Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

Like that's a good thing?
The sad thing is that they've been broadcasting the fact that they're terrible people that are ok with crimes, as long as tehy're done by someone on their side, for a while now, and yet they still got votes.[DOUBLEPOST=1517741611,1517741529][/DOUBLEPOST]
So, does that put Hannity on the same pedestal as Dr Manhattan?
Manhattan just caused cancer, Hannity is cancer.
 

Denbrought

The Last Dancelord
On the bright side, since you can't get the money until you retire anyway, the market fluctuations don't matter yet... you're only fucked if it takes a dive when you retire. Good luck, boys....
You can take money out of 401ks/IRAs/etc through a variety of mechanisms before retirement (loan, 72t, Roth ladder, unqualified distribution...), it's just generally not advisable to do so.
 

Dave

I'm not that fucking old!
Staff member
You lose so much in penalties and fees that you're much, MUCH better off just holding pat until the market comes back. Unless we hit a new depression, you'll be fine.
 

GasBandit

Ask me about my Reprehensible Filth
Staff member
You lose so much in penalties and fees that you're much, MUCH better off just holding pat until the market comes back. Unless we hit a new depression, you'll be fine.
Well, you can do some chicanery without penalties, like for example I could move a lot of the money out of a mutual fund and into a money market fund, then move it back when I think the market has bottomed out. Since it's still in my IRA account, it doesn't count as withdrawing it. Thing is, the trades often take many days to go into effect, so it's cumbersome to do and it's easy for the benefit to be lost to that delay.
 

PatrThom

Genuinely Curious
You’re supposed to shift your IRA anyway from high-risk towards low-risk over time as you approach retirement to minimize your exposure to market swings like this one. If you’re not doing that, you’re not IRA’ing right. IRAs are not about growth, they are about preservation of buying power.
I guess you're assuming that Bitcoin will take down other cryptocurrencies with it?
Bitcoin hasn’t been about GPUs for a while now. What I’m hoping is that the other cryptocurrencies increase their difficulty/requirements such that they outgrow GPUs like Bitcoin did. I only use Bitcoin as an indicator of the market as a whole, much like I would use McDonald’s for fast food or Coca-Cola for soft drinks.

—Patrick
 

stienman

GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
I don't think "take down" is the right word, but all the other cryptocurrencies are valued based on bitcoin still. The exchanges that have $ amounts for other coins base those decisions on how much bitcoin those other currencies are commanding, not dollars.
 

GasBandit

Ask me about my Reprehensible Filth
Staff member
Or right, you guys have fully privatised pensions, right?
Heck, Galveston, TX has privatized "social security," and it outperforms the socialized federal version. Which, of course, meant that it had to be made illegal for anybody else to try.
 
Heck, Galveston, TX has privatized "social security," and it outperforms the socialized federal version. Which, of course, meant that it had to be made illegal for anybody else to try.
To be fair, a pair of socks could run the "socialized" federal version of your social programs better then your government... and i'm not so sure that's not intentional.

Meanwhile, in UK-istan, they're protesting over trying to screw over the NHS (and Trump lies about it).
 

Denbrought

The Last Dancelord
Or right, you guys have fully privatised pensions, right?
For the most part. Some professions (government/public jobs, for example) do often have traditional pension system in place, but AFAIK they are not the norm.

Anything with IRA in the name (traditional, SIMPLE, SEP, Roth) or a 4##(x) name pattern (401k, 403b, 457b, their Roth counterparts...) is the equivalent to a private (or private and employer-subsidized) pension plan.
 

jwhouk

Wisconsinite No Longer
My Deferred comp was in basic interest. I didn't earn much in interest, but I also didn't lose anything due to crap like this.

My main problem was that I should have put more into it, but that's another story.
 

stienman

GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
They're children, and it's just a dance. I'm sure I'm going to get raked over the coals for even thinking this, nevermind speaking up, but dances are hard for everyone all the time everywhere, but particularly hard for children.

As a social event the boys are required to ask girls to dance, the girls are required to ask boys to dance, and absent an extraordinary reason neither are allowed to refuse a dance request.

It doesn't give them permission to do anything further, everything is monitored by adults, and those that can't tell the difference between a dance social obligation and inappropriate requests away from the dance probably do not have the maturity to go to the dance and shouldn't be permitted to go until they are able to discern the difference between an acceptable social obligation and an unacceptable request or demand.

If you want to be able to refuse such social obligations, the correct response is to not attend social events which come with simple, inoffensive social obligations.

You shouldn't go to a fancy dinner party dressed in ratty clothes, eating with your fingers, and reaching over and around people to grab the food you want. If you feel comfortable following those manners, then you shouldn't impose them on others when they are trying to have a different type of social event.

The only issue here is that the school has made the rule apparent to the youth, but not the parents, which, while respecting the student's ability to make decisions and maturity, clearly isn't sufficient because, as this situation has shown, there are still some students who would choose to go even though they don't feel comfortable with the associated social obligation, and they need their parents to stop them when they aren't mature enough to make such a decision themselves.

It's a dance. They'll be provided with the freedom to refuse dance partners in later school dances as they age, but until then this isn't a bad way to avoid cliques, and get students with a little reluctance but no real problem to dance and familiarize themselves with a variety of partners they might not actively choose, but turn out to not be as bad as their anxiety led them to believe.

You may now proceed to rake me over the coals.

 

Adam

Forum Madoff
They're children, and it's just a dance. I'm sure I'm going to get raked over the coals for even thinking this, nevermind speaking up, but dances are hard for everyone all the time everywhere, but particularly hard for children.

As a social event the boys are required to ask girls to dance, the girls are required to ask boys to dance, and absent an extraordinary reason neither are allowed to refuse a dance request.

It doesn't give them permission to do anything further, everything is monitored by adults, and those that can't tell the difference between a dance social obligation and inappropriate requests away from the dance probably do not have the maturity to go to the dance and shouldn't be permitted to go until they are able to discern the difference between an acceptable social obligation and an unacceptable request or demand.

If you want to be able to refuse such social obligations, the correct response is to not attend social events which come with simple, inoffensive social obligations.

You shouldn't go to a fancy dinner party dressed in ratty clothes, eating with your fingers, and reaching over and around people to grab the food you want. If you feel comfortable following those manners, then you shouldn't impose them on others when they are trying to have a different type of social event.

The only issue here is that the school has made the rule apparent to the youth, but not the parents, which, while respecting the student's ability to make decisions and maturity, clearly isn't sufficient because, as this situation has shown, there are still some students who would choose to go even though they don't feel comfortable with the associated social obligation, and they need their parents to stop them when they aren't mature enough to make such a decision themselves.

It's a dance. They'll be provided with the freedom to refuse dance partners in later school dances as they age, but until then this isn't a bad way to avoid cliques, and get students with a little reluctance but no real problem to dance and familiarize themselves with a variety of partners they might not actively choose, but turn out to not be as bad as their anxiety led them to believe.

You may now proceed to rake me over the coals.


Yeah no. Teaching kids consent and that they have the ability to say 'no' is a far more important lesson to be learned than the complexities of social obligation.
 

PatrThom

Genuinely Curious
They're children, and it's just a dance. I'm sure I'm going to get raked over the coals for even thinking this, nevermind speaking up, but dances are hard for everyone all the time everywhere, but particularly hard for children.
[...]
You may now proceed to rake me over the coals.
The real issue here is that the adults are forcing the children to do something that ADULTS find appealing and fun, and they're being forced to go along with the spectacle. If the adults really wanted the children to socialize, they would've set up a big LAN party and/or supplied WiFi so the kids could socialize in an environment where they feel comfortable and more likely to open up.

--Patrick
 
While I can see what they're trying to accomplish, I do think in the modern day and age, the message being sent is different than what they want to send.

Look, if a girl doesn't want to dance with Jerky McJerkface or Nerdy McNerdface, that's her right (and vice versa). If she really doesn't, forcing her won't make her more inclusive or accepting. It'll either make her go to the bathroom the moment he asks, or step on his toes until he quits, or she might end up mocking him, making fun of him, bullying him to go away.

Yes, you want to teach children that Jerky and Nerdy and Stinky and everyone else are all people who deserve attention and social acceptance and whatnot. Forcing the issue won't make anyone any happier.
 

stienman

GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
As long as the social obligations of the invitation to the social event are well understood and accepted beforehand, I see no reason to equate this with rape or suggest that rape acceptance is a lesson that is being taught here.

In other words, the choice is made in advance - it's not removing choice, it's just shifting it in time.

That said, don't go, don't allow your children to attend, and eventually such events will whither and die due to lack of attendance.