Y2HH

I own two suits (one grey and one charcoal pinstripe), but I only wear one of them these days, and I rarely wear it at that. But it is quite nice, it's a BB Golden Fleece. As for shoes, depends on my mood -- I'm a big believer in "dressing the part", so I can be just as comfortable in any environment. These are my latest boots, however: http://www.amazon.com/Marc-New-York-Andrew...+new+york+boots I will state that I'm the guy at your office (there is always one of us), that seemingly gets away with wearing whatever he wants, even if its against dress code. Today, I'm wearing Solomon Speedcross 3 off road sneakers, along with dress pants and a sweater type nice shirt...because I felt like it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2015 -> 10:18 AM) Rauner is making it pretty clear that his number one goal in Springfield is to smash unions. More charter schools, allowing city-by-city right-to-work (a man to death) and now his illegal executive order trying to make the state rtw for public employee unions. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121051/...unions-illinois Doesn't really seem to have any other plans. I have no love lost for most "modern" unions. They loved the era in which they could force huge fees and levy massive minimum number of hours worked coupled with high overtime wages (think McCormick Center and other examples like it), until they chased off all the business they were fleecing for years with stuff such as having to hire 50 electricians for a minimum of 4 hours of work when they only needed 1 electrician for 15 minutes of work. Or when they implemented ridiculous rules and regulations preventing regular people from being able to plug a power cable into a power receptical because only an "official union contractor" could perform such an action. They brought a lot of this anti-union sentiment on themselves, and anyone that's ever had to deal with this sort of nonsense knows exactly what I'm talking about. Unions, for all the good they once did, have become a corrupted version of what they were meant to be and by and large are no longer necessary as states/federal worker rights now exist. If we could do away with all the rules/regulations that artificially inflate the cost of hiring a union worker, and the corruption at the top of the union, they'd have a place in my mind again, but until then, and in their current forms, they can go die.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 13, 2015 -> 11:15 AM) No it is not the same. You have placed the US at the top of the moral capital punishment pyramid. Perhaps the US is too lenient on criminals and don't execute enough. Your assumption is the US is the moral perfection on the planet and that anything that differs from ours is wrong. There are countries, a lot of them, that have stopped capital punishment. Where do they fall on your list? Can those countries say that all of the countries that kill criminals are wrong? I make no such assumption that the US is anything near moral perfection, but it sure as hell is closer than what they're doing over there.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 12, 2015 -> 09:19 PM) "The" definition? Who gets to define the word? Legal processes vary around the world. Is the only correct process the one the US uses? Capital punishment is suppose to be a deterrent. The basic idea is if people fear the punishment they will not do the crime. That fear is also called terror. It isn't that much of a threat to call any group that imposes a death penalty as a terror group. We look at the people that are executed in the US and believe we are doing right and it is justified. But when other societies do that for different reasons, they are wrong. That's some serious reaching. In the US we use capital punishment, on a limited basis, in a select number of states for crimes such as raping children and eating them. In some of these countries you're comparing us too, they do it because a female showed her ankles in public, or some other such nonsense. No, it's NOT the f***ing same.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 10, 2015 -> 01:43 PM) Which again shows how close we are to having the same beliefs as ISIS and the rest. Yes, because my wanting to hurt child rapists is the same as ISIS sawing off the heads of foreign aid workers.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 10, 2015 -> 01:36 PM) Like I keep saying...as long as that's your attitude, we may as well just get used to videos of people being beheadded and burned alive because it won't change. And your solution is to just stop using oil, because that's feasible. No oil means no plastic, rubber or any other petroleum based products. No driving. No factories. No deliveries. No air travel. No anything. Yea, because that's a perfectly acceptable solution.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 10, 2015 -> 12:51 PM) And Isis's too, don't forget that, all their money comes from oil too. Because I like to drive does not mean I support ISIS. Because I own an NFL jersey does not mean I support spousal abuse. Because I own an NHL jersey does not mean I support tooth loss. And the world is not actually black and white.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 10, 2015 -> 11:52 AM) That has nothing to do with anything here. The NFL allows it to happen. It supports those players. You supporting the NFL, buying merchandise, viewing games, etc., means you support spousal abuse. That's no different than your claim that gas purchases=support of SA's capital punishment. Winner.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 10, 2015 -> 07:46 AM) Lethal injection can also be pretty brutal, but when it goes wrong and the person suffers tremendously during their execution, attitude of most Americans seems to be "Good! He deserved it!" I think it depends on the severity of the crime. If you raped, tortured and murdered little kids, were caught red handed doing so, there is no torture harsh enough for that person to endure as far as I'm concerned. I don't care how inhumane it is, either. I hope they have to go through 500 botched lethal injections before they die.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 11:11 AM) Two strikes makes a guy say things he doesn't mean. I'm on like strike 70 around here...

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 9, 2015 -> 10:12 AM) I don't know what the f*** he's smoking on this one. So funny that this is the one issue that doesn't fall along party lines at ALL. You have wacko right wingers with their anti-vaxx conspiracies and you have ultra lefters doing the same thing. Dumbasses all. Disclaimer: That was not a personal attack at anyone who posts on this board. Soxtalk posters are exempt from my sweeping, blanket generalization. Well, they're not exempt from mine. If you post on Soxtalk and are an anti-vaxxer, you deserve ever ounce of ridicule you get, and please stop posting here.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 12:57 PM) Not a single index fund? I've never heard of a provider who didn't at least have a 500 index. That too, though I think you mean fees, not cost basis. Cost basis is how much you pay to purchase it, which in the case of Mutual Funds is either the clean price or dirty with fees up front. It's the fee level, and how/when it is charged, that are relevant here. Correct, I meant expense ratio.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 11:50 AM) There is not a single index fund offered. I definitely need answers, I'd love to manage myself as there are plans I am a fan of, but I do not know how employee match is affected if I move to Roth. Post the funds they're offering here, and their cost basis' expense ratios.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 11:51 AM) Well, not all of them. JA will also need to cover bases like the thimerosal-autism hypothesis (omg mercury) and the ever-present "it wasn't the vaccines saving people, it was improved sanitation/nutrition!" nonsense where people confuse mortality with morbidity. Wrong kind of Murcury. But yes, I understand your point. These are the same people that selectively ignore science when it doesn't mesh with their personal world-view. Such as the ever continuing trend of people saying GMO's are bad for you. When they're not. And it's been proven, over and over again.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 10:52 AM) The refutation of Andrew Wakefield's work is a good place to start. He was instrumental in the early "vaccines cause autism" crap. And all the arguments/studies against vaccination CONTINUE to lead back to the Wakefield study if you follow the trail of bulls***.

Keep it simple in your 401k's, people. If you buy S&P500 Index, when the markets hot, you'll be hot right along with it. When the market crashes, you'll crash right along with it. When it rebounds, you'll rebound right along with it. But you'll NEVER under perform it during any of those possible events, which is the point. Keeping a long term outlook is the hardest part for people...remind yourself this is for retirement, not next week...unless you happen to be in you're 60's. As you age, you start divesting into bond indexes at a higher and higher percentage...because they're boring, and they tend to do almost nothing, even during bad times. This was the return on my personal 401k last year: Personal Performance From 01/01/2014 to 12/31/2014: Increase 12.11% That gain was from using the following split: 80% S&P500 Index 10% Bond Index 10% Foreign Index As of now, my split is: 60% S&P500 Index 20% Bond Index 20% Foreign Index Because I'm getting older...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 09:52 AM) I don't know about getting ripped off or not, but historically money managers don't out perform the SP on a long term basis. Sure they might win a few years in a row, but it almost always doesn't last. I don't know...I kind of agree with him that it's a rip-off because of the astronomical fees they charge, especially considering they never outperform the index they're based off of (and attempting to beat) over time. If an S&P 500 Index exists in a 401k, it's the ONLY stock based fund I suggest people put money into, maybe a smaller percentage into a similar bond index, and possibly a small percentage into a foreign index, but the latter is not necessary. The biggest mistake I see people make with 401k's is they tend to think they have to buy a small cap fund, a mid-cap fund, a large-cap fund, bond funds, growth funds, value funds, etc...so they end up with small stakes in a bunch of different funds, and they do this for "diversification". The problem is, what they seem to be missing is the S&P500 Index *IS* the definition of stock diversification -- all by itself. It's the top 500 companies on the market, and it means you're buying a small piece of each one of them. All 500 of them. People tend to think because they're buying "one" fund, that's all they own is that one single thing. ...and in the end, the S&P500 Index ALWAYS beats the small caps, the mid caps, and the large cap funds, not to mention it's a benchmark, so it's nearly cost basis free (~0.10%), and if/when one of those small companies becomes a big one -- they get listed on the S&P500 and you own them, too. The point of the S&P500 is that you'll never under or over perform the market on a long term basis. And it's cheap. And that's good.

Anti-vaxxers are stupid, terrible, ignorant people...and worse, dangerous. That is all.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 05:42 AM) Nice Parenthood finale. What I expected. Max needs his own spin off. Max is why I stopped watching that show years ago. Annoying b**** ass.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 01:48 PM) Freddie and Fannie got into the game very late after their market share was getting eaten by the Wall Street banks. But yes, they made poor decisions as well. Fannie makes good candy.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 10:10 AM) Isn't this based on the fact that people who really need it have a greater risk of not paying it back? Wasn't this was one of the primary factors of the housing crash. Too many people who were at too great of a risk of not paying it back were loaned too much money. Or is this simplifying it too much? Two different situations. Yes, people who need to borrow the most are usually at a higher risk of defaulting, but it's not always that simple. Some of this is predatory in nature, taking advantage of those that CAN pay it back, but can't come up with the money right at that moment. The housing collapse wasn't due to this, though, that was a whole other ball of wax. That was predatory lending in a downright evil fashion. What they were doing was selling people outright lies. Here is how it worked, in a nut shell: 1) Convince you that you can afford to be a home owner by taking advantage of an adjustable rate mortgage, which start at very low interest rates, and quickly balloon after a set number of years, usually 5 or so. 2) Show you the simple math that at the low introductory interest rate of the loan, you can easily afford the house. Yay, American dream realized! 3) Drive the sale home on the idea that when the interest rate rises, that you simply refinance at a lower interest rate all over again. Yay! Step 3 was the lie that sold the package. People with bad credit cannot simply "refinance". When they try, and they did, they were told in no uncertain terms, "go f*** yourself". Which leads to their interest rate skyrocketing on their original loan, which leads to them no longer being able to afford the house, which leads to default. They knew step 3 would fail when they sold them the loan, and they didn't care, because by then 5 or so years would have passed and they'd never see that person again. That said, they KNEW those people would default...and the idea was to just re-sell that default to another poor sucker with another adjustable rate loan, and rinse/repeat, all while collecting the insurance on the failed loan. They knew those loans were junk, so they came up with the idea of packaging loans by taking a really good loan, packaging it up with that really s***ty "sure to default loan", sending it to a ratings agency ran by a friend of theirs who would rate the packaged loans of "AAA" quality, making them back-able by insurance, and selling it off to Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, or whoever else would buy it. And when the bad loan defaulted, call in the insurance claim on the loan -- "AIG" -- and when they all defaulted at the same time, AIG didn't have the money to pay off the insurance claims...so the whole house of cards fell down.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 09:36 AM) Out of curiosity, on the open market, what would an unsecured loan to someone without an education, job, or credit history usually get for an interest rate? No idea, I'd imagine not a very good one, though. The loan game is inherently unfair to the people that actually need to borrow money the most.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 30, 2015 -> 08:24 AM) There is definitely lower risk of any sort of loss to the bank, that is true. Just not zero risk. Also worth noting, this is unsecured debt, and when a loss does occur, usually these people have nothing to claw back. Even wages may be so low as to be unusable for this purpose. That all said I agree that, in theory, overall loan rates should be lower. It's a racket. Agreed. The government should either shut down private student loans, or at least remove them from the protected list so they can be bankrupted away in case such a need arises. In such a catastrophic circumstances, the debt following the person through bankruptcy isn't going to do much good for anyone, because it's obvious they're not paying it back at that point. These specific types of loans are an investment in the countries future, so the government should give them out at very low interest rates, and any interest made should be put toward paying down other student loans for those that default on them. The tax money generated by people getting a good education and a job after graduation is more beneficial to the country as a whole than high interest on these loans. Of course, as with any such program, certain rules/regulations would need to be put in place to assure the investment remains in the US after graduation. If you borrow low interest government loans only to leave and work in a foreign country when you graduate, the interest rate could be adjusted by such a choice. Or something.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 01:46 PM) I've said my part. No person with a shred of honesty would compare the 2016-2025 numbers predicted now to anything predicted covering that time period before the bill and think that the results are bad. The PPACA is several hundred billion dollars below budget over the 2016-2025 period compared with what was projected in 2009. The PPACA has saved a huge amount of money compared to its initial projections. In no way, shape, or form is that a bad thing. Unless it was all front loaded savings, which ends up costing 50X that in the years beyond 2015, you mean. If that happens, then it's not a cost savings at all, but a cost shift from one administration to another...also known as kicking the can in political circles.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 27, 2015 -> 01:04 PM) Alright so I am a server at a restaurant. It's a food and brew that's essentially a better version of Friday's, Chili's, etc. Kind of like the Cheesecake Factory. I have been there for three and a half years now and I've basically seen the operation fall to the wayside. It's a corporate restaurant and we've become one of the worst performers company-wide. Favoritism, inept management, losing goods servers & not replacing them, not holding people accountable, etc - all the usual restaurant bulls***. However, it's five minutes away from my house, the money's good relatively speaking, I like the people that work there and my managers take care of me. I only work like three shifts a week and none of them are with the GM who's the problem so I am really removed from the drama and would prefer it to stay that way. Anyways, everything has gotten very relaxed because of the atmosphere the GM sets. I am sure others here have worked at restaurants and can attest for me when I say the kitchen is almost entirely Mexican. Which is great. These guys are much less emotional than the front of house people and they always get their jobs done despite messing around a bit. So when in back of house everyone is always goofing off, smacking each other on the ass, throwing stuff, calling each other gay and other insults in Spanish. For instance, I am white (shocker) and skinny so my name is "flaco gringo" which translates to "skinny white person derogatory term." Most of the time everyone back there calls each other "puto" and "hoto" which is "gay" and "b****." So there's definitely a culture back there. One of the guys who works in the kitchen has worked there for like 2 years and the first year he was "Dan" and then he mysteriously started going by a traditional Spanish name - I'll say Juan just for privacy. You can read between the lines there. Another kid, who I'll call Mike, is a server and got hired right around when I did but is kind of a bad apple. He has a group of friends but a lot of people hated him. I just kept it cool with him but really wasn't a fan. Juan was one of the people who hates Mike. Mike happened to be on "last chance agreement" for multiple infractions due to his attitude and big mouth. So a couple days ago, Mike calls Juan a "f***ing Mexican" in the back and Juan rats him out to the temporary manager and Mike got fired. So now Mike is super upset, claims he didn't do anything wrong (which he obviously did even considering the culture) and he refuses to go down alone. First, he threatened HR and told them he was going to call EEO on Juan. Now he's trying to band a bunch of people together to call HR and bring down our GM. I would absolutely love it if my GM left because he is really lazy, unnecessarily condescending and sucks at his job. I think it's super cold that he's trying to get Juan deported but I, as well as the rest of the restaurant, could really benefit if they fired the GM. However, the GM has three kids including a baby boy who's two months old and he is building a house. So while I would prefer he got fired I am troubled with the fact that he has a young family. It's really just a pain in the ass but as one of my GM's biggest critics, I am expect to step up and talk to HR but I am really not interested. It's not a big problem but I'd rather not have to deal with this, haha. This is like a reality tv show.