nsplayr

I got the TFCSD waiver signed recently with 11 years of prior commissioned service. Former active duty CSO, then Guard CSO, soon to be RPA pilot. The unit wrote the letter and handled the process, all I had to do was get them to hire me. Cavet that it took over 2 years for my package to be complete with all waivers signed, but that’s more of a hit on the Guard training bureaucracy than the TFCSD process specifically. Good luck!

In AFSOC at least we have had the option for 2-piece multicam flight suits for a long time. After working exercise plans for a little while, we ended up giving guys the gouge that on a CONUS exercise, it was smart to wear bags as the crew. When one of the team dudes comes into the planning room and wants to talk to the Air Force guys, the bags make it a lot clearer who that is. Personally I see the upside to the 2-piece and have enjoyed the benefits of the Billy Badass combat shirts and quick access for times when ordnance needs to make an emergency egress while deployed. That being said, they can take my green bags from my cold dead hands. Looking cool (and sounding cool on the radio) is at least 69% of the job of an aviator and I won’t have it any other way. If I wanted to join the Army I would have just eaten a few more crayons as a toddler 😎

I mean, you don't have to believe me, but I honestly didn't have a problem with Gorsuch, Alito or Roberts. I had a big problem with the way Gorsuch was named to a seat held open for nakedly partisan reasons, but he seems like a good guy. I don't agree with his judicial philosophy, which is largely shared by all the conservative members of the court, but that's nothing against him or them personally. I was very concerned by the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, and especially by his demeanor during the second hearing. It's not clear he can remain nonpartisan when under pressure, his argumentative tone with some of the Senators questioning him was unbecoming, and it's pretty clear to me he was lying under oath about his drinking habits in high school and college. Those drinking habits wouldn't on their own be that problematic given his life since then, but lying under oath will always be a big deal. But, he's confirmed now, so not much can be done about all that. I still wish Kavanaugh had been withdrawn, but I hope he turns out to be a good justice. Given his age, he'll be on the court until I'm a crusty old retiree on Medicare, so fingers crossed.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/10/04/report-trump-may-fire-air-force-secretary-wilson-over-space-force/ BLUF: Secretary Wilson May get fired over slow rolling Space Force 😑

Go ahead and vote, if this is the guy the GOP wants then they should have the votes to get him. Remained true the whole time. Glad at least some kind of investigation happened at a bare minimum. Still would not vote for him and his testimony during the second hearing was very problematic from my point of view.

In Kavanaugh’s case it’s the Senate and the President. For elected leaders it’s the voters and sometimes the parties. Corporate leaders typically answer to boards and shareholders. If it’s a criminal matter then it’s usually police and prosecutors. Why are you asking? Feel like I’m not picking up what you’re putting down. Got it, slippery slope into mob rule where accusations alone are judge, jury and executioner etc. etc., that’s clearly not the case here nor in the vast majority of instances. Kavanaugh will get to defend himself and frankly it looks like the senate GOP has zero interest in the outcome of the hearing on Thursday because they scheduled a committee vote on Friday morning so 🤷‍♂️

Nicely played sir! As always when dealing with Big Blue...YMMV.

My experience was: You cannot 7-day opt if you have greater than 2 years ADSC on the RNLTD to your new assignment, you don't even have the option if you have > 2 years retainability Once you have a separation date set as a result of executing a 7 day opt, you cannot Palace Chase. You can however Palace Front if you plan on going to the Guard which will help assure as seamless transfer and no breaks in service (worked for me) You're also not eligible for things like VSP, which I unfortunately missed out on since I already had a separation date set; not applicable right now but recorded for posterity The clock does start on notification. I was notified by an AFPC email while deployed approx. 4 months prior to my RNLTD and had 7 days from that time to decide Big Blue can absolutely send you anyways - I was sent on my assignment with 11.69 months of retainability, i.e. far short of the "normal" 24-month minimum for a PCS That being said, I think most people end up remaining in place and serving as required at their current duty station, at least that's what happened to some other folks who 7 day opt'd the same assignment I eventually had to go on Definitely get smart on the appropriate regs, and if you can, gain the support of your SQ/CC and functional manager for your desired COA May the odds ever be in your favor!

Re: Kavanaugh, you'll get to hear more about it on Thursday apparently. My credible evidence is that the accuser told others about the incident years ago, initially came forward anonymously i.e. not seeking spotlight, and is now willing to testify under oath publically after her identity was revealed. What does she have to gain by going public on this exactly other than death threats? Let's have one standard for abuse and enforce it no matter who the person is. If what Ellison did or what Kavanaugh did is serious enough and true, then they shouldn't be in positions of power. I'm perfectly happy for Democrats who are abusers to resign alongside the Republicans who are abusers. Can you say the same? If it's a criminal matter then let the justice system do its thing. But politics is politics and no one needs to vote for, support, nominate or confirm someone that has credible allegations pending against them. There are thousands of political leaders (or judges) that live stand-up lives of public service and can fill the positions vacated by those who rightfully resign or withdraw. If Dr. Ford's testimony isn't compelling and these allegations fall apart, then Kavanaugh can pass go and be confirmed; if the opposite is true he should withdraw and the President can nominate someone else.

McConnell has no reason to rush. A) held the Scalia seat open for so long, B) GOP will control the senate until at least January and likely 2 years beyond that. Even if Dems win back the senate in Nov, and it would be pretty hard to do so this cycle, it’s not like those new folks are sworn in right away. I get that you’re saying the GOP wants to hurry, but I genuinely don’t understand why. And I don’t care about he parties being squeaky clean when it comes to process because neither is, I care more about the nominee being squeaky clean as a person. The last 5 recent nominees basically were and were confirmed pretty quickly with votes from both parties.

Predicted. From the RAND study, page xiv: "The method uses a two-stage modeling approach. A first stage uses a flexible machine-learning algorithm (Generalized Boosted Models) to predict sexual assault from a range of individual service member characteristics, as well as the observable characteristics of the installations and commands. A second stage uses a Bayesian multilevel model that combines the prediction from the first phase with random effects for each installation and command. The overall prevalence estimate for a given installation or command is then computed as the predicted probability of sexual assault averaged over the Bayesian posterior distributions for all of the individuals in the installation, with each person weighted as a function of the portion of the period he or she was assigned to that installation." So...I'm not a statistician but I'll guess and say it's voodoo. BL: check your 6 and don't engage in illegal fuckery while at UPT.

A good round-up of why more women don't come forward after being abused or assaulted. Here's my proposal: investigate every allegation and punish those who are guilty, regardless of party or status or anything else. As a man who respects women, I'm happy to have a society rid of men who don't. I loved Al Franken as a Senator, but he groped some women and that's not gonna fly anymore and he resigned. Could have stood for an investigation there perhaps, but he did the right thing if he did what his accusers said. Like I mentioned before, these type of allegations didn't come up against Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, or Gorsuch. Nor did they come up against McCain or Romney, or Palin or Ryan. Or Bush or Cheney. So rather than a widespread tactic of the left, I'd say credible allegations of sexual assault have come up against far fewer people than you'd think if it's really all just a liberal hit-job. Come to think of it, I can think of one other high-ranking GOP leader who has been credibly accused of, and even bragged about sexual assault on tape though...humm...weird 🤔 He won his race though, so this rarely-used liberal super-tactic doesn't even appear to be very effective... Look, I'm not sure what happened with Ford and Kavanaugh, but we should find out before we confirm him to be a Supreme Court Justice for the next 30+ years, don't ya think? Kavanaugh denies it whole-heartedly, which is what an innocent person would do, so let's have him, Dr. Ford, and other relevant witnesses testify to their stories under oath and sort it out; there is no rush. If he didn't do it then by all means have the vote and he will be confirmed. It's not really about the politics here because if the President pulled him tonight and replaced him with another equally conservative nominee that's an upstanding citizen, I'd still be pissed that they're replacing Kennedy, but I would not fault the GOP-controlled Senate for confirming them because y'all have the votes. Elections matter. Holding hearings and voting on nominees is what the Senate is supposed to do from what I recall in civics class...paging Judge Garland... "Plowing ahead" with Kavanaugh, as McConnell so articulately said today, is foolish, short-sighted, and an example of exactly what most of us hate in politicians. No regard for the facts, no real effort even made to find them out, just push ahead with your predetermined agenda no matter what and don't let the other side ever "win." The worst case scenario for the country is Kavanaugh is confirmed and then more info comes out about this incident, or other women come forward with additional credible accusations. Why risk that potential debacle? But none of y'all probably care about my late-night thoughts on all this...I'm basically just shouting into the void here. I hope he didn't do it as he claims, because we don't need someone who committed sexual assault on the Supreme Court.

I mean the Mueller investigation is short by historical standards and there have been dozens of guilty pleas and indictments but ok... As of today, Mueller is on day 492 for those keeping score at home, i.e. below the first tick mark on the chart above and just over halfway to the average. Whitewater lasted longer than Bill Clinton's entire two-term presidency FFS and Iran-Contra lasted over six and a half years! I do agree with you that Kavanaugh wasn't a great choice given his Bush-era baggage and that Barrett would have been better. McConnell seemed to agree before the nomination was made. I maintain that if these allegations are true, Kavanaugh should be withdrawn and someone like Barrett should be nominated in his place. She would almost certainly win confirmation.

I'll take the bait: If these allegations are true, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. Sexual assault is not ok regardless of what decade it happened in. If the allegations are found to be false after an investigation, press with a vote. These narratives about how things were different then, it was just rough housing, maybe it was someone else, this is a Dem hit job, etc. are appalling. Kavanaugh is flatly denying this ever happened or that he was even at the party in question, and that's the only defense that should be acceptable. If he didn't do this, sorry that false allegations were made and press with a vote that will almost certainly be in his favor. If he did commit this assault and is lying, that's disqualifying, end of story. Not sure why folks are coming up with all these alternative narratives that build a permission structure to waive this whole situation off regardless when Kavanaugh himself is outright denying everything. The fact that white, male, conservative justices like Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch were all nominated, confirmed with votes from both parties, and installed on the court without these kind of allegations kind of negates the idea that this is simply a Dem hit job. I mean, anything is possible, but we probably should have come up with this tactic a few justices ago right? Occam's Razor - he did it or Ford is lying and decided to set her seemingly nice life on fire very publically, I doubt very highly there is some conspiracy one way or the other. To me, the accuser has very, very little to gain here by making this public, and she did not seem to want to back in July before her name leaked out. Kavanaugh has a great deal to lose if this is true. We should hear from them both under oath, as well as other relevant witnesses like Mark Judge, who Ford says was in the room during the alleged assault. If after an investigation happens the allegations are true, withdraw him, nominate Hardiman or whoever else, and press...the GOP will still hold the WH and the Senate until January at a bare minimum, likely longer. After holding the Scalia seat open for over a year, I don't see any reason whatsoever for hasty speed to confirm Kavanaugh to a lifetime appointment that will likely last 30+ years. I don't support Kavanaugh for a variety of other reasons, but accusations of sexual assault shouldn't be a partisan issue. I would have voted no on Gorsuch too if I were a Senator, but he seemed upstanding and clean as a whistle, and that's what we should all want in each and every one of our Supreme Court justices.

Returning next week, re-starting Tech until his training date. Ugh...can't say I have a great opinion of her work. Can't see how things would get worse when she finally pulls the lever for good.

Waiver approved, just waiting for Cathy to assign me a training date. Should happen by Friday inshallah. Action’s waiver is still pending unfortunately because as an O4 his package had to go to HAF for some reason 🙄

I just waited over a year for a TFCS waiver in the Guard 😂 Granted, I am over even the new 8 year limit, but still...good to know Big Blue at least recognizes how f-ed up this process is. Glad to see less bureaucracy and more blanket approvals for things that make sense. IMHO anyone with enough commissioned service time to meet the ADSC for whatever wings they’re trying to earn should be allowed to proceed without needing waivers or anything. The AF doesn’t know they have you beyond that point anyways. Example: Capt Snuffy, prior AMB with 9 years, going to UPT. Still has plenty of time to serve out a full 10 year ADSC before hitting the TFCS limit of 28 years unless you make O6. RPA/CSO/AMB are only 6 year AFSCs, so the aperture is even wider. What percentage of these waivers are ever denied? If we do all this sick dance to just rubber stamp everyone because we’re dying for aviators...can we just eliminate the dick dancing part??

IRS Rules: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/rollovers-of-after-tax-contributions-in-retirement-plans Good explanation: https://www.madfientist.com/after-tax-contributions/ Another article: https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T037-C000-S004-new-path-to-a-tax-free-roth-conversion.html Pressed-to-test last year. The first week of Jan 2018 I called up Fidelity (manages my civ employer's 401k) and rolled out my after-tax contributions in two checks, my contributions and the growth. Growth gets deposited into a traditional IRA, my contributions deposited into my Roth IRA, which I had also maxed the previous year. Now all future growth of those after-tax contributions happens tax-free inside the Roth, effectively allowing me to contribute more than the normal $5,500 Roth IRA limit. Note that your employer's plan must include the ability to make after-tax 401k contributions, and not all do. My employer only added that feature recently when we switched to Fidelity. Also note that you should absolutely take advantage of the full tax advantages allowed to you, i.e. take $18.5k in normal pre-tax 401k contributions, then do additional via after-tax as you can afford it. This year for instance, I hit my $18.5k limit for pre-tax 401k contributions in July, so from Aug-Dec I'll make after-tax contributions, and next Jan I will roll all those Aug-Dec after-tax contributions into my Roth IRA and any growth into a traditional IRA just like I did last year. All my IRAs are with Vanguard and I highly recommend them for low-cost indexing and ease of use. These tricks do no apply, IMHO, if you have any debt besides a mortgage, nor if you're not already maxing your Roth IRA (and your spouse's if you have one) AND are hitting the normal $18.5k pre-tax or Roth 401k limit already. The argument can be made to do this if you have low interest rate debt like some student loans or auto loans and your investments return higher than the interest rates on that debt, but to me, behavioral psychology points to taking the easy, guaranteed win of paying off debt and giving yourself more safety cushion in terms of cash flow, which you can then decide to invest when your debts are paid. YMMV. If the above paragraph is all taken care of, proceed past "Go" and collect financial independence. Good luck! Start early too...I'm not that old and I still wish someone had taught me this stuff on day one of my career because time is your best friend when it comes to compounding.

@MilitaryToFinance you’re not wrong, in your fisnncial conclusions but: A) the article basically concludes that Roth is better for almost everyone, so same end result B) I’m in the military, have deployed many times to combat zones, but now am Guard and have a civilian job, so the discussion is relevant to me personally and many here who are ARC/retired and working lucrative civ jobs You are correct that the ideal beneficiary of a traditional 401k or IRA is a high wage earner living in a state with high state taxes who is self-disciplined enough to reinvest the tax savings from current-year deductions. If you are a young pup on AD and deploying, Roth is your friend 100%, but the point of the article is that Roth is better for most people anyways regardless of speculation on future tax rates. Personally, I max 2x Roth IRAs for myself and my wife, and do Roth TSP when I am on orders. In my civ job, I do traditional 401K because unfortunately Roth isn’t an option in our plan. When I hit the 401K contribution limit for the year, I switch to contributing to an after-tax 401K (which differs from Roth) because that money can be laundered into a Roth IRA the following calendar year above and beyond normal Roth IRA limits.

I'm not a user of Wealthfront, but they wrote a great post about a different way to think about the Roth vs Traditional decision. https://blog.wealthfront.com/roth-401k-vs-traditional-401k/ Key points: "A Roth 401(k) enables you to pay a small tax bill upfront in exchange for what is almost undoubtedly a larger tax bill later. Thus, most discussion of Roth accounts tends to devolve into a debate on how much higher (or lower) tax rates will be in the future. However, for most people, the issue is more basic. If you are a disciplined saver, you can get the same effect and the current tax deduction. You can save in a regular 401(k) now, take the deduction, and then save an additional sum in a taxable account to pay your tax bill on retirement. So the question boils down to: Do you have the self-control and spending discipline to save money now to pay off taxes later? Or do you need the crutch of the Roth account?" "Effectively, any kind of a Roth account can act like a “forced savings” of money you’ll need to pay taxes on your retirement savings. Most people need that kind of forced savings, which behavioral experts call a “precommitment strategy” – a way to overcome your own lack of self-control. From a behavioral finance point of view, people who invest in Roth accounts are likely to end up with more after-tax income when they retire."

Tennessee is 37th in terms of percentage of the population with an undergraduate degree and below the overall US average, so we have a ways to go before the "shitter's full" on college degrees in the state. The (Republican) Governor and (Republican) state legislature have put into place programs to support the stated goal of 55% of the adult population with a degree or technical training certificate by 2025. I like the ambitious goal and I like that technical training is included, as it should be. I'm also a big believer that education shouldn't be job training, there is inherent value in additional education regardless of employment outcomes. Job training is also great and needed and can be part of a well-rounded education, but you won't find me scolding people for pursuing education regardless of the subject. "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people." - not an actual Thomas Jefferson quote, but likely derived from his writings & also true.

There is no purely socialist (or capitalist) government in the world. Ideology is a complex mix with no black and white. That being said the Nordic model of government has been very successful by many measures and that’s the model that most democratic socialists advocate. So that’s like 4-5 right there, plus most other advanced countries have parts and pieces like universal healthcare, guaranteed family medical and sick leave, etc. Room for debate on whether all that scales or what aspects of that model could be applicable here, of if it’s even desirable or not. But no body wants to live under Stalin, Chávez or Mao or whatever; it’s not some revelation to say those situations didn’t work out well.

It did! And thankfully so. Representative government is key. Taxation without representation is unjust. When I say “the government decides,” that really means we decide because we the people are the government. Many of those railing against “socialism” aren’t making the distinction between representative and authoritarian governments. I am 100% against authoritarian socialism just as vehemently as I am against authoritarian fascism or any other flavor of dictatorial government. As a service member sworn to protect & defend the constitution, that should go without saying for all of us.

Yea man, I'm not an idiot. Obviously things have cost. When you stay at a hotel that offers "free breakfast," it's not like you've found this oasis where the food has no cost, it's baked in to the price you pay for the room. There's no philosophical disagreement here. The argument for "free public college tuition" is that we as a society should value education enough to provide it at no or little out-of-pocket cost to students for up to 16 years. We currently do this for 12 years and in fact mandate that students attend school for much of that time. It's not some radical Stalinist jump to go from the government paying for 12 years from tax revenues to paying for 16 years from tax revenues. If you are against this, or other ways of using tax dollars, that's totally fine; it's also totally fine to be for those things. The arguments about how to allocate tax dollars, how many dollars should be available to allocate, and where those dollars come from, are the root-cause debates behind a huge amount of public policy. Back to higher education for a minute...Tennessee, where I live, is actually a leader in the effort to help more people afford college and currently provides two years of tuition-free community college or technical schooling to all graduating seniors in the state. There are also programs for adults who decided to work first but later want to earn degrees, as well as specific programs for Tennessee National Guard folks to earn four-year degrees, tuition-free. All of these programs were passed by a heavily republican state legislature and signed by our popular Republican governor in the last few years. They can tell you why this concept is not socialism. My reason for quoting you in my previous response was that you took an overly broad view of what is "socialism" and basically ended up saying that taxation never works and can't work due to fundamental human nature. The words you used, quoted below, very literally described taxation, not socialism. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of a tax is, "A charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes," which is exactly what you described. Pilot-proof summary: Taking money from people and using it for public purposes, with the government deciding on how much to take and how it's spent, is called taxation. You may be against both taxation and socialism, but let's allow words to have their correct meaning and not conflate the two concepts.