Hunter Rose

Max out TSP contributions or as close as possible (Currently $22.5K for 2023). I'd recommend ROTH TSP contributions because her tax bracket is pretty low as a 2LT. Put it in the C-Fund, which is a S&P 500 index fund Since the contributions go in monthly, she is dollar cost averaging in. Wait 10 or 20 years and she'll have a nice chunk of money accumulated for retirement.

Yep. Half of FY23 already gone and it hasn't even been released yet. Big AF is clueless, but they never stop surprising me on just how clueless they are.

Such as?

Logically, they should just keep the separated tiers as is and just increase them all by $500 each, but that would make too much sense so Big AF will likely only do aa "targeted study" of increased ACP this year to see if it makes sense for the entire rated force.😄 Just like the nonsense they have planned with the new $50K bonus. Over a decade of surveys and a Rand study and they still need to "trial" if they should just increase the bonus to $50K. Morons.

Thanks. I thought I might be reading an old Senate version with the $75K Bonus verbiage in it. Funny, as a $75K bonus might have been just enough tp actually make a dent in retention. A $50K bonus likely isn't enough to move the needle at all from where we are currently IMO. As usual, the US Gov't cheaps out...

Where do you find the different NDAA versions? I may be reading it wrong, but the version of the NDAA 2023 that pops up on Congress' page looks like it shows increases of Flight pay to $1,500 max and Pilot Bonus to $75,000 per year max. Not Sure if this is an old committee version or what, so the $50K Bonus may be accurate, just the first time I recall seeing that. Here's the verbiage from Congress' website (Aviation portions in BOLD and amends the monthly Flight Pay and Bonus sections of pertinent law): SEC. 612. INCREASE TO MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF CERTAIN BONUS AND SPECIAL PAY AUTHORITIES. (a) General Bonus Authority for Enlisted Members.--Section 331(c)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$75,000''; and (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$30,000'' and inserting ``$50,000''. (b) Special Bonus and Incentive Pay Authorities for Nuclear Officers.--Section 333(d)(1)(A) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$75,000''. (c) Special Aviation Incentive Pay and Bonus Authorities for Officers.--Section 334(c)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting ``$1,500''; and (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$35,000'' and inserting ``$75,000''. (d) Skill Incentive Pay or Proficiency Bonus.--Section 353(c)(1)(A) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting ``$1,750''.

So Guardian, I'll take your silence on the topic to mean you have no other comments or issues with anything else I said in the above post.

Nah, I just had to eat lunch and trying to disengage from an internet argument on abortion where neither one of us will convince the others. I don't see the abortion issue as black and white like you do. I do't think abortion is murder as you do. For the equivalency you've drawn between a person on life support and a zygote, not sure what point exactly you're asking? Absent a living will, the law allows the spouse/next of kin to take the person off life support and "destroy" or "murder" them as you put it. I don't have an issue with it. If I were a vegetable for 9 months I'd prefer someone take me off life support. For the rest of that post, I found it laughable you tried to dismiss my arguments as illogical and completely emotional at the end, while in the same post arguing "How would I feel if my rape victim mother aborted me?" and "But think of the Elon Musks and Einsteins we might have missed out on because they were aborted." Both were silly and nonsensical to me. The first, I could care less if my hypothetical rape victim mother aborted me, because I would have never been conscious or self aware to care about it. The second point about Elon Musk and Einstein I also felt silly. Who knows, and who cares? The flip side of that argument was maybe some of those abortions were the next Hitler, Stalin, Mao, other random criminal, murderer? Maybe the next Madeline Albright, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, or Madame Curie was prevented from acheiving their full potential because they were forced to have a baby as a teenager and drop out of school to care for it? Both seemed like emotional "think of the children" arguments to me that I usually see in the gun ban debates. Ultimately, we disagree. From what I can tell, you see the issue as completely black and white. Abortion = murder. All pregnancies must be carried to term regardless of the consequences (rape/incest/threat to the health of the murder). My personal views on abortion are that I think it's an extraordinary complicated issue. I think it's an extremely difficult and extremely personal decision. I usually think extremely difficult, complicated, and personal decisions are best left to the individual to make, not for the government to mandate. I think in the early stages of the pregnancy where it's a zygote that is not conscious or self aware the the mother should be able to choose to terminate the pregnancy (especially in case of rape/incest/health threat to the mother/ extreme genetic deformity, etc.), and her decision to get an abortion would not be murder to me. I oppose late term abortions, and think we as a society were probably pretty close with the best policy for all being abortions are legal until around the 8-12 week period.

This one seemed pretty weird to me, since people are taken off life support all the time for the exact reasons you quoted above. So you think taking someone off life support is murder, too?

I said rape/incest was the extreme case. I did not say it was rare. Based off older studies, about 5% or rapes result in pregnancy (about 30-40K rape pregnancies per year) and about 2+ million women will have to deal with a rape pregnancy in their lifetime. Add in more total numbers for incest cases. The numbers are likely higher today accounting for population growth. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6357953/ I find the fact that rape/incest exceptions were intentionally left out these new laws morally repugnant. The state should not further victimize an innocent woman who was raped by making her both have the child and be legally/financially responsible for the child. The choice should be left to the innocent victim, not the state. Coupled with seeming lack of care for what happens to the baby once it is born, I see huge cracks in the moral superiority of the Pro-Life movement and a good bit of cognitive dissonance in the "Pro-Life" term. I think a good percentage of the Pro-Life crowd just wants to control women and force their personal religious beliefs upon all their fellow citizens.

I understand your above view, but the "taking the life of an innocent" portion pre-supposes that life begins at conception. Lots of fellow citizens don't share that view. Lots of people think a fetus at 8 weeks has neither consciousness nor self-awareness, so is not an "innocent life". But I can respect your view and understand your moral reasoning. However, what baffles me is the Texas law and other recent ones explicitly decided to leave out exceptions for pregnancy from rape and incest. So yes, the Texas law absolutely forces a woman who is pregnant from rape/incest to have an unwanted rape/incest baby, through threat of force by the state (incarceration and/or financial ruin through lawsuits by fellow citizens). This intentional oversight really cuts the legs out from under the the moral high ground proponents of these recent anti-abortion laws are trying to stand on. This is the extreme case, but I don't find the state forcing the financial and legal burden of raising a child on a victim moral. The same line of reasoning holds for regular pregnancies, especially if you don't believe life begins at conception. The state is forcing a woman to have a child. Additionally, the Pro-Life crowd is hell bent on making sure all these babies are born, but at the same time seems indifferent to the life of the child once it is out of the womb. I see zero companion bills that promote state enforced/state paid for care standards for all these unwanted children they are forcing to be brought into the world.

In what way? To think that if the state forces a woman to bear a child through threat of force than the state also should have a responsibility for the child?

This is a point that never seems to get discussed enough. there never seems to be any proposed legislation by the Pro-Life crowd to care for these children they forced to be brought into the world. It just seems they want to control women. My opinion has always been if Pro-Lifers want to force a woman to carry a baby to term using the threat of force from the state, then the state should be responsible for the financial obligation and legal responsibility of raising the child. This should include full medical care/zero bills for the mother when pregnant annd zero legal responsibility for the unwanted child once born. I'd be curious how many rabid Pro-Lifers would be outraged at a bill that raised their taxes to provide the financial well being for all these saved babies they proclaim to want to protect? Or would they be perfectly content letting a child live in squalor and then blame the mother for being irresponsible?

The fear of nuclear escalation will ALWAYS be there. However, at some point we'll have to face Russia and China and demonstrate where the line is. To me, Russia did us the favor by invading Ukraine. Now is the time to teach them a lesson. One that hopefully China pays attention to and learns at the same time. The West and the free world seem to be waking up to the fact that Russia and China are not our friends, and welcoming them into and allowing them to reap the benefits of the free world will do nothing to assuage them. Put simpler: F@&k Russia, and F@&k China.

Also let's not forget the Mig-15s piloted by actual Russian pilots in Korea.

Was there a $35K/3yr option for folks who previously had a bonus and are done with it? Or is the $35K only for initial eligible?

War is hell, but videos like that mean I I could give a shit about high gas prices...just send as much armament to Ukraine as we can so they can kill as many Russian invaders as possible.

I'm personally hoping there's a two year bonus option and I can finish my career as a line IP in the FTU.

The target is still 65% to maintain status quo manning. Big Air Force hasn't made that in years...probably approaching a decade now.

More posts like this of watching Russkies burn and less posts about who has the bigger geopolitical phallus. The arguments of the last 15 pages have definitely culminated and it's time to move onto a new branch/sequel. More posts about Ukrainians killing Russians and how we can stick it to Putin/Russia now and in the future please!

So any word on when they actually plan to release this years bonus details? Keeping out hope for a $35K bonus with 1 year commitment...daddy needs a new Jet Ski before he retires!

It's sarcasm. Although big Air Force did try this, what, 5-6 years ago? It lasted all of a week I think. Once the reg was published, pilots adamantly refused to accept ADSC for upgrade. Once Big AF realized the pilots called their bluff, they relented. Who knows, though. The Generals/Colonels who champion keeping pilots have proven time and time again what utterly clueless morons they are, so I guess it wouldn't really surprise me if they tried it again.

With the fiscal year over, I was curious where the take rates ended up. They were abysmal, as we all knew they would be. Overall rated take rates for Initial Eligible folks was 42.5%, but that is artificially inflated primarily by higher take rates among CSOs and RPA pilots. Fixed Wing Pilot initial take rate was 35.4%. AFSC breakouts were as follows: 11B - 30% 11F - 29% 11M - 31% 11H - 56% 11S - 54% Can't wait to see the spin if this gets any visibility in Congress.

The Air Force is good at paying me on time on the 1st and 15th of every month...

I'll enjoy the schadenfreude. I'd feel a little sympathy if the AF had left the bonus at pre-COVID terms. But they didn't. They took the risk that COVID would affect the airlines longer, and offered a bonus with shit terms with less money/longer minimum commitments. They gambled and lost. So to hell with a big AF that makes it pretty clear they do not appreciate their rated force.