raBBit

1.) Unfortunately financial aid and scholarships aren't meritocratic processes and different individuals have different or lesser options on account of their predispositions. That's a matter of fact. That's coming from someone who just went to college and just lived it. 2.) Without government backing the prices of tuition would be lower as academia would have to charge the price the market determines as opposed to charging whatever they want because the government takes on their debt that cannot be discharged by government law. If that happened, less students would be in the market for loans. If the government implemented guaranteed car loans do you A.) think the car companies would be for it? and B.) think the average american's car purchase price would go up as a result? 3.) I agree the government shouldn't be making money off of the students.

People who grow up in poverty have far more options that just taking on college debt. There are plenty of scholarships and financial aid available to good chunk of Americans if they have the right demographic profile. I am not saying there shouldn't be loans for college. I am taking exception to government guaranteed loans. That's a huge distinction. With government guaranteed loans teenaged kids are able to sign themselves up for a mortgage in some bs major with no understanding of the risk they are taking on or the future earnings that major affords them (or doesn't). If the private loan market was more involved and the government wasn't making billions off of student loan interest than private institutions could offer debt in accordance to an individual's likelihood to get it back and in turn, there would be less students in debt for their whole life. The alternative is a skewed supply and demand market where academia can charge whatever the want for tuition because students can get loans as soon as they sign up their social security number with the government. That's how you get tuition increasing 6x faster than inflation. I don't know who you knew that went law school to party but that is not typical.

This is what happens when you have a government guaranteed loans and a society that shames people who don't go to college. As to the thread, as others have illustrated. Esentially impossible unless youre' well off.

?

I guess I don’t really know why I believe this, but I was always kind of under the inprsssion that Renteria and his crew were more of the babysitters until the team spends/starts winning. Not that the Sox have been big on accountability historically, I have not been all that concerned with the lack of accountability this year because I’ve been operating under that assumption.

Your target funds are typically poor choices if you're looking for growth. I am going to guess you're in a target 2050 or 2055. Give you have a long way to your theoretical retirement, these funds are generally going to be more conservative with much lower weight in stocks. The assets you'll see more of are long term bonds, short term debt, international equities and typically some chunk allocated to something in emerging markets. Your target fund may be different, but if you're with Fidelity or Schwab, that's how your fund is going to be. That may be the preferred fund of the type of investor you are. For a long time now in America, stocks have given the best return of any asset class these funds are considering in their allocation strategy. Now plenty would point to the 8-9 year bull market and say it's overdue for a correction. At the same time corporate profits are way up. No one really knows. You can learn how market react but you can't learn when they react. As for your fund choice, what you want to look at is 1.) Asset allocations 2.) expense ratios 3.) asset details/holdings 1.) See what percentage of each asset class the fund is made up of. Even if you don't "know" which asset classes are the best to invest in for the next 35 years, you can still know the general rule of thumb in terms of risk/reward with a handful of asset classes. As you'd assumed, higher risk brings higher returns. 2.) Anything over .5% is bad. There is going to be some fee with most of them but try to keep them as low as possible because there's no real reason to pay anything significant here. 3.) If you choose a heavy stock route, look at the holdings. Even if you don't be find yourself to be financially versant you're still going to have your opinions on a given company that you have experience with over a life time. A lot of the top holdings of the most popular funds you'll see is Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Salesforce, Boeing, Facebook. Companies you know.

https://www.merrilledge.com/article/what-are-tax-issues-associated-with-gain-or-loss-on-primary-residence Not sure of your tax knowledge but just the beginning of that article very simply explains the considerations that go along with your primary residence changing.

Yeah just bad form on Levine's part.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Brian Thought you might like this greg.

Every time that a "correction" like we saw the past couple weeks has happened over the last 9 years every one who held through it has made back their losses and much, much more. I do feel there's cause for more economic uncertainty but if the last several years are any indication, you should be just fine. Take solace in the fact that you're young and being responsible saving. A great deal of our generation can't say the same.

I mean it was talked about on Twitter. I don't think this "White Sox drama" is much of an issue anywhere other than white sox corners of the internet. I am not sure I am understanding what you're asking.

As far as Levine goes?

and not pour gas on the situation.

I posted a while back. I ended up buying a used Acura TSX. A 2011 with ~68k in mileage. Any thoughts or experience with the car?

In before someone ignores the 7 things we agree on to focus on on thing we disagree on aha

As for your post...

Hey Y2HH, Good to see you posting again. I can't imagine this place construing you as far right when that is not the truth. That doesn't seem like the filibuster we all know. I appreciate your sentiment of tolerance. I too have experienced fear that my opinions will be attacked by a gang of posters. It's never good to feel unwelcome. Anyways, I wanted to say that you suggested that I get a refurbished Macbook air about five years. I was lost at what to get as my computer and you put together a post explaining my options, pros and cons, driving factors, etc. I am currently typing on that same computer that performs just as well as it did some 59 months ago. It was a $700+ computer but has been worth every single penny. Other than my first car, that was the most expensive purchase of my life at that time and it has covered its value 5x over. So thank you for being so resourceful and taking the time to share your knowledge some time ago.

Hey guy. DM me when you get in a minute. #youknowthefedslistening

Thanks lefties for focusing on some goofy sexual misconduct accusation from the 80's that had no evidence or legal recourse attached to it. Now we have a Supreme Court Justice that helped write the Patriot Act, has no regard personal privacy and supports policy that completely disregards the fourth amendment. Kavanaugh is for mass surveillance, stop and frisk, expanding presidential powers, etc. I feel like there's enough to attack there past the (R) next to his name. Maybe if we focused more on the verifiable facts instead of trying to make everyone an "-ist" then public discourse could have actually made a difference in this case. I'll now step away and get lambasted for holding the same position as the group think but not expressing it in accordance to the mob's preference hah

No I think DA is right to hold Levine to the standards of any of us on the message board. That's what Levine has become.

Could you cliff-note why Theranos is in the news again? I thought the fraud was exposed and criminal charges were levied already?

Stay winning Eminor.

Moncada has never been diagnosed with ADD. Some scout insinuated he could have it and Levine reported that. Now, with telephone media being played, people are acting like he does. That's another problem on Levine's part. When you throw shit at the will it often turns into something else. This isn't a leak. This is a scout gossiping his speculation based on nothing to a silly reporter. ADHD isn't even recognized as a condition anymore IIRC. It's just ADD now. Not that that that changes anything in this conversation. Levine referred to it attention deficit syndrome. That was never a thing to begin with.

It's not an inappropriate disclosure in the way that he got this information from the Sox or a medical profession. It's inappropriate disclosure because he is assessing someone's mental health in a public forum based off of a conversation with a scout. He heard it from a scout. Neither the White Sox or Moncada's camp have any idea what he is talking about. This is correct and adds to the stupidity of Levine's actions. See 2014-2015 offseason. Bruce broke basically everything that offseason. Since then he has been wrong multiple times and rarely right.

That writer is pretty interesting. He used to write back in 2010. Nothing too inflammatory just informative stuff for the lay man. Once Trump got elected, he started writing extensively and exclusively about Trump, Cohen and Kushner specifically. That's all he's done for the last 18 months. 1.) Where in the article did it say the government gave him money? 2.) Depreciation is limited for multifamily properties (not as much as residential real estate) and standardized for residential real estate. If you disagree with the tax implications of depreciation I would first say you should learn more about it because focusing on one individual for tax law that is applicable to every person doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. 3.) The 1031 tax reform doesn't allow you to avoid capital gain taxes. It allows you to defer them in exchange for taking on more risk. You keep the same basis of the property so if your new property results in additional recognized gains you're paying more capital gains taxes later on. Acting with jurisprudence is the difference between making it in real estate and not making in real estate. A piece of tax code is the difference between an investor making a deal or sitting out of a deal. 4.) This isn't fraud. This is an example of a real estate giant acting within the law to best serve their business practice. You would not be able to become a real estate giant if you didn't do exactly that. You see, his business is going to act with the shareholders, creditors and other stakeholders best interest in mind. Some CEO's can be fired if they don't act in the best profiting interest of the company they lead. So when you look at it from the person in scope's point-of-view, you could see why they act in the best interest of the company. CEO's have regulations and laws to have them act legally and ethically. Past that, they worry about appeasing stakeholders not the whimsical hearts of bystanders who don't have the slightest understanding of the business practice. In any case, it seems your issue is more with the law or the government corruption that influences and creates law. That I can get behind. But highlighting one person because of a circumstantial relationship that you are diametrically opposed to implies your concern for this piece of tax law isn't all that genuine.