Danny Noonin

No, that was actually just good advice.

Variety, options, performance (sometimes). Lots of things. This is your money dude. Don't be helpless. Dive in and figure it out. I'm serious, go to the bookstore and get one of the "dummies" books to start yourself out.

Dude, this is ridiculous. You have to learn to google. IRAs/Roth IRAs can be in mutual funds but don't have to be. It's simply a type of account. TSP has a variety of mutual fund-ish options. Read their website. Other companies (Vanguard/TRowe/USAA/Fidelity/etc) offer a variety of funds depending on what you are looking for. Stock funds, bond funds, large cap, small cap, international, lifecycle funds...Go to the libarary or bookstore and get a "investing for dummies" book or something basic along those lines to learn more. Read about asset allocation, fees, dollar cost averaging, risk/reward. Here is your final--and most important--lesson in personal finance for today...never take financial advice from a pilot or from someone on the internet. In this case, you are trying for both.

We're saying don't put retirement money into a regular TSP/IRA/401K style plan until you've maxed out your Roth IRA and now Roth TSP...either Roth option has the same tax advantage over traditional plans for someone in your shoes. As for "non-TSP" Roth account (i.e. Roth IRA), that's up to you. TSP gives you limited options, but low cost. Roth IRAs have tons options (mutual funds, etc), some of which are low cost, some less so. TSP is easiest to set up and you can contribute up to $17K, but it's also easy to open an account at Vanguard, TRowe Price, USAA, etc and you can systematically contribute up to the $5K Roth IRA limit.

Without a nav, FE or wingman in the jet with you, who's to say you are any good?

Yeah, how do you do that without a wingman telling you where to go?

Except "quality funds" are not the reason to go Roth before TSP for retirement savings. The differences are in the way they are taxed. As a 2Lt making no money (therefore paying a low tax rate), max Roth first. Pay taxes on the money while you are in the 15% bracket because odds are you will be in a higher bracket in retirement. After you've done that, put as much as you can in TSP.

No need to wait. You can contribute up to $5K in a Roth IRA starting today.

Seems to me that's the point Rainman was making to you

"You people" did not refer to enlisted people. Nothing to do with rank. It referred to all the idiots who cannot put minor shit into perspective and/or deal with things like grownups without telling on each other or needing regs to back them up on basic professional relations. So on the "technically wrong" part...according to this story, the TSgt made this "correction" (a bullshit term) from across a chow hall. Don't know/don't care, but it doesn't sound like it was quietly done in close proximity. So...yes that is technically wrong. Just as it would be "technically wrong" for me to do the same in reverse. That's not how to handle "corrections" professionally or respectfully.

Holy shit, really? Are you people this dysfunctional? Because a major ignores a TSgt, that warrants the TSgt telling on him to his "chain of command"? Are you fucking kidding me? Is this kindergarden?

Pawn, First of all, do you even know what "top cover" means? Regs can't give you top cover. People give top cover. Second, do you even know what the "stand at attention" part of the protocol reg even says? It doesn't give officers permission to light people up and make them stand at attention. It says juniors will stand at attention when addressed by a senior ranking officer. So--taking that part of the reg literally--if you are a captain, you should be at attention when a major asks you a question about the schedule in the hallway of your squadron. And the one chuck behind the desk should snap to attention when you ask for your tail number. It's fucking absurd and therefore it's useless. So where is the "top cover" in it? What the reg does say that is semi-applicable to your train of thought however is that juniors shall speak to those that outrank them in a respectful and deferential way (paraphrase). But does that really need to be on paper to provide you "top cover" as you say, or do you think everyone can agree that is pretty much obvious? Your dude didn't get sent home because of a lack of "top cover" in a reg and I can't believe you are so immature that we have to keep talking about it.

No it wasn't, so you must misunderstand mine. There are very few reasons ever to stand someone at attention. My example about standards is not one of them, it would simply allow for a discussion which is merely facilitated by the fact that such a ridiculous line exists in a reg. If one of those reasons does actually occur and you are worried about needing "top cover" because you feel you are afraid of a little scrutiny after the fact then you are a pussy.

Okay whatever. Is that shit truly common or are there just some egregious examples like yours that grow into legends? Cause I can give you a million examples of Es going to some hilarious extremes to avoid me but I've never seen the opposite.

You're fucking kidding me, right? Do they laugh at you? You're making no sense. So your stance is "not really" (i.e. something other than "hell no") on standing at attention when a lieutenant is simply addressed by a captain, but you don't expect a salute? No it's not. It's a fucking horrible way. What's the matter with you? You need a reg to require those junior to you to stand at attention such that you can "exert your authority"? Are you really this big of a pussy as an officer that you can't exert your authority any other way? There is one thing--and one thing only--that the 'stand at attention' line in the regs (it's the protocol reg, by the way) is good for and that is this: when someone junior bows up to you with that chickenshit "we must adhere to standards or the enemy will win" argument to point out failures in uniform wear or mustache width (which along with PT tests seem to be the only things that fall into the SNCO "standards" category these days), you can throw this "standard" back in their face because sure as shit they won't be standing at attention by default when you're talking to them because that's absurd. If "standards" are that important regardless of context that TSgt Snuffy can throw his "I am charged by the CSAF to enforce standards because I am an NCO" crap, then I sure as shit can use this as a teaching moment to point out to him that if that's the case, he should be standing at attention or the terrorists will win. It tends to put "standards" in a bit of perspective. I hear this all the time from NCOs but I've never in my entire life seen an officer go out of his way to avoid a salute. Not even once. And I've been around quite a while. I believe that it happens, but I don't get why. How fucking difficult is it to salute? Why is it a big deal for anyone, O or E?

You just can't stop yourself from opening your cake hole when you have no idea what the fuck and why, can you?

For those considering the leap, anyone who thinks they can get out now and still get to an active duty retirement as a part time guardsman/reservist is smoking crack. It absolutely has happened in the past, but that was because of 1) the war(s) and 2) the fact that active duty staffers did not understand that OCO man days were paid for with active duty money, not ARC money. The world has changed and now that active duty has wised up, the budgets for man days have dried up. With Iraq "over" and Afghanistan "winding down" there will be no money or reason to pay anyone that many active duty days anymore. Certainly not the literally YEARS with of days it would take to get there from here.

No need to sort through multiple posts and no need to infer anything. The only word you needed to understand context was "mobilized". It was in the very post you quoted. And it has quite a specific meaning.

Individual RESERVISTS in RESERVE UPT units are getting MOBILIZED? For real?

So UPT units are getting mobilized?

Pile on... Cadets get "fam" flights so as to be "non-interference", i.e. you are merely sandbagging on an actual training sortie that would fly anyway and you are not supposed to be a LIMFAC...so if the airspace is best over water, you need water survival, if the mission requires above 18k, then you need a chamber card, if you're puking, too bad so sad here comes 9G again, so turn off the intercom, drop your mask and don't even think about making the crew chief clean up your chunks...by all this I mean they don't want to have to alter missions to accommodate your lack of qualifications/training or for your comfort. They're supposed to be relatively painless on squadrons. Incentives, however, are the exact opposite. They are supposed to be sorties dedicated to the person in the backseat. They are not supposed to be training sorties at all. If the backseater wants to do nothing but pull Gs and aileron rolls, fine it's his sortie. If all he wants to do is sight see because he feels airsick, fine it's his sortie. This is why it takes so long for people to get scheduled for their incentive sorties...they have to dedicate an entire sortie just to that guy in back and give up a training line to do it. Squadrons understandably dont want to do that very often. So it's not even close to the same concept as the fam where a real training mission is happening and the dude in back is just along for the ride. Having said all of that, fams and incentives--in reality--can look an awful lot alike and may or may not have happened in the past within the same formation. but that's not typical at all since they truly don't mesh well--by design. So if you DO want to fly (like I said get your fucking story straight) then man up and try. Fam flights are not the same as incentives so you wouldn't be jumping in front of incentive riders in line. But it's unlikely you'll be in the same 2 ship as your little boyfriend. And I would not even ask the question if I were you.

You're fucking kidding me, right? You don't even want to fly, but you want to figure out a way for a T-38 squadron to schedule--and the taxpayers to fund--what would need to be a dedicated sortie for you (to pair up with your buddy's incentive)? And all this so he can look over and see the same fucking generic visor and O2 mask he would see on anyone else? UFB. You need to get your bullshit story straight if you do actually want to fly. If you don't want to fly, then cut this shit out now because--I'm totally serious here-- no one should have to waste their valuable time on you for such a creepy reason as "your buddy" wants you to fly next to him. But to answer your question...cadets get fam flights. your bud would get an incentive flight. They are technically different. Incentives are also technically supposed to be single ship, although that gets ignored semi-frequently. Both types require a flight surgeon checkout and egress training. Chamber cards are only applicable if you go over 18K--doubtful they put your mx bud through that for an incentive so if by some fucking ridiculous miracle you did fly in the same formation it would theoretically be N/A for you too. Your "buddy" can look all this stuff up in the regs himself, by the way. So if it's true that this is all for him (cringe) then make him do the fucking work to look it up.

I seriously don't know who is a bigger dumbass... The person who had the bright idea to install a black marble bench intended for public use that sits baking in the Texas heat or the person who thought it was a good idea to sit on a black stone bench in Texas in August. How did no one see this result from 10 miles away? Despite this lady being a moron herself, she'll walk away with a lot of money here.

So you don't want to ask for a ride in general, but you do want to ask to be in a specific formation? How can you accomplish the second without accomplishing the first? I don't think you're making any sense here. Am I missing something?

That was in a different reg (Protocol).