bearrock

I would think the first step is to verify that what's coming in on paper is actually physically accounted for at initial stocking.  If that's not the case, then the leak may not even be occurring on-site and the theft may not even be of the actual parts but perhaps some form of fraudulent invoicing and kick backs.  

If the parts are actually coming in, would it be possible to randomly airtag the more frequently missing items to hopefully track the stolen ones?

Adding some more data point (it's an interesting question.  Based on my anecdotal experience, I have seen a few amicus briefs in DC District Court, but it is pretty rare at the trial court level): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9550912/

Quote

The American Medical Association (AMA) is one of the most politically active advocacy groups in the USA,1 and in 1995, it developed a dedicated Litigation Center. This center represents organized medicine before the courts and frequently files amicus briefs.2 This study aims to characterizes amicus briefs filed by the Litigation Center, analyze the groups that benefit from Litigation Center support, and report amicus citation rates.

Quote

Over 98% of briefs were submitted to appellate courts (Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS], 14.9% [48/322]; state supreme courts, 41.6% [134/322]; state or federal intermediate appellate courts, 41.9% [135/322]), and 1.6% (5/322) of briefs were submitted to state or federal district courts.

Trump organization was under investigation while Cyrus Vance was in office.  Braggs did not campaign on promise to prosecute Trump, but rather his track record of prior investigation and litigation against Trump and his family.  Imagine my surprise at the GOP politicians messing up the facts in their talking points.

1 hour ago, superozman said:

 

This benefits him greatly.  He says this - so he looks tough on these countries, but in reality he probably wouldn't have gotten through the advisors, etc and actually did it.  But that is an area Biden lacks.  The ability for other countries to see the US as powerful, IMO.  Instead, its just signing checks and hoping it ends soon.

First, I would rather not have a president who I have to hope can be checked by his advisors from doing insane things.  Second, US president threatening to start WWIII by bombing China or Russia is not going to make other countries and ally see US as powerful, but rather a clear and present danger to dissociate from as soon as possible.  

47 minutes ago, WashingtonRedWolves said:

DQ eyeing micah closely, ready to pounce when the time comes with all the cap space we still have 

Isn't Parsons on his last year of rookie contract with 5th year option picked up?  If Dallas picks up 2 (or even 1) franchise tags, he won't hit free agency for a while (and I would be against giving up two 1sts for any FA, even Parsons).

29 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Is this the "experts at agencies set limits because they are experts" case?

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.

1 minute ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I'm sorry this is happening to you.

 

 

Thanks.  It's really terrible.

1 hour ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Oh I’m sorry I didn’t make it super clear as to which one I was backing. 

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.

24 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Ah, awesome.  Can't wait to see these two old ****ers on stage yelling at each other.  

 

Then I can't wait to see the assholes on Fox News saying how Trump totally waxed the floor with Biden while CNN/MSNBC talking heads talk about how great Biden did and how terrible Trump looked.

 

(Of course Biden's going to win the fight of septuagenarians, he's spry)

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

1 hour ago, Ball Security said:

Your edit was my understanding.

 

But, just like sex, everything I learned, I learned from the streets. So not sure how great my education is.

In this case, your street education thought you well it seems 😂

Edit: Better than my spelling certainly 🤦‍♂️

9 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

Is that proration concept also applicable to a Roth IRA?

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

1 minute ago, Ball Security said:

So let’s say his Roth 401k balance is $100k. He’s contributed $60k and it has grown an additional $40k. His goal is to pull out $30k. Are you saying that he can’t pull all $30k from his contributed piece? That 30k withdrawal would be 18k contribution and 12k gain and he’d half to pay taxes on the 12k?

Right.  Early unqualified withdrawals are deemed prorated between contribution and gain.

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Essentially only pay 10% on the gains, not the dollar value pulled out? That would make a big difference I imagine. 

 

I look shorter term for my own selfish reasons. So I was viewing it as 'pay $10k to get handed $90k'. I'll take that.

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.

14 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

Yep, he cleared that up. 
 

But that answer leads me to another question, what is the difference between a Roth IRA and Roth 401(k)? Is it basically the Roth 401(k) is set up by the employer and its contribution limits are different?

 

My understanding is that for my Roth IRA (7K yearly limit), I can pull the contributions at any time penalty free (I just can’t put them back in). If I pull out any gains, I have to pay taxes prior to age 59.5.

 

 

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 

36 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

If I want to stop my W2 job at 55 and start converting 401k dollars to Roth, those conversions are taxed as income. Do those conversions also count to the Social Security calculations?

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.

12 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

These are the same thing in my book if what we do with this pick impacts getting future assets.

 

You calling trading for Ja a pipe dream, maybe this is a better place to have this conversation:

 

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2328979

 

This response caught my eye because a lot of people feelnif he stays Memphis is still good, but from Memphis fans who've seen this whole thing so far don't all feel that way:

 

 

 

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

10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I said start negotionations....Kuzma's contract is designed to be tradeable.

 

Just admit you don't want to do this and that's why you stopping at what you assume I'm proposing so you can say "no" to it.

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.

14 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Yawn.

 

Hold on for a sec....*double yawn

 

Tired of you putting words in my mouth.  No one has proposed fleecing anyone.  The point I've been trying to make is we won't get a player worth as high as we're drafting this year, so why not trade it?  You mentioned trading for future picks, I'm not against that. I'd jus prefer a player.

 

We tanked to get a player to build around...case can be made Memphis is probably ready to move on from all the chaos they've had to deal with Ja lately if as soon as he came back he got hurt and missed rest of the reason.

 

We need a player to build around, I'm at least open minded to how we do it, even standing pat. What I won't do is jus stick my head in the sand to do what we're supposed to do with that pick knowing we won't get the results we convinced ourselves was worth it for doing it. 

 

We do not have to pick someone #2 in this draft...he'll trade down and show me what this overhauled talent evaluation team can really do? Get us some more tradeable assets then jus Kuzma at least, damn.

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.  

10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

You're jus venting, I've never been a fan of tanking, I didn't want to do this or give Beal his max before we did either one.  The receipts are in this thread.

 

 

We should at least weigh our options before jud assuming we have no choice but to pick where we are.  Value you to me is my opinion, not that of the other 29 teams in the NBA.

 

There's not only no generational talent in this draft there's also no franchise cornerstone.  What's ludicrous is we've been saying the only way to get either is what we jus did, but now that neither are there we're jus going to pick a player at #2 anyway? 

 

The worst teams doesn't get the best pick in the NBA, there's no way to know if we are still tanking next year that we still get a pick this high next year.

 

 

I've lost count how many times I've seen this same post from other people, we tanked and likely getting nothing out of it in this draft.

 

 

We already have two 1st in this draft alone, I'd call Memphis about Ja Morant yesterday to start negotiations. Said that jus a couple posts ago, hell, I've been "joking" about this in lieu of also changing our name back to the bullets...what yall might not of realized is i was dead ass serious.

 

If it doesn't work out, what do we lose if we know both 1st rounds won't be cornerstone or generational talents?

 

We've established "why" we have to tank.  We've gotten a pick deemed "worth the trouble of tanking".  But now know one is there worth picking that high?  So now What?  ????...profit?

 

I'm open to jus putting me two hands together and hoping for the best.  But it is getting annoying AF everytime I call out the lack of players worth what we tanked for and have to be reminded we have to do this when I suggest we do something other then pick someone who isn't worth #2 pick.

 

Most of yall got what you wanted with a picnic this high, I'm saying don't waste it "doing what you supposed to do" if you know what you tanked for isn't there.

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.  

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I'm sorry this is the same in denial rubber stamp response I've seen all year when in the same breath we know this draft is trash and we won't get a generational player out of that.

 

If yall don't want to trade for someone, don't waste this pick in this draft and act like you didn't know but we're supposed.

 

If this was so black and white in what to do, let ChatGPT do it...clearly it's not this year.

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?

22 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

You right.

 

Honestly, I feel this proves my point even more, though.

 

What is the Thunder if they don't have what is essentially an MVP candidate type player right now?  Certainly not the #1 seed in the west, that's for damn sure.

 

If you have to trade for one, so be it.

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

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The move is an attempt to appease Egypt who doesn’t want an influx of Palestinians crossing into Egypt when the battle starts.

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

2 hours ago, Fergasun said:

Moral clarity was easy on October 7th.  The killing of civilians is indefensible. 

 

6 months later, the same applies... except Israel has killed 15x as many civilians.  They're Arabs so, "I really don't care, do you?"  Is IDF violence acceptable because it falls under a state flag?

 

It really should come down to do we value human life.  And yes, "its a war."  But it's a war between sides where one is way, way, outgunned.  

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.  

19 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@tshile and @bearrock

 

I respect yall trying to clarify your stances and reason with me and other in this thread as it's evolved.

 

I feel like taking a breather and coming back to address your points.

 

In the meantime, I say we jus cut through all of it real quick and ask a yes or no question:

 

Should US stop giving military aid to Israel?

 

There are a lot of different protests right now and understandably a lot of different opinions in how we got to this point.

 

At some point though...where do we go from here?  I respect the need to clarify why to yes or no. Or even clarify conditions.

 

I'm at a Yes right now. 

 

I'll be back later, I need to focus on other things go make sure my emotions don't get the best of me and I'll still make sense where I stand on this complicated matter. 

 

Grey as any issue I've ever seen in a world that tries too hard to be black or white.

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.