ViperMan

I'm not traditionally religious, but do you really think this? IMO all humans are religious - see the new religion of wokism taking root. Some people know what they're religion is called...man other 'enlightened' ones think they're above it. Like it or not, something in your life is functionally equivalent to religion, you just may not know what it is. The religious instinct runs much, much deeper than thinking a dude does or doesn't live in the sky.

Yeah, max the Roth TSP, then if you can dump more money into the traditional if you want. I think we're on the same page. I interpret this to mean that you're not allowed to exceed $19,500 in the Roth TSP under any circumstance: "The Elective deferral limit applies to the combined total of traditional and Roth contributions. For members of the uniformed services, it includes all traditional and Roth contributions from taxable basic pay, incentive pay, special pay and bonus pay but does not apply to traditional contributions made from tax-exempt pay earned in a combat zone." Key phrase "traditional contributions." TRADITIONAL contributions... Are you saying you can add more than the 19.5 to the roth TSP? Because if so, I haven't seen a source that backs that up.

Comments like this invariably need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

For comparison's sake, in Texas (where I could find numbers), COVID has "killed" approximately 2200 vaccinated individuals from Jan to Oct this year (https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf). In 2019 (in Texas), the flu/pneumonia killed ~3100 people (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/flu_pneumonia_mortality/flu_pneumonia.htm). There's your numbers. Get the vaccine or don't. It's your choice. I don't care. The pandemic is over. I'm going back to normal.

A couple things. First, society is in a constant state of creative destruction, and that has to be guarded against at all times, and in all places. If you think any previous epoch in history achieved "stasis" I think you need to pick up a history book. Which is to say this, if you think mandating people to do things - any things - against their will is going to lead to a more stable society, I think you need to re-evaluate some assumptions about people. And second, yes, all golden ages have had their contrarians, and they tend to be the people who are most celebrated in our history books: Plato, Galileo, Copernicus, Gandhi, Jesus. I guarantee you, guarantee you, most people had the opinion that those people were assholes. And don't forget the most important, and underlying, point: a dynamic society - a society that is capable of inventing vaccines like the ones we have - enables assholes, tolerates assholes, and makes room for assholes. In fact, it's a lot of these assholes who are responsible for some of the greatest things we have in our lives. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Certain people will always be stupid and will make stupid decisions - let them. This is a can of worms, but in short, I would say that COVID was a "contributing factor" in that approximate number of deaths. The root cause? I don't buy that for one second. Remember, the medical establishment is a self-interested bureaucracy just like any other. For instance, see how skin biopsies and excisions from medicare fee-for-service recipients doubled over the 13 year period from 2004 to 2017, with the death rate remaining constant (hint: over-diagnosis for $$$)...which leads me back to my fundamental point - you should be the one choosing what goes in your body, not anyone else. I'm baffled by how that has somehow become a controversial statement. What we have successfully done, is miss an opportunity to honestly address the ongoing health crisis in this country with respect to obesity and our collective lifestyles. Voices early on in the pandemic were identifying obesity as a major co-morbidity with this disease, but no one wanted to hear that. Now, lo and behold, we see articles that are saying exactly that - fat tissue is targeted by the virus. Look at the morbidity of places like Japan, where obesity is not a thing - waaaaaaaay less. So I would invite you to peel back the onion beyond the one thin layer you seem content with and get closer to the root causes of this crisis.

I don't think it will surprise us, but that's like, my opinion. I think it is an unknown, and that people's strongly held positions on these matters is unfounded. I mean people are certain - certain - that there is not going to be a latent side affect. That's cool, and that's the camp I'm mostly in, but I'm not about to say I guarantee there won't be, or that these mRNA vaccines are so similar to other vaccines that we can even begin to say that. The bottom line is that we don't know, and had we been so certain of this technology before this pandemic struck, we'd have already had a spread of mRNA vaccines on the street - but we all know we didn't, and arguments to the contrary beg the question. These vaccines are the first in their category. All that is to say this: I think arguments that rest on someone else's dictate about a medical treatment you should get are null right out the gate. You are the only person that gets to determine medical treatments for you. So all the back-and-forth I read on this thread about Dr. X or M.D. Quaqmire having the opinion that I "should" or "must" get the vaccine I really just roll my eyes at. In my world, spite is a perfectly acceptable reason for not taking a vaccine, and it requires no justification beyond, or even to that standard. Don't want to get it because you're a contrarian? Fine by me. Just don't come hat in hand when you get COVID and wind up dying. Anyway, that's my position on civilian mandates. If you're in the military, you don't get a say. Take the shot or get out. I don't think there should be exceptions for individuals in the military for anything, including religious reasons.

Confirm all those previous studies cited are in reference to mRNA vaccines / therapeutics? Oh, they aren't? So we're applying a meta analysis of apples to oranges. Ok 👍. Just so I'm clear.

This is categorically false. I agree with the theme of your post, but are you serious with this? Dude, there is no set time limit regarding when a latent effect may or may not show up and under what circumstances or conditions or sub populations. That's not to say it's not a poor excuse to avoid the vaccine (in the military), but it is a valid concern nonetheless.

*can* have massive implications on the ultimate rate of spread. Not will. *can*. It depends on the model and the other parameters. There is usually a point of no return where the model will trip into one phase from another. Incremental changes within one phase or the other won't change the outcome. The same incremental change that bridges the divide between said phases will result in drastically different outcomes.

Comparing percentages is fraught, but from the study - the actual study, not the article written about it - they indicate that the 25% number had a confidence interval of 18-33 (15% spread) while the 38% number had a confidence interval of 24-53 (29% spread) - double the uncertainty, with substantial overlap. Hence, there is decent uncertainty regarding what the actual probability of spread is given someone's vaccination status. In any case, it makes more sense to look at the numbers themselves, rather than attempting to ratio apples to oranges. To me, this study doesn't indicate very much because there is no indication as to what the relative likelihoods are between people being asymptomatic with the vaccine vs. without it. What's one of the best ways to avoid getting sick? Avoiding someone who you know is sick. If the vaccine makes it much more likely that asymptomatic spread takes place, then the 25% number could be much worse than the 38%. It's like being spiked vs not being spiked. It's helpful to know you're being shot at. Also, see the replication crisis, an ongoing issue within the broader scientific/research realm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis. Biologists are at the higher end of those scientists who are unable to reproduce each others' research.

Juicy is served. I'll admit I'm surprised. I guess I'm that cynical. Maybe we're not as bad off as I thought. https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jussie-smollett-verdict-alleged-hate-crime-hoax-trial https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/jussie-smollett-trial-verdict-watch-12-09-21/index.html This is truly peak 2021: Jussie thought his fake hate-crime story was going to be an apt metaphor describing the state of the United States. Plot twist? The actual truth is a much better metaphor as to where we are socially.

I apologize, because I can't get into deep specifics regarding what happens in your situation. My knowledge is wide, but generally shallow. https://militarybenefits.info/thrift-savings-plan-contribution-limits/ "The Elective deferral limit applies to the combined total of traditional and Roth contributions. For members of the uniformed services, it includes all traditional and Roth contributions from taxable basic pay, incentive pay, special pay and bonus pay but does not apply to traditional contributions made from tax-exempt pay earned in a combat zone." "Service members cannot contribute $20,500 to each program. The limit indicates the amount you can contribute to one or both." There is also this thing called the "annual" limit (i.e. where you see $61,000 referenced). This refers to all dollars added to your account - think of this as the contribution from your employer - which for us is bupkis. //Break// Put as much faith in this as how much you paid for it: I think the TSP is supposed to *fix* any errors you make regarding contributions. If you add too much, they just return the money to you. So if your goal is to max perform it, just pull as hard as you can and let HAL figure it out. Note: I have not ops-tested this game plan. https://www.tsp.gov/making-contributions/contribution-limits/ Elective deferral limit: "This limit applies to the combined total of traditional and Roth contributions. For uniformed services members, this does not apply to traditional contributions from combat-zone pay." To me, that sounds like you should contribute 100% of combat-zone pay to your traditional TSP, but only *if* you're going to reach the $19,500 hard-stop limit for 2021. If you can't - even with 100% of the rest of your pay going to TSP this year - I would just contribute all of it to the Roth TSP. No sense in paying taxes on tax-free income.

Yeah, not to be a jerk, but you're not understanding it correctly. Married people are the benefactors in our current tax paradigm because they can make more income subject to a lower tax rate. i.e. a single person starts paying 35% as soon as they trip $216K. A married couple doesn't pay 35% until they make double that. The benefit to filing jointly is that it allows a couple with basically one bread winner to pay less taxes. If a married couple so chose (as some may because they are equal earners, etc), they could both file as single people and avoid the so-called penalty which you identify. Bottom line, a married couple can choose whichever path suits them best. No such choice is available for someone who's not married. Also, this is really how it has always been, under Rs or Ds.

Dude, not trying to intentionally be snarky, but these questions are easily, and I mean easily, answered with a little bit of googling. Just sayin there's probably a more direct way to get the information you seek, because it's pretty basic.

Yeah, duh. Surprised you didn't know that. Same as when all the Ds were roaming NYC decrying the corona virus. Man, the difference a month can make!

It highlights a potential blind spot. The PTB in the force, the people who run the show and set the tone, absolutely favor the sort of nonsense that centralizes the trivial relative to the significant. It's all about what someone looks like - the diversity article is the prototype of that theme. Whether it has something in actuality to do with the murder article is unproven, but there is something to what I'm saying above.

Guard, now. After a long time on AD. Yeah, I've also heard the "I don't vote" thing from officers based on that same line of reasoning. Don't agree with that one. Just think it's awkward for a member of congress to be taking orders from someone in the military. Gets a little weird with "who's in charge of this thing" (for me).

Probably the same reason I have an issue with boys in girls' bathrooms, even if they're just wearing different skirts at different times. There's something fundamental about military service, and there is something fundamental about congressional service. The differences don't vanish when you're done with your duty day - in either case. One of those positions requires you to publicly buck the system when necessary. The other requires you to shut up and take orders from your masters. These values are good in the broader system that is America, but when you co-locate things like this which are inherently conflicting, things just get icky. There are other differences as well, but it just feels to me like you should go serve in congress once you separate or retire. Representation is good and sorely needed, but for the same reason we don't need government contractors running the defense department, we don't need the military running congress or vice versa.

When I really stop and think about this, I do have a problem with someone currently wearing the uniform being in congress. Just feels incongruent to me.

I don't disagree with anything you're pointing out. I'm only saying that the inflation that we're experiencing is artificial, and if we left the economy to its own devices (i.e. natural forces), we'd be experiencing deflation.

Most "natural" forces in operation right now are deflationary. Technology, aging populations (people past the age of "peak spending"), globalization, etc. Why things seem inflationary right now is because governments around the world are doing everything in their power to counteract those natural forces - i.e. printing money. I'm not saying inflation isn't going to happen, just saying that if we left things alone, deflation would likely be a force to be reckoned with.

A way to answer your question is to compare death rates of vaxxers vs anti-vaxxers. That said, I don't think there are data points out there that capture that metric.

FOX 3, CLOSE!!!

Good question.

i'm having a hard time with this post. Did you get red-pilled? Or am I confusing you with someone else on this board?