Jenksismyhero

Kaui or Maui for sure. The Northwest (Seattle, Portland) would be acceptable. Chicago...I love this city, but I'd leave in a heartbeat if I could.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2013 -> 04:01 PM) Nobody on social security or medicare ever votes Republican And Democrats never accept tax breaks, deductions or credits.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2013 -> 03:57 PM) No, the fact that you're talking about millions of voters is what means that will happen. The Democrat's bread and butter: create dependents and promise them more.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2013 -> 03:53 PM) And yet 40% of people less than 10 years from retirement, people who should be counting on these things, have >80% of their money in high-risk stocks. And that's from the already-filtered group of people who actually can get 401k's. Saying it louder that people who make mistakes are dumb doesn't make it a good program. It also doesn't mean that society has to bail those people out for being stupid either.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 29, 2013 -> 03:40 PM) You can still go out and get your own 401k plan, and if its underfunded its because you didnt put enough away to retire. Pensions make zero sense to me, we will pay you because you worked for X amount of years? A wealthy retirement isnt a right. You could, but you'd also be losing out on your employer match. I can see SS' point that the fees can be bulls*** and you have no choice in the matter. But I agree, wealthy retirement isn't a right. You shouldn't need 50-60k a year when you're retired. Teachers in Chicago b**** about their salaries and then they end up making 3/4 of their salary for life. Politicians and union bosses work a day and get a six figure pension for life. It's a stupid system.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) You don't have a choice in what investment management company your employer offers with their 401k. That 0.05% is also the fund management fee, not your account management fee. The old 401k plan the company I work for offered charged every account 2.5% of their annual average balance every year on top of whatever fees your funds charged. Well that's true, your lack of choice does suck. But your employer must be getting some kind of deal with that company if they choose to work with them. Maybe that allows them to match at a higher percent?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2013 -> 03:10 PM) Hate to derail, but there are basic account management fees that you get charged regardless of what funds you're in. If you're with someone like Vanguard, they're minimal. Fidelity, ok. A smaller firm might charge as much as 3% of your account balance annually. http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planni...probably-paying edit: the frontline episode and linked website a few posts back details this pretty thoroughly. I assumed people knew that the better firms have incredibly low fees. 10k in the Vanguard 500 and you're not being charged 1.25% like in the frontline piece, you're charged .05% And you should never have trading fees that might double those costs (as was claimed) because you shouldn't be day-trading your retirement account. I mean, I'm glad frontline is trying to educate people. I thought that was investment 101 type stuff.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 29, 2013 -> 03:07 PM) The problem with underfunded 401k's leaving people with no retirement security is going to make the problem of underfunded pension plans look like a walk in the park. Is that even possible? My 401(k) gets contributions from me and my employer every 2 weeks. They don't promise me that they'll contribute money in the future when I retire.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2013 -> 02:42 PM) There were a handful of links and an episode of Frontline in the financial thread (or at least I thought, can't find Balta's post now) a few months back that highlighted just how big of a bite management fees take out of the average 401(k). It's something like 40-50% of your total value over the lifetime between fund management fees and account management fees. Don't want to derail the thread, but here's the Frontline episode if you're curious: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bu...-fees-cost-you/ If you invest properly, a lot of those fees don't apply. Trading fees for example. You should never get hit with a trading fee if you invest in diversified index funds. And the personally managed fund (and fees associated with it) are a thing of the past.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 29, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) Balta is just outright wrong on his post. What I do think you are missing though, is, as I said... if you start all new hires on a 401k-like plan, how do you pay the people still in the pension system? There is no in-flow to the system, so it all falls apart. When these plans aren't really funded properly and a government entity on some level has to "bail" them out, does it really matter? At least if we canceled pensions now we'll have a definite end point where these insane obligations (tens of billions for states) will go away.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 29, 2013 -> 11:50 AM) Just announced, torn achilles. Bushrod too?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 29, 2013 -> 10:44 AM) Turk McBride done for year. Bushrod out with an injury(cant remember what, they said 2 weeks) Right calf strain. I didn't see anything about being out more than the rest of today though.

If true, this is comforting: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/pri...ned_741033.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2013 -> 12:00 PM) It's really impossible to know, because the jury was tasked with the SYG standard in its instructions. It's hard to know how the jury would vote if they weren't given that instruction. It's also impossible to guess how that trial would have gone if the prosecution had made manslaughter its focus. The manslaughter description the judge gave to the jury seemed pretty incomprehensible. I believe all but a handful of states got rid of their duty to retreat requirements. So, unless you've got some emotional/revenge seeking jurors, he should be found not guilty in most states. And I don't think the manslaughter issue was that big of a deal. Self-defense and stand your ground stuff trumps any murder charge.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2013 -> 11:41 AM) No one made him carry a gun. In a just society that alone would earn him scorn. Lol, at least you're consistent.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jul 26, 2013 -> 11:45 AM) Jenks I was talking about how is lawyer wanted the people he saved to give a statement to the media. That in itself is a publicity stunt. If he just saved them and went about his way, that would have been a better response. The sheer fact that he's just trying to get positive publicity is sad considering it will do no good. That's all I was trying to say. I didn't see anything about the lawyers doing that, but who knows if Zimmerman told them to do that. More likely it's the attorneys trying to keep their names in the press.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 26, 2013 -> 11:39 AM) In general its admitted that Zimmerman killed Martin. The reason he got off is because "technically" what he did is allowed under the law. If that isnt a "technicality" then the word has no meaning anymore. Now if youre saying that the difference is motive, and that Zimmerman has allegedly good motives whereas Braun was a cheater, that would be a good reason for arguing that they arent comparable. Because the analogy would be if Braun was taking a supplement because he thought it would save his life, but that supplement was banned. When people are found not guilty by reason of an affirmative defense, we don't say they got off on a technicality. That word is used when there's been a screw up somewhere along the line and someone gets off for reasons other than an actual determination of the law and facts at issue in the case.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jul 26, 2013 -> 11:36 AM) LMAO.... what? I mean Zimmerman dug his own grave so now he'll have to lie in it. I guess my thing is, why is he trying these publicity stunts? He should be staying out of the public eye so it'll blow over at some point. No one will really change their opinion of him even if he saved 20 babies out of a burning building. See what you started Balta? 9/11 was an inside job too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2013 -> 11:30 AM) People believe that if Zimmerman truly is not legally guilty, then something is wrong with the law because his course of actions should not have been 100% legal. A not guilty verdict doesn't mean people have to drop those feelings. So direct your anger towards the legislators that can change the law, not the guy who legally did nothing wrong.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 26, 2013 -> 11:20 AM) Isnt self defense ultimately a "technicality". And I dont really feel sad for Zimmerman, why would I? He shot and killed someone, you live with the consequences of your actions. Id feel sad for Zimmerman if he was driving his pregnant wife to the emergency room and accidentally ran over and killed Martin while he was speeding. I don't think so. Self defense is a legally recognized justification and excuse for a killing. A technicality is someone getting off because a cop forgot to tag evidence properly. Or a FedEx guy not delivering a sample within a 30 minute time period or whatever the story was with Braun.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jul 26, 2013 -> 11:00 AM) Ryan Braun never failed a drug test either. I don't think the situations are really comparable. Zimmerman didn't get off on a technicality like Braun.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 26, 2013 -> 10:58 AM) Well that's just a completely hyperbolic statement. I'm half kidding. It is sad that a guy who as found innocent of a crime has to go into hiding.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jul 26, 2013 -> 10:23 AM) You know what's sad about Zimmerman? He thinks that he'll be able to live a normal life after the media circus. Even him saving a family won't absolve him of taint that covers him. He should just get the heck out of America and start over in some other country. Which is just f***ing sad. The dude was found not guilty. There is more love in this country for the boston bomber than George Zimmerman.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2013 -> 07:53 PM) There are a Couple reports out suggesting that Zimmeman's auto rescue story isn't legit, that he only showed up after the responding officer, a friend of his, called him and said e should come out for the positive press.

It's an interesting question if the federal government has the authority to tell a state how it must recognize marriage, especially where a state constitutional amendment says they don't want to recognize gay marriage. The recent DOMA case before the SC seemed to suggest that the Court wanted the states to keep that right.