. Emotional, simple-minded, violent, petty, spiteful, selfish. Trump isn't "contagious". He is just a real conservative who broke through the fence that the conservative handlers put around the everyday conservatives.

Trump is just a continuation of what started with the Tea Party. The conservative "elite" are still riding that tiger, and the longer they ride it the bigger it gets. And they are hanging on for dear life because they know if they try to get off they will just get politically mauled and eviscerated (what is Paul Ryan up to these days?).

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable