bearrock

No it has to do with the particular way Congress chose to fund CFPB. It's a 7-2 with Thomas writing the majority, so a pretty uncontroversial imo.

Thanks. It's really terrible.

Nah, don't really care who you're backing, but the they are both old narrative is just annoying and inaccurate and I feel the same way regardless of which side of the political spectrum says it.

One's old, the other is a lunatic. There's a difference.

In this case, your street education thought you well it seems 😂 Edit: Better than my spelling certainly 🤦‍♂️

Afaik, it applies to every unqualified early withdrawal from every Roth accounts. So it applies to Roth IRAs too. EDIT: Hmm, it looks like for Roth IRA, contributions come out first, so different rules apply to Roth IRA

Right. Early unqualified withdrawals are deemed prorated between contribution and gain. There's income tax on the gains too, so gotta track that part as well. This is getting into an area where it makes sense to discuss your options with your plan admin and/or financial advisor (on a per incident fee basis if you want to seriously pursue it), but depending on the terms of your roth 401k plan, you may be able to take a loan for up to 50K or half of the balance, whichever is less. Then you have to pay it back with interest in 5 years, but the interest is being paid back to your roth account with no income tax consequences, so it ends up being somewhat of a shifting of money from one pocket to the other. Depending on how much you wanted to access and the fees associated with the loan setup (some plans charge, some don't), it could make sense to use the loan as a bridge till you hit 59.5 to avoid tax consequences.

Pre-2024 roth 401k balance has RMD requirements, but post-2024 doesn't. 401K has much superior creditor protection than IRA, but investment options and voluntary terms like loans are employer driven. Self employed Roth 401k exists too, which can hit the sweet spot if done right. Roth 401k also has much higher contribution allowance than Roth ira. @TheGreatBuzz, unqualified early withdrawals are prorated between contributions (untaxed at withdrawal) and investment gains (subject to the penalty and tax discussed), in case that helps your consideration

No, you don't get FICA deferral in the initial 401k contribution so there's no FICA consequences at conversion to roth, just the income tax consequences.

Memphis entertaining a trade for Morant and Wizards having sufficient assets to acquire him are two completely different things.

Dude, there is not an asset that is off the table for the Wizards in a trade to acquire Ja Morant. But that is far cry from having a viable package. If you think Wizards have the assets to acquire Morant or any of the other young superstars in the league, go right ahead but if you think Wizards FO is the one saying no to any scenario involving Wizards assets for Morant, that's just ridiculous. And then to use that pipe dream scenario as some strawman for "why don't they just do that instead????". How about because Memphis is not an idiot and they will say no. Trade a pick in a terrible draft. Fine. Who knows, they may do just that. Just don't expect some grand package in return. I have no particular preference as to what the FO does with this pick and never suggested otherwise (talk about putting words in someone else's mouth). That's not what is being discussed. The question is how they go about acquiring assets in the future.

If you're Memphis, are you trading Ja Morant for this year's 2nd and 26th? I'm not saying no if I'm the Wizards. But I'm assuming they say hell no Your fundamental problem lies in wanting a guaranteed path to short term rebuild. Newsflash, such a path do not exist for DC. All the pie in the sky scenarios for fleecing other teams in trades do not change the reality that such is not a plan for DC but a prayer.

You want to pull the plug on the only rebuilding method that has even a remote chance of working for DC after one year? Did you enjoy the all-in for play-in years under Beal and handing out that albatross of a contract? Would I trade this pick for an up and coming young player? Hell yes. Would I trade this pick for boatload of future firsts? Hell yes to that too. But if the draft is so bad that you consider this season's tanking a failure, what value do you expect in return? No one thinks we are getting a generational player in this draft. That's ludicrous. The point is not whether we get a generational player this draft or the next or ever quite frankly. The point is that until (and that until may never come) Washington somehow hits a jackpot and acquires a franchise cornerstone, this franchise is not going anywhere. For this franchise, that jackpot is mostly likely to come via the draft. You cannot attract top free agents unless you are a destination city or a contender. And you can't acquire top value assets without some semblance of top assets going the other way. So how else do you propose to acquire a franchise cornerstone other than the draft?

OKC got SGA and multitude of picks for Paul George. Non destination cities in the NBA have to be patient and be willing to be bad for a while. Nothing meaningful happens for those cities unless they luck into a franchise star (by whatever means that happens to work). Worst thing the Wizards could do is to short circuit the rebuilding process and go for quick mediocre fixes. Whether by draft, trade, or signing, they need to go for young players with high potential upside, not trade assets for known qualities who are good, but not good enough (which is realistically the ceiling for trading picks in a weak draft). That's how you lock yourself into contending for the play-in year after year.

Walk off would've been great, but very nice job going toe to toe with the O's these two games

Or Netanyahu is a blood thirsty psycho who wants to prolong the war as long as possible. Potato, Potahto.

I mean intentional killing of civilian is indefensible regardless of the scale. And at this point, I think both Hamas leadership and Netanyahu and his cronies are doing it intentionally, or at least with reckless abandon. I really don't get why Hamas being way outgunned any role in the moral calculus though.

When my wife and I were dating, it was pretty organic, but pretty sure she paid more because she was making more at the time. After we got married, I started making more, but it's all one big pot anyway. We budget together on major or recurring expenditure and on the small stuff, we just check in and ask if the other is okay with it if it's more than like a hundred bucks or something. I think every couple has their own dynamics and open, honest, and consistent dialogue is key.

Illegal act during a protest is still illegal. There's no special protest defense to breaking the law. If they want to discuss the law as being too restrictive, that's one thing. Just better be sure that they're gonna still want that law changed when a group with a message that makes their blood boil uses the law in the same manner.

Yes. 100% At the end of the day, it's just some rando disagreeing with you on a message board. No worries if you feel like you got better things to do with your time than to go further down the debate. I respect you as a poster and my difference of opinion on this issue with you doesn't change my opinion on that front at all (FWIW) and obviously doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this world in the grand scheme of things. Sorry if I caused unnecessary stress for you or piled on your hectic life in anyway.

Still shows up on desktop 🤷‍♂️ (not sure why it would matter if it only showed up on some versions of the website and not others in any event. If it's no longer their position, take it down) Sure. But not all protests are always right (nor is the demand always reasonable) and you don't necessarily get blanket immunity just because your illegal actions occur during a protest either. Once they break the law, they are saddled with the consequences. History may look back on them as being on the side of justice and what's right, but that doesn't mean that all illegal actions during a protest gets a pass. In the immediate, students are likely to get suspended, arrested, and they are going to have to live with the consequences of their actions. I don't think refusing to give in to their demand is the same as blowing them off, but whatever. I never said don't protest and go vote instead. But if they are going to say I'm not going to vote in the presidential election because the illegal actions during protests had consequences or because the university didn't cave to our demands, then fine. There's nothing I care to say to change the mind of someone who thinks that way. If they want to abstain from voting because Biden didn't do XYZ when Trump isn't going to be any better on that particular issue (most likely worse), then fine. I don't think that's going to be a working democracy, but keep searching for the perfect candidate that will never come. Sometimes their votes isn't going to immediately change the country's policy. Suck it up. Protesters drew the line at what they want. If the majority of the country agrees, things will hopefully change. If the majority doesn't want it, that's democracy. Outreach or not, people who choose not to vote for whatever reason have zero right to complain about anything at all.

Hmm, maybe it only shows up on the mobile version? (I'm using a phone). Number 3 has the reparation and housing and number 4 has the sever with NYPD. Not sure who can be the "point group" per se in a campus protest, but seems like this one is the one often prominent in the news. Perhaps it would actually be helpful if all or most of the groups involved in the encampment or occupation issue a agreed upon list of demands. Not gonna imagine it's likely to cross that over to other universities. I have nothing to say against a student or anyone's right to protest lawfully. I also think civil disobedience is an option, though that's on less absolute moral footing. Interruption of other students' right to education is of course wrong, but I'm not sure if any of that really occurred or if that's just stirring the pot by certain members of the media. Occupation of university building just seems to be asking for trouble, but if they are okay with the consequences, I guess they will live with the aftermath. They shouldn't be shocked when they get slapped with consequences for breaking the law though. No one ever said anyone has a legal right to protest unlawfully, though perhaps the history books will be kinder to them than the law books. As for the election, whatever. Save democracy if they think it's worth saving. Not sure how much of a democratic process it is to protest, occupy and demand instead of voting. If the next occupation and protest is by a pro-Israeli group, then what? If they have so little faith in democracy to not bother to attempt change at the ballot box and so little respect for it that they cannot accept defeat if their chosen position loses in the election, I'm not sure what democracy there is left to save anyway.

https://cuapartheiddivest.org/demands Yeah.... pretty doubtful that Columbia is gonna cave to all their demands regardless of the escalation in protest. Ceasation of university expansion, reparation/housing for displaced residents, defund public safety and sever ties with NYPD? Seems like a pipe dream to me. Stick with the divesting in companies doing business with Israel (though the list seems overbroad when you include companies like Amazon, Alphabet, and Microsoft). Cutting all ties with any Israeli universities? Don't get the logic behind that one. Divesting in weapons manufacturers is probably a targeted message that likely would have won broad support.

http://How did McDonald’s become a new flash point in the Israel-Gaza war? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/21/mideast-mcdonalds-israel-arab-world/ https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68740617 Yeah, sounds like a bloodthirsty zionist who wanted to do whatever he could in helping the Israeli mitary wipe Gaza off the map. I know many attorneys who were personally vehemently opposed to the Afghanistan War but were happy to volunteer and take part in a program drafting free estate planning documents for soldiers being deployed overseas. It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to separate the policy and the soldiers being forced to carry out that policy. Beginning to think there's no shortage of ****ing idiots in the world 🙄

They want a global boycott on McDonald's because a franchisee handed out free food to soldiers?