Quoted from NicoVolta:

One more thought about buying I-Bonds from Uncle Sam before the end of April…
7.12% for 6 months + 9.62% for 6 months + ??? for 6 months
Waiting until May:
9.62% for 6 months + ??? for 6 months + ???? for 6 months
The rate is set every six months. Might be better to lock in a healthy confirmed APR now vs. hoping it will repeat or increase over the coming months.

Quoted from Mattyk:

I believe the rates reset in May and November every year. So if you buy now your rate will change to 9.62% in May - November.

Quoted from Zablon:

I paid 2.39 for gas yesterday. 1 out of 3 ain't bad.

Quoted from kool1:

Oil and gas exploration is a disaster. I'll bet Elon has a big bet on energy, he knows what is going on.

Quoted from kool1:

Lows are in for the market - you should not worry if you are a long term investor. Great time to buy in.

Quoted from rai:

I got a quote for a solar install on my roof, we use a lot of electric but we’re in Florida so we have a lot of sunny days. Anyway the deal was for me to pay over 25 years around 70% of our electric bill. We’d still need to pay some for electric but the overall savings was just $100 a month. That’s not horrible but it wasn’t enough incentive to make us jump on it because we still have to worry about our roof maybe need replacement during that 25 years so it’s be inconvenient probably cost us more if we had solar in place.
But the point to me was the solar install was a lot of money even after rebate.

Quoted from kvan99:

Well, it has arrived....the panic selling has begun. Powell really blew it.

Quoted from BMore-Pinball:

which is very good considering what the overall market has done

Quoted from Zablon:

Can anyone who is holding these confirm for me that the website does not show you any interest? Or is it only added every 6 months? I find it odd that they expect you to compute your own interest and don't update the totals.

Quoted from Enaud:

The site was just changed this week. Looks better now. AKA it just sux less now.

Quoted from NicoVolta:

Gee, how generous. Roughly half of Americans have any stocks at all, and of them, the top 10% own 70% of the entire market.
He must be referring to only certain Americans. Crudites, anyone? *nom nom*

Quoted from kool1:

There is no other way other than government fiscal restraint but that won't happen and it's very slow.
The Fed mistake was made long ago with too much easy money for too long. Now we all pay the price.

Quoted from iceman44:

Vicki Hollub
And I would add that, my view is that the world cannot afford a climate transition without -- by cutting out completely oil and gas production. Oil production is going to be needed from decades -- for decades to come and using CO2 in enhanced oil recovery is a way to produce a net 0 emission oil. And to have that as the fuel source, it's low cost, lower cost than other options, it would help with the transition, it would help to fund the transition. So I think that oil is needed for us, for our company, in particular, we have 2 billion barrels of resources available for further development in our enhanced oil recovery assets.
And we'd like to use either antibigenic or atmospheric CO2 for the -- to develop those resources. In addition, we do know that we can technically use CO2 in the shale reservoir, so we can increase the 10% recovery that we have today to something much higher than that. So it's -- there is a use for CO2 in enhanced oil recovery. It's not as well recognized yet. But when the world realizes how much the transition will cost, I do believe that this will become the preferred option to ensure that we can continue the production of low-carbon fuel for those that need it.
The first admission was probably one that the Green Revolution advocates never wanted to hear. Oil and gas production will play a key part in the green revolution whether or not they want it to happen. Natural gas in particular supplies the raw material ethane, which is used to make ethylene (which is a prime material used in plastic). There is a whole lot more that oil and gas supplies. This business about doing away with oil and gas in 10 years has zero basis in fact.
But the larger surprise was that the CEO talked about enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Occidental has one of the biggest and lowest cost EOR operations in the United States. Almost half of its Permian production is EOR and EOR can use carbon dioxide to recover oil after the usual upstream methods got the "easy oil".
The result of this is Occidental has the potential to use a lot of carbon dioxide for EOR recovery in its rather sizable operations. Time will tell where it is economical for carbon dioxide to be used. Shale or unconventional is another part of the industry that is about to discover the uses of carbon dioxide. The industry catches a lot of flack for emissions. But it very seldom gets credit for the carbon dioxide that it uses in secondary recovery and the potential to use a whole lot more if that use was encouraged.
Carbon Dioxide Business
Kinder Morgan (KMI) has had a major carbon dioxide business with a long list of customers. The company actually gets the carbon dioxide from the ground just like oil and gas (which are secondary products produced in this situation). The only real difference that is now proposed is to get the carbon dioxide either from the air or before it gets released into the atmosphere.

Quoted from Zablon:

You do realize that with adoption comes efficiency and lower prices. Except in the fossil fuel area where expectations are to control prices by leveraging a 'scarcity' and paying people off right? Just like the record companies and the movie industries, you have a whole bunch of people unwilling to move forward. Is it really that crazy that we don't have anything more efficient than the combustible engine after over 100 years? It's not that we don't have the technology, it's that no one can figure out how to make billions off of it. Renewable energy doesn't make people rich.

Quoted from Zablon:

Har har. No, the point was there's little incentive to get there. But you knew that.

Quoted from BMore-Pinball:

That's a good point, if a majority of homes/businesses supplemented their power requirements with solar, demand on grid would be lower
never thought of it that way

Quoted from BMore-Pinball:

supplemental = some portion
can also be combined with battery back up for days no sun is shining

Quoted from pinnyheadhead:

Controlling Energy is a great way for the powerful and/or wealthy to control people.
What we eat, what we live in, how we get around, how we power our homes, what we buy, what is taught in schools, taxes we pay, who govt gives tax breaks, money to, backs bank loans for, which states get more money than others, not only in US but which other countries get money, how corporations are run (corporations are just a bunch of people also).
Not much energy does not have to do with. It’s a great angle for control. Get a cause, get few bad guys, and folks will be hooked.

Quoted from nwpinball:

It didn't have to happen because of the weather, state officials were warned it would happen for a decade and failed to act. They refused to link Texas' power to the main grid to get back up power support, they deregulated and privatized their power, and they failed to winterize power sources. And it will happen again if they don't invest in infrastructure and better regulate the power companies. It's insane how much people pay for power in Texas with such unreliability (although I live in the state with the cheapest power, so I'm probably spoiled).

Quoted from Zablon:

that'll change when they lose power for weeks on end. Besides, most of them are moving to Austin. Don't get the impression that's your kind of town. If no one lost a job or fined up the wazoo over what happened, then your state failed you. It doesn't matter that it was unprecedented. How do you think the rest of the country handles it?

Quoted from Zablon:

Yea, I'm aware. I was being hyperbolic.

Quoted from kool1:

Meh - Not everything is wonderful , look at the power disaster that is Texas LOL.

Quoted from Zablon:

This isn't over. If the regime changes it will be right back to 'remove regulations'. Yesterday they flat out said they want to privatize SS again. Seriously, this country is in trouble. Too many people with their own personal interests and greed. I understand why people want to see it fail, I just know it won't have the effect they want it to have. Those people have parachutes and get out of jail free cards.

Quoted from Zablon:

The solution is to quit stealing from it for pet projects and pay back what they have taken. I'm not aware of an example in history where privitization of a government program has been a positive thing for anyone but those that were involved in that decision. Keep in mind that those pushing for this don't need it. They have no concern about it succeeding or not. There's no reason to push to give it to businesses other than to somehow make a backdoor deal with it.
I do think that cutting benefits in certain instances is not out of the question.

Quoted from Zablon:

I don't disagree SS was mismanaged. I disagree that giving it to corporations to launder from for their own profit is the solution. If that's the answer, give my money back and I'll buy more pins with it. Once they started taking peoples money and saying this is what it was for, this was a lost cause to just say 'oh we don't want to deal with it anymore, let's give it to the same guys who run the prisons'.
I also do not agree that tying everyones future to the stock market timing is a great thing to do either....but we've been given few choices. It's all about directing everyones money to the rich.

Quoted from Zablon:

I don't need to give a solution to know that the proposed solution is a failure before they even con anyone into agreeing with it.

Quoted from Zablon:

Keep telling yourself that.

Quoted from Zablon:

How do you know it would be a success? Explain to me how it can't fail? All the people's 401k's tanked that retired at the wrong time would like to know as well.
We know what's behind the want that they've been pushing for decades, and it isn't because 'they want to save it'.
I'll give a serious answer though.
401k is voluntary. I do not think it is the best scenario for saving for retirement, but it's what we have. The key on this area though is, you get matches, you get choice (sort of), but also you get charged. Not all 401k's are equal and you don't exactly get a choice in the matter when it comes to normal 401k's. You get what you get. BUT you can opt to not take it.
SS is not voluntary. We've paid into it our entire lives. I do not feel that handing that over to a corporation that's primary purpose is and will be to make a profit is in 'our' best interests. Why? Because we don't have the option to not pay it, how it is invested, how it is used, or how much they profit off of it. And humans in general have this really bad habit of when they see a giant pool of money just sitting there growing, not wanting to keep their hands off of it when it isn't theirs to touch. I don't need to give examples, you can google. Companies make bad choices (I mean we got 2 pages of a current bunch of bad decisions). I know personally from pension plans that they can't keep their hands off it.
A lot would have to change about how it is funded and used before I would change my mind. And if it comes to that, I may as well not be paying it to begin with. I really don't trust anyone else with my money other than me, and it's served me pretty well over the years.

Quoted from Zablon:

I would also like to point out that they've been throwing the FUD out about SS for as far back as I can remember. As I stated earlier, I don't think they've done a great job, but it's more about them not keeping their hands off it. This should be easy to fix. Stop taking from it. That IS a solution. Keep the hell out of it. Maybe even put back what you took. I doubt that happens though. Instead of that, let's pass it off to someone else

Quoted from nwpinball:I disagree, I think corporations and the rich rarely face the consequences of their actions. Sure, we normal folks do, especially if we are not white and poor, but rich people and corporations are rarely held accountable for their actions.

Quoted from Oscope:

Agree that there is compelling evidence why allowing individuals to manage their SS is a terrible idea…. Maybe there is a safer compromise?
401K seemed like a good idea when sold to the American worker but wound up killing defined pension plans that companies had offered for decades prior.
At the end of the day it relieved employers of a burden and also greatly benefitted Wallstreet - I’m sure that is just a coincidence…

Quoted from NicoVolta:

We need to remove the SS contribution limit so that less pressure is placed upon younger workers, and those with higher incomes can proportionally kick in their fair share to hold up the system.
.

Quoted from NicoVolta:

Before the ACA, if you didn’t work, you died. The end.

Quoted from nwpinball:

Holy shit, I thought you were joking about the death panels, ha ha ha ha ha ha! I think you need to adjust your foil hat, the crazy is leaking out. Also, it's herd mentality.

Quoted from NicoVolta:

…and they aren’t supposed to, because America isn’t a Burger King.
Social Security taxes are capped at $160k annual income. All income earned beyond that point isn’t taxed. If it were, the financial burden caused by shrinking worker-to-retiree ratios and increased longevity would be greatly lessened.
Of course, those with the money buy the lobbyists, the lobbyists say “it’s not fair” via billion-dollar megaphones, and the common man votes against his own interests for a flat tax which seems fair while totally shifting the burden onto himself.
Yes, the wealthy pay more… because they should. And should pay more still.

Quoted from NicoVolta:

“Everyone pays the same percentage into the system to keep it afloat. But if you make a lot more than the other people, you won’t have to. Some other group will take up the slack.”
Seems to be working out just fine.

Quoted from Ribs:

Speaking of rationing, I think you need to adjust your risk analysis: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/16/americans-medical-debt/
I personally would like to invest, save for retirement, and live without having to worry about going bankrupt from healthcare costs. I wish my parents could have as well.

Quoted from Zablon:There's literally a person here telling you they use ACA. It ain't perfect, it ain't pretty, but it's still 100% more than what the other guys are offering.
I guess it makes it harder to flex that bank account epeen if other people aren't dying and you can't say 'man you shoulda worked harder or been born into a rich family' then you could afford $10k a day hospital stays.

Quoted from Zablon:

He just said 'people want what they can't afford' in reference to health care. He's been trolling for 2 pages and offered zero actual discussion points.

Quoted from Zablon:

No I didn't because that's how I took it. If that's not what you meant, then apologies. What did you mean then? Because you referenced ACA as supposed to be fixing 'things people can't afford'. Exactly what did you mean by those 2 statements?

Quoted from Ribs:

It is not. Regardless of the name, it was designed to insure more people on the individual market (it halved the amount of uninsured), but insurance coverage does not prevent one from going bankrupt, which should be obvious to anybody who has had any experience dealing with any type of healthcare. Have you ever looked at an EOB? Gotten indecipherable medical bills after a surgery or test that was for more than you were expecting? Gotten a prescription that wasn't covered? Ever think about your own deductible, coverage, or other limits under your plan and consider if it was sufficient for an emergency? Half this country cannot afford an unexpected $500 expense, and around ~9% of the population is still uninsured, so that means a lot of insured people have no room for an accident or even room to pay for routine medical care that is partially covered.
From that Texas Tribune article,

Quoted from Ribs:

Then why would you ever ask this?

Quoted from Ribs:

Then why would you ever ask this?

Quoted from Zablon:

and more snide comments with no actual substance. If you'd like to have an actual discussion feel free to PM me.

Quoted from Zablon:

Right. Facts, you care about them. You two (or anyone else) doesn't like what I say, you are free to show me otherwise. I'm open to having my mind changed. But if you just simply make comments that don't lead to discussion, just dismissal, you aren't taking the conversation anywhere. If you want me to hand you a bunch of links you won't read, or dismiss, well you'll be disappointed. And you are right, I'm making statements, not presenting them as 'facts'. Pretty much just like this little number.
[quoted image]

Quoted from Zablon:

And you know that how? (ps. that's not about how, it's about how you know it would not fail).

Quoted from Zablon:

And you know that how? (ps. that's not about how, it's about how you know it would not fail).

Quoted from Zablon:

LMAO really? that's what you think? Ask many people who were retired when the market crashed how comfortable they felt. Go ahead and tell me there were no issues. I'm assuming you weren't living under a rock, but I think you are overestimating that system. So much for diversification.
here's some 'facts' for you:
Privatization plans differ from Social Security in two important ways. First, the worker’s ultimate retirement benefit would depend solely on the size of the worker’s contributions and the success of the worker’s investment plan. Workers who made larger contributions would receive bigger pensions, other things equal. Workers whose investments earned high returns would enjoy more comfortable retirements than workers who invest poorly.
The Social Security pension formula explicitly favors low-wage workers and one-earner married couples in order to minimize poverty among elderly people who have worked for a full career. To duplicate Social Security’s success in keeping down poverty among the elderly, a private system must supplement the pensions from individual retirement accounts with a minimum, tax-financed pension or with public assistance payments.
Privatization offers the possibility of better rates of return than the current system, but this is not guaranteed. Under privatization, workers are subject to economic or investment risk. This means retirement benefits are tied to the performance of the workers portfolio in the market. Those in favor of the PSA
privatization plan and similar plans claim, “workers will receive a rate of return consistent with the average historical long-term rates of return on equities”
(Moore 1998). Future returns do not always reflect historical returns. Over short periods of time, the average real return on stocks in the United States is
volatile. Under the PSA privatization plan where there is limited regulation on investment choices, a worker may have substantially different returns than the
average return. An individual index, such as the Standard and Poor 500 index, may have positive returns, but the returns of individual stocks within the index
vary from positive to negative. One positive to the PSA privatization plan is its Madsen: Privatizing Social Security 26 ability to ride out market shocks. The IA privatization plan does not share this benefit because of the required annuitization of a workers account at retirement. Market fluctuations could have a dramatic effect on a worker's return depending on the year they retire and take out these annuities. Another problem is the overall increased demand for equities. This could cause long-term rates of return on equities to decrease.
https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=mtie
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040715/what-would-privatized-social-security-mean-americans.asp
I'm sure you can google yourself, but since you seem incapable, I'll back up why I say what I say.
Because it is funded by the person making the money, this will benefit the poor far less than the rich. The rich tend to be able to withstand large fluxes in the market than the poor (since they will be funding it with less). At least this is how I understand it. There are still questions about how to make up the funds that people have already paid in, but if people are funding it themselves, as you state, it's just yet another 401k plan that does nothing new and the poor will feel the pain more than the wealthy. The average person isn't great at finance, let alone trying to judge company returns. Hell, I am first to admit, I try, but I don't have the desire to track it that closely. Just putting your money in and not touching it...well you might luck out and get 'some' returns, but it's more likely to not be great.
All this to basically say, you're just guessing like the rest of us. You don't 'know' jack.

Quoted from nwpinball:

Oil companies will always manipulate the supply to raise prices and profits as long as we are dependent on their oil, they've been doing this for decades. The op ed from the Wall Street Journal is a bit silly and over the top.

Quoted from nwpinball:

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/060415/how-much-influence-does-opec-have-global-price-oil.asp

Quoted from Zablon:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/may-looking-end-capitalism-one-205342016.html

Quoted from nwpinball:Deleted post

Quoted from nwpinball:

The Coors Pride can is awesome this year!

Quoted from Nicholastree:

Credit ratings are about the LIKELIHOOD a borrower will pay their debt back - on time and in the proper amounts. This rating change was not meaningless. It was an acknowledgement that there is recently an increased likelihood the borrower (the U.S. Government in this case) will fail to pay a creditor on time and in the proper amount.
The word in Washington is that there is a very real possibility a government shutdown is coming. Federal employees will not be paid during the shutdown. If the debt ceiling is reached and the Fed has run out of options to pay creditors, the U.S. government will not make those payments.
Could all this be averted? Yes. And we better hope there are enough adults in Congressional leadership to prevent it.

Quoted from Rdoyle1978:

That’s not what was said in the justification for the credit downgrade

Quoted from WeirPinball:

And how about no investing for congress

Quoted from o-din:

Yeah, I get to drive by the gas stations when I'm out and about. More like over 6 dollars. I saw diesel for 8 bucks at that station with the dinosaur. Glad I don't need that. I just put the card in the machine at Costco when I need it and fill it up. But our governor was on the news yesterday and says he doesn't understand why it's happening here more than anywhere else and he is on it.

Quoted from TheFamilyArcade:

Since you brought it up, what hardships (non health or relationship related) are you currently facing? Economic or otherwise?

Quoted from Oaken:

Must of missed the before/after on the recession definition. Also, which “they” are we talking about? Fed reserve? Talking heads? pinnyheadhead ?
Can you help a brother out?

Quoted from BMore-Pinball:

deficits don't matter as much as people think they do

Quoted from nwpinball:

I don't think any investment strategy should revolve around planning on the U.S. defaulting on our debt. If there's one thing our dysfunctional politicians have shown us is while they like edge play, they are willing to drop their bull and compromise just before we go over the cliff. If we do go over that cliff, no investment strategy will save you. The problem with those what if/doomsday scenarios is the people that buy the gold and build the bunkers miss out on a ton of investment profit and don't live happy lives. They don't even live happy lives in the post-apocalyptic movies, they just survive a little longer.

Quoted from nwpinball:

Survivalists? I've met too many up here in the Northwest in small towns and at gun shows. No one hangs out with them, they smell bad and tend to be white power. And it's funny how many aren't great at camping, fishing, hunting and surviving, they are more concept guys, buying gold, hating government, and learning "survival" from Youtube videos. There are a few oldtimer ones that have skillz though, my dad's 85 and one of the biggest old school gun collectors in the state, he's got some friends that have full bunkers that have lived that life for 5 or 6 decades.

Quoted from Nicholastree:

He didn't seem intolerant at all. Just seemed like he peacefully coexists with some seriously batshit crazy people. [quoted image]