rkbabang

Not sure if you're serious...but if so, that is such an illogical argument. Illogical if you want the system "to work" whatever that means to you, but not illogical at all if you're goal is the crumbling of the system. The more hatred and disgust politics engenders the less people will look to it to solve problems. The best outcome possible is for people to think of politics as a nasty process that is irrelevant to their lives and to dismiss it completely.

I agree with you. The hatred for Trump is palpable, which is what makes me want him to win. All the love Obama gets makes me want to puke and I certainly don't want to spend 4-8 years watching as everyone falls all over themselves to worship at Hillary's feet. I loved it when Bush was president, everyone hated him almost as much as I did and Trump will be even better.

+1 to writser. I also worry about rising nationalism. However, about Trump - I don't support him, but I think I prefer him to the Christian right ideologues of Republican party. Trump is a clown and a55hole, but he's somewhat "our" a55hole. Just look at his past opinions about hot topics: he opined with Democrats more than with Christian right. Of course, it's impossible to rely on his past opinions, since he's a loose canon and he can change his opinion tomorrow. But I'd rather have that than someone who has these opinions set in stone and will never change them. I think that people comparing Trump to Hitler are taking an easy and false strawman shortcut. This is not something to be proud of. finally I agree with Jurgis on a political post. The growing nationalism and xenophobia scares the hell out of me, but all and all Trump isn't any worse than the other candidates on many issues and a hell of a lot better on others. He's bombastic and I think this started as a publicity stunt that turned serious when he started leading in the polls. I'm sure it surprised him as much as it did everyone else. Hillary probably scares me the most out of all of them, because I fear that she is solidly in the pocket of the military industrial complex, where I've heard Trump say things like the world would be better off if the US never invaded Iraq, which is a more sane thing then anything I've heard from any of the other candidates. And I also am glad that he isn't a loony religious nut that thinks god tells him what to do. The other reason I almost hope Trump wins (I won't be voting though) is that people actually see his insanity, where they ignore it in the others almost like its invisible. Take his insane statements about bombing the Terrorists AND their families. People get outraged when he says it, but ignore the fact that Obama quietly does it (link). Since they are all about the same, I'd rather have a president that people get angry at. I don't think any of the candidates will be worse or better for the stock market, unless of course Hillary gets in and starts WWIII to satisfy her buddies in the defense industry, that couldn't be good for stocks.

It is up to them, they will replace it with a "similar model". So if you had a Sub Zero you would get a new Sub Zero, if you had the cheapest fridge money can buy, that is what you will get. There are options though, the service tech we used had a bit of experience dealing with them, he said that he's seen customers want a top of the line super efficient heating unit and American Home Shield wanted to replace what was there with a similar builders grade unit, the customers were able to get the upgraded unit by paying the difference in cost between the two. If you had a cheap refrigerator (say a replacement with a similar model would be $1100) and you wanted a $9000 Sub Zero you could tell them to send you the $1100 and you could buy whatever you wanted. EDIT: But remember if the fridge is at all fixable that is what they will want to do. They would rather spend $600 to repair an old ugly dented rusty fridge than pay $1100 to buy a new one. As long as it will last a year they win, they know you won't likely have the warranty forever. It really has to be unfixable, really close to the price of a new one to fix, or some kind of a safety hazard for them to agree to a new unit.

More trouble than I would have liked, but the service technician was adamant that it was dangerous to fix it and it needed to be replaced. They initially wanted to spend about $2000 fixing it rather than $4000 replacing it. It was over 25 years old, in very poor condition, and the previous homeowner hadn't used it in five years (he heated entirely with wood pellets), which is the reason we purchased the home warranty to begin with. They will always want to fix something that can be fixed rather than replace it, but even fixing it would have been a lot more than we paid for the warranty. We went with American Home Shield.

I'd lean against getting the warranty. You are paying 10% of the cost of the vehicle for something you will most likely not use. 10% of the item's worth is a lot to pay for warranty insurance IMHO. I bought a new home last september and bought a home owners warranty (which already paid for itself as my furnace went and was replaced), but I certainly wouldn't pay 10% of my house's cost for a home owners warranty for 10 years, it was much much less costly than that. And as I said already, on a late model Hyundai you are unlikely to use it at all. Of course if you end up needing it, you will be glad that you bought it or upset that you didn't.

You know they say memory is the first thing to go.... Just kidding, it was 7 years ago. I've since moved all of my accounts over to Fidelity and use their reporting and performance reports. Once a month I can see my performance for a number of time periods all the way back to the start of my accounts with Fidelity. I've never found cheap, easy to use software to do this myself. And at this point I'm not going to be spending time putting 20 years of transactions with splits, symbol changes, dividends (some reinvested some not), etc, into excel. Too much work and I only need it for my own curiosity as I don't handle other people's money.

All rallies are real. The market goes up. Then at some point the market goes down and that is also real. Then at some point the market goes back up and it is real again. There are sometimes minutes, hours, days, weeks, or years in between these real events.

There is a lot of talk here of supply being reduced and oil rebounding, but wouldn't that just bring a bunch of supply back on line? Just because it is currently off the market doesn't mean that the excess supply doesn't exist. Wouldn't demand have to pick up drastically to raise the prices significantly for more than a short amount of time? Or is this a simplistic view? I'm not sure I understand the oil market all that well.

Too much regulation or absolutely zero regulation both cause problems. As with just about everything, moderation is best. Standards exist to ensure safety. Snake-oil salesmen exist in all forms, education is no different. What makes you think removing all regulation will have a positive effect? Because education is a very individual and life long process. It can't be designed or forced from the outside. No two people need or want the same thing. No two people have the same abilities and interests, and those even change for each individual throughout life, and even from day to day. There is a massive demand for education. The number of parents who do not want their children to be educated is tiny indeed. And the number of children who are not naturally inquisitive and want to learn is tiny as well (at least until the state gets a hold of them, segregates them by age, bores them to death, and sucks the motivation to learn right out of them). You may say "but what about those few irresponsible parents or uninterested children?" But lets face it, the children of those parents are the ones who are not only not getting a good education under the state system today, but are impeding the other children in their school who are forced to be in the same classroom from getting an education as well. We live in a world where most of the information on earth is at your fingertips instantly, a 19th century Prussian education model is more than a little outdated.

Sorry. I sometimes forget that the government can solve all problems. Please continue. Nobody said that. But apparently some people believe that any government involvement is evil. Ignore him. Thankfully he has a nice bright icon that makes it easy to do so. The moment I see that icon I know the libertarian "evil thieving taxing incompetent government" crap will be in the post so I don't bother to read it. It would also be nice if people didn't quote him since that makes it more difficult to ignore. Good to know I can talk about you and you will never see it. It is always a good idea in general to never read anything that might challenge your delusions. I will let you all continue your plans to design a top down education system that will be such a perfect fit for every individual child on earth that it should be forced upon them by law and their parents should be forced to pay for it. The hubris of statists is delightfully amusing.

You're smarter than they are. ;) Are you proposing an IQ test be needed for borrowing money?

Sorry. I sometimes forget that the government can solve all problems. Please continue. Nobody said that. But apparently some people believe that any government involvement is evil. Yes. It is like a cancer. "Just a little" involvement grows year by year until it overwhelms everything else. People like to say, we should reduce the cancer over here and have a little more cancer over there, or we need a different type of cancer, and proclaim that they are for small-cancer. I like to just come out and call it what it is and advocate cutting it out completely, saturating it with chemo or radiation, then watching closely to make sure it never comes back.

Sorry. I sometimes forget that the government can solve all problems. Please continue.

You can't "design" an "education system". That is like going to North Korea in 2005 and asking "how can we design a smartphone and an app ecosystem?". A top down design isn't possible, especially in education, which is something that is different for every single individual on Earth. I know how we can end this horribly top-down designed system we now have, a lot of what I has been written above is a good start. No one knows how to design an education system and if they tell you they do they are delusional. That is like "designing an economy". To un-design our horrible system. You need to: End compulsory schooling. Close all public schools of all types. Reduce or eliminate all taxes of all types, at all levels of government, by the exact amount that previously went to any aspect of "education". Get rid of all rules, regulations, and laws at every level of government, in every agency, that has anything to do with education. Get rid of every government agency that has anything to do with education at every level of government from the local city/town to the federal government. Fire everyone and shut it down. That would be a good start.

Rand Paul is out

+1 My list would also be Amazon, Google, and Apple. Apple is the only one where the price is right, so I'm buying.

I've used H&R Block every year since 1996 (It was called Taxcut back then). I've never tried anything else, before that I did my taxes by hand on paper forms.

There would definitely be a large downside to wining such a newsworthy jackpot (at least at first). I would not want my name to be published as the person who won that jackpot. Not only carrying everywhere I went and escorting my children everywhere they go, I'd be sleeping fully clothed with my Glock in its holster on my belt for the next 6 months. People get crazy. CROWDS GATHER AT WINNING POWERBALL 7-ELEVEN IN CHINO HILLS, CALIFORNIA "The California store and its surrounding strip mall immediately became a popular gathering spot in the usually quiet suburb of 75,000 people. Hundreds of people, from news crews to gawkers, crowded the store and spilled into its parking lot."

With me it was definitely: . utility/cost of dreams/fun for $2 vs disutility of loss of $2 (as I've already described above) . fear of missing/losing out I understand the odds so I would not have any fear that I was losing anything if I didn't play. After all there are $multi-million jackpots every week, any of which would change my life, yet I never play. . shame of looking foolish (if colleagues and friends win the pool) Again the odds are just as much against your friend or colleagues winning as they are against you winning. And even if your friend did win, not playing wouldn't make you look foolish, because even if you had played your friend still would have won not you. . peer pressure to participate (the social animal) I'm more embarrassed that I played than proud, I doubt this had anything to do with it. . rationalizing it despite low odds Maybe this one a little bit. $2 isn't a lot to worry about. If I lost $2 out of my wallet it wouldn't ruin my day.

I bought a ticket. $2 for a (very slim) chance to have a large influx in investment capital and spending a few minutes planning on what I would do with it, why not? It was worth it for the entertainment value alone. I spend more than that on things that give me less value. I didn't win, btw, in case you were wondering. :)

My understanding about the 529 is that there is no age limit and you can change the beneficiary at any time to anyone. So if your child doesn't use the money you can change the beneficiary to your grandchild or your niece/nephew, second cousin's kid, your neighbor's grandchild's friend's brother's kid, etc. I could be wrong, but that is how I think it works.

+1, Would you rather the GDP grow only in the shale states or have low energy prices and have GDP grow everywhere else instead?

Hands down this is the best way to go. Have a UTMA for the oldest, need to set up accounts for the other two. You just put money in there and it builds up. My plan is to encourage my oldest to save with a matching type system. You earn $5, save $2.50 and I'll give him another $5 on the match, or something even more generous. But the key is the match and savings go to the UTMA. They can get at it at 18, and that's fine with me. I think in some ways it's a good check on parenting. Does the thought of your kid getting money they saved at 18 frighten you? If so then why? And that's an opportunity to teach them or get involved. We've encouraged our kids to have the mentality that work = pay. We have expectations around the house, but jobs above and beyond can be done for a price. Help me bag the billions of leaves in the front yard? That's a few extra bucks. Help straighten up the garage? Same thing, more cash. That is my thought exactly. I mentioned it as a downside, because that was the most common caution I received when I was asking for advise before setting up the accounts and the most common criticism people gave me afterward when I would talk about it. My thought is that it is their money they should have it. I didn't do the matching thing you mentioned. I saved for them in 529 plans, and I plan on helping them buy their first cars and pay for college. Their UTMA accounts were entirely theirs right from the start.

My answer from 2009: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/how-do-you-teach-your-family-about-finance-or-business/msg7270/#msg7270 My kids are 15 & 16 now and they have more than $10K each in their UTMA accounts just from small allowances, doing odd jobs for others, birthday/christmas money, and capital gains of course. The down side is that it is their money to do what they want with on their 18th birthday's, but it is their money, so that is how it should be.