ViperMan

You are correct. The AOTC is the one that is 100% up to $2000. https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/aotc

As other people said, use the Roth version of the TSP. Shelter as much of your future income as possible. Not necessarily a financial strategy, but there is something she's probably eligible for, called the lifetime learning credit. Even if she just takes personal interest courses, I'd rather have my $2000 spent on me than some social project. https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/llc

If you're not getting injected right now (sts) it's already too late...

@BashiChuni, your previous two posts have been attempts to change the subject. i.e. they are tacit admissions that you've lost the argument. Can you explain for the crowd why Russia would agree to all those treaties and agreements that placed no limit on NATO's expansion and why you argue that in fact it is, provocative, Russia didn't know what they were signing up for at the time, or something to that effect? Or are you just going to continue to rage white?

You never got in a fist fight as a kid did you.

No dude. See my opinions on the Iraq war, COVID, affirmative action, abortion rights, etc. I am pointing out that you have a position that is inconsistent with reality. That primary fact being your argument rests upon something even Russia does not hold to be true: namely that they agreed there would be no limits to NATO expansion and have publicly and formally ratified such notions. Your argument rests upon a counterfactual that is not true. If you want to spout off with something that contravenes that which is obviously true for anyone who does even the most basic homework, then you need to articulate why for the crowd. All you've done so far is shout at clouds. Feel free to point at me and say that I'm "getting on board with the government" - odd since our government's current form (form of: Joe Biden's government) is one I almost wholly disagree with, top to bottom - to any casual observer though, it is you who is not engaging with the facts. The Big Lebowski GIF is funny and cute (and sometimes appropriate) but in this context it actually does constitute failure to engage with the argument - which is frankly a very "liberal" thing to do. So I'll leave you with this: You need to answer why Russia would agree that there would be no limits to NATO's expansion and also agree with the proposition that all nations should be free to form whatever alliances they want, while simultaneously explaining why NATO expansion constitutes provocation. I'll leave that as homework. Seems challenging to me, but that's the corner you've painted yourself into.

@BashiChuni, it's like you don't listen dude. That, or you're just fact-immune. Your argument rests on this presupposition that "buh we provoked Putin". As laid out for you back in September, this is not the case. But, to humor this argument, even if it was hypothetically true, that does not justify Putin invading an independent third-party nation. Your argument is without merit. How you can literally not see how he has used this meme as a pretext for something he wanted to do anyway is baffling. I have to assume you are being intentionally dense in order to frustrate other posters on this board. "NATO expansion became an excuse post facto..." for Russian militarism and autocracy. "The ability of countries to determine their own foreign policy and their alliances, is written into the UN Charter...written into the 1975 Helsinki act...written into the 1990 charter of Paris for a new Europe...written into the 1997 NATO-Russia founding act...Russia's signature is on every one of those documents. Moscow signed the UN Charter, it signed the Helsinki final act...signed the NATO-Russia founding act that places no limits on NATO expansion..." etc, etc. Russia's signature is on every one of those documents. Russia's signature is on every one of those documents. Russia's signature is on every one of those documents. Get on board dude. You spouting Russian propaganda is not a good look for someone who represents themselves as a military officer.

This is an internet message board used to exchange ideas / thoughts; let's not avoid the subject by trying to come up with a fully fleshed-out, 40000-page tax code that addresses all your nitpicks. I think my broader point is clear. There is a sizable portion of this country that provides no input into the coffers, yet is gaining an increasing share of political power and is able to exercise say over how money is directed. That is moral hazard, and should not be a thing.

Sorry, should have been more specific. Income taxes.

The real solution is to limit voting rights to people who pay taxes. No skin in the game is the root cause of the out-of-control moral hazard we are currently mired in. I don't think there is a way out of this until you get rid of that systemic misalignment. Said another way: there's likely no way out.

We certainly do need more soldiers in elected office. Just not more like him.

Thanks for your service, now F off.

It's almost, almost, as if this entire thing were entirely predictable! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Strange_Death_of_Europe

Reality is bending so hard right now. Working at the Babylon Bee has got to be one of the toughest journalism beats there is.

It's absolutely abominable. Unforgivable. The most unbelievable part is that he has to wake up everyday and decide to continue denying her existence.

You sound like you've got the attitude part wired - so good for you. 1. Well no F-somethings, but that said, it depends on what gets written on your form 8s, etc. You could still fly single-seat, depending on what gets written on your form 8s, etc. 2. You should probably already have some sense of whether they were going to take your wings. Why are you asking the question? Did something (or multiple things) happen during your course that makes them think you should be a pilot at all? Or did you just get the vibe that they didn't think fighters were your jam? If it was the latter, you'll keep your wings. My sense of FEBs is that they are a formal process that recommends what they've been recommended to do... 3. If you get to keep flying, you'll be fine. I know someone who washed out of F-15s (post B-course, post MQT), and is now a weapons' officers on another platform. Shit happens, but your attitude will carry you. Own your f-ups, and move on with your life - you will absolutely be fine. I promise you, flying something else besides a fighter can be every bit as rewarding, and more so, than flying a fighter. It's your attitude that will make the difference. I'm sure it sucks, but try not to dwell on it longer than necessary. Once you start your next B-course, don't look back.

The "trans" issue breaks down along two broad categories: (1) People who are either mentally ill or who are suffering from extreme emotional trauma. (2) People who have a fetish to be seen as or to become a facsimile of the opposite sex. Those in category (1) have no business receiving hormones or surgery to treat their issue. It's inappropriate regardless of how old they are or if they are able to mimic the act of giving consent. These people cannot meaningfully consent to surgery that renders body parts non-functional. The only appropriate treatment for people in this category is mental health intervention and counseling. People in category (2) can get surgery and hormones as long as they're 18 and pay for 100% it and all follow-on complications themselves. Insurance should have absolutely nothing to do or say about such optional procedures.

You are so close to bumping into a reasonable take on reality here...soooooo close.

Background? MWS? You have my attention... Of course there's that, too. Didn't even consider the value of that bene.

Do what @brabus said. The mil retirement is worth a lot, so if you can get it, I recommend it. It's inflation protected, not subject to 15.3% payroll tax, and as such is worth a substantial bit more than its apparent paper value.

Me either, but I don't understand this nitpick. These "soldiers" are making choices. You can feel sorry for them, but why feel guilty about having to kill them? They could desert, rebel, mutiny, shoot their commanders, all sorts of other options. Instead, they choose to conduct a war of aggression. I don't feel sorry for people who are taking the "easy way out" by choosing to kill innocent people. Would you allow one of these guys who "didn't have a choice" kill your family? I know you know the answer.

How long have you been in the AF? You should know this doesn't mean shit.

Don't need to know anything about Putin. And yet, they had a choice. I'm sure it was a bad one, but they had a choice. You don't not shoot someone who is conducting a home invasion because "they didn't have a choice." Please.

These soldiers can blame Putin all they want (and so can we) - and he does deserve blame - but at the end of the day, you are responsible for your actions, and if you decide to make war against innocent people, then you've made your bed and can lie in it for all I care. All these troops had a choice. It may have been a shitty choice, but they made a choice to conduct a war of aggression and to invade a sovereign nation without justification.

Exactly like that.