Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to Madbomber's blog Subscribe


Special Features

Wednesday, March 02, 2016

Nearly 20,000 Bay State Democrats have fled the party this winter, with thousands doing so to join the Republican ranks, according to the state's top elections official...

Galvin called both "significant" changes that dwarf similar shifts ahead of other primary votes, including in 2000, when some Democrats flocked from the party in order to cast a vote for Sen. John McCain in the GOP primary.

The primary reason? Galvin said his "guess" is simple: "The Trump phenomenon," a reference to GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, who polls show enjoying a massive lead over rivals Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and others among Massachusetts Republican voters. read more


"And many of them turned out to be really, really pretty."

Not in my opinion. Some of them turned out tolerable, but still not preferable to a non-corporatist, non-centrally planned system. The rest turned out to be deadly. And in reality, there have been far more that turned out deadly then didn't.

"Its more difficult to own median home priced, and the price of college education is non linear."

Coupla things. First, a Median priced home is going to be bigger and more elaborate today that you would have seen in 1950. Those numbers have been posted here before. Second, I would argue that owning a home is actually easier, even if it is more expensive, due to easier access to credit. Third, I'm not sure how you correlate home ownership with economic health. In many Urban areas, apartments are the norm. I'm not sure that an exec living in an apartment in midtown Manhattan indicates failure on his or her part, simply because they don't own.

At the same time, access to college loans is only getting easier, particularly for low income earners. I would submit that's a large part of the problem. The education system is being flooded with money, so some level of inflation would seem normal.

Yeah, but wages have flat-lined for at least the last 30 years.

Negative, Ghostrider. Wages for the bottom two quintiles have remained steady in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars. Wages for the remaining 60% of workers have gone up, sometimes dramatically. In 1975, having a college degree would earn you a 5-10% premium over someone who didn't have a college degree. Now a college graduate will statistically earn roughly double the income of a high school graduate, and three times as much as a high school dropout. If you have a masters degree, the difference is even greater, making slightly less than three times as much as an HS grad.

Can you understand the disconnect between corporate profits and wages?

Not really. You may have a valid argument, if it weren't for the fact that wages for professional labor continues to increase as a result of demand. I don't think this is because the corporate employers want to pay them that much more, it's because they have to if they want the skills those workers are able to provide. The decline in wages for low and unskilled labor is equally explainable, since at the end of the day, virtually all of us are equally qualified unskilled laborers. And if you're competing with someone who is going to accept a fraction of what you will to do the same job, you've already lost.

"What regular Americans are mad about are those at the top NOT being held to the same standard as they are, and all you have to do is look at the 2008 Bank Bailout -- $12 Trillion set aside to bail out those at the top after their own undisciplined behavior got them into trouble, but regular Americans get uncompromising capitalism."

I don't disagree. I would have let them fail...just on principle. That being said, the bank bailout appears to have been successful from an economic standpoint-the banks paid back the money they owed. In other words, they were given assistance, and in return for that assistance they remunerated the taxpayers, including interest. Now let's compare that to a recipient. What Bernie is offering is a slew of benefits, provided by taxpayers, that need not be paid back. Don't want to work and pay taxes? No prob. Your healthcare will still be paid for. Wanna major in interpretive dance? No problem, the taxpayers will fully fund your four years of advanced hobbying. Hopefully you can see the difference between the two.

"No one, including bernie, kucinich, or any other human in american politics, has ever proposed anything CLOSE to what you're afraid of."

Either you're not thinking it through, you're ignoring it, or you're supporting it. But in order for Sanders to accomplish all his lofty goals, he's going to need to control the economy, and control it in a way which is not beneficial for a huge number of people. Maybe one of the biggest problems with progressives is that failure to anticipate an opponents counter-move against progressive efforts. Raise taxes and it affects the behavior of taxpayers. Needing that tax revenue, the progressive must once again make moves that force their opponents to provide those revenues even when it is not in their own best interest. Bernie has already stated that his tax plan assumes that there will be no change in behavior after the tax increases. That's retarded.

The Bolsheviks didn't start out as murderers. They only became that way when they realized that people weren't going to fall in line for the communist cause. The landowners weren't going to give up their property. The store owners weren't going to give up their stores. The ranchers weren't going to give up their livestock. At least not willingly. So the Bolsheviks killed and imprisoned them, knowing that if they did not, the revolution could not possibly succeed. And the goals of the Bolsheviks were little different from your own-same desired end-state, just a different path of getting there. For Bernie to succeed, he will need to have unfettered access to the labor and assets of the productive class. They are the engine he is dependent on in order for his experiment to succeed. And they will fight back, as Bernie would offer them nothing in return. So my question to you is how far are you willing to go in order to make sure that engine keeps running and those revenues keep flowing? because it's not going to come voluntarily. Are you willing to put boots to throats? Are you willing to put your own throat at risk?

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable