Drunkard

The players union will fight that tooth and nail under the guise of protecting players, even if smaller pads could prove to be just as safe. It would be easier to just make the nets bigger.

I didn't watch the last game, but I think the main reason our shot percentage is so low is that we don't camp out in front of the net and block the goalies vision enough. Surprisingly, Reinhart seems to be doing it more than others and until guys like Moulson, Foligno, and others follow suit our shot percentage is going to stay low. Goalies these days are too good at stopping pucks when their view is not obstructed. Crowding the crease doesn't make for exciting, fast paced hockey, but it's still the most effective way to score.

Neo, Thank you for the response. I think we agree overall but due to our own personal ideologies we choose to look at the same situation differently, which is completely fine. Capitalism on it's own could not survive and Socialism without private enterprise could not survive either without turning into communism and nobody is arguing for that. We have a mixed economy and we always will. Conservatives tends to view that as predominantly capitalistic because they aspire to be completely self reliant but it's not the case. I try to highlight the reasons it couldn't exist without government intervention and assistance. There are tons of examples of successful programs that are either completely socialist in nature or could not be accomplished without the government stepping in. You can choose to believe the National Highway System is not socialist whatsoever but it's a government program that was completely funded by tax dollars (federal and state but mostly federal) and it was done to benefit the public at large and the government itself). Businesses would have never done it on their own because no business reaps enough benefit from the roads themselves to justify the enormous cost of such a project. Groups of businesses were not going to band together to build the highway system because it still would have been too expensive and they would have had difficultly policing the roads after spending tons of money to build them and keeping others off of them who didn't contribute. It had to be the government.

You must be thinking of Howie Feltersnatch.

It could be and I just missed it. Seems very hush hush.

Texas booger sugar overdose apparently. I haven't seen a single comment about a bad knee, ankle, shoulder, or anything like that. Not even the ever popular upper or lower body injury reported to my knowledge.

I get the same feeling from him. Plus it seems like he used the exact same phrase in the previous debate when he was talking about his mother. I can't remember what it was at the moment though.

Traditional are Roth are the two basic types of Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA). Both types of accounts receive special tax benefits but the timing of the benefit is what makes them different. Traditional IRAs: you pay no taxes on the money now and are taxed when you withdraw the money (hopefully at a lower rate since in theory you will be retired by then and not working). Traditional Example: You earn $40,000 per year and you contribute $3,000 into a traditional IRA in 2015. You defer the taxes on that $3,000 so when you file your taxes your income is actually only $37,000 instead of $40,000. When you withdraw the money later on you will pay taxes on it as well as any market gains on the investment based on your tax rate in the year you are withdrawing the money. Roth IRAs: you pay full taxes on the money now based on whatever rate you are currently being taxed at and when you withdraw the money later there are no taxes due on the amount you contributed or the gains that were made on the investment. Roth Example: You earn $40,000 per year and you contribute $3,000 into a Roth IRA in 2015. When you file your taxes you claim all $40,000 but when you withdraw the money later on in retirement the taxes are considered paid and you owe no taxes on the money you contributed or the market gains from the investment. To me, Roth's are better because you are not taxed on the increased value of the investment/market gains. Also, because you know your tax rate now but don't know what rates will be in the future when you retire but some people prefer to defer the taxes now. 401ks work similar to Traditional IRA's. What makes them better is when your employer matches your contribution. If you put in $3,000 and they put in $3,000 it's like gaining 100% return on your investment right from the start (plus or minus whatever the market does).

Tough to say for sure without the details but TIAA Cref is highly reputable and it's great that you started early. Do you know if your annuity is fixed or variable? Hopefully it's variable given your age because the risk of variable should yield a higher return over time and you've got 30-40 years until retirement (I assume). Once you get closer to retirement age you can always move it back to a fixed one to ensure against a market setback and to protect your gains. As for the stocks and bonds it depends on which of the numerous choices you have but you can looks at the fees or each fund relative to the other options. When in doubt opt for an indexed fund with the lowest fees. You should definitely be much more stock heavy rather than bond heavy while you are young and gradually shift towards the more conservative funds that favor bonds as you get closer to retirement.

Thanks. I know my dollars and cents and spent a few years in the industry (interned at Merrill Lynch in college and worked for a couple insurance companies as well as a smaller brokerage firm after my undergrad). I honestly love the analysis part of viewing the market but I was a horrible salesman and that's what made me leave. I can't stand selling stuff and having my income tied to commissions. Unfortunately there seems to be about 100 or more sales jobs for every analyst job in the industry so I got the hell out. Despite the fun part of trying to hand pick stocks and funds that will outperform their benchmarks, the general rule still holds true. The vast majority of these fund managers will not beat their index benchmark over time, especially not after you take out their fees.

I've studied accounting, finance, business, and economics in school and I always aced my classes. Without delving into the weeds too much your best bet is an index fund like something that tracks the S&P500. Most fund managers don't beat the market (index) consistently and even the ones who generally do will not beat the market after you subtract out their fees. If finances are tight but you want to start somewhere you can start with an index fund that works like a traditional mutual fund. I prefer using USAA because their fees are the absolute lowest I've seen but you can find low fees fund through Vanguard, Fidelity, or other places. Depending on where you open an account you can start small ($300 for an account minimum or you can set it up by putting in an auto draft of something like $50 a month with no up front minimum deposit). You don't pay taxes on any gains unless you sell your shares and if you hold your shares for at least a year before selling you get a tax break on your capital gains (politically I disagree with this but it's the rules so might as well take advantage of them since they exist) but if you find yourself in a financial pinch anytime in the near future you can cash out all or part of your fund and pay no fees or penalties just taxes on any gains). Later on when you feel more comfortable that you won't need the money you can set up a basically identical type of account except it is housed/earmarked as a Roth IRA. This retirement account distinction gives you tax advantages I can explain if you're interested but also means you have penalties if you withdraw the money prior to retirement age. As for the 401k if it is offered through your work you should definitely opt in, if your employer matches on your contributions. Even if you can only afford the minimum (usually 1%) then they'll usually put in the same 1% and you can increase the amount you contribute later on as you earn more. It will have the same rules as a traditional IRA (not as good as a Roth IRA in my opinion) but it has the advantage of your employer matching your contribution.

I think that list is a fair synopsis of the Democratic platform, at least on the domestic side. I agree with it overall but I definitely understand that it's not for everyone since it doesn't worship at the altar of the small business owner that Conservatives claim to be so endeared towards. Businesses small, medium, and large should love the idea of a single payer system though. No more ObamaCare that way and no reason to have to hire multiple part time workers to avoid paying benefits. Decoupling your primary insurance benefits from your job is something I think all businesses should get behind because it gets them off the hook for an expensive perk that's not within their business MO. I responded to your Bernie Sanders/socialism question as well back on Page 370 (Post #14776) although I'm not sure if you ever saw it.

I think most of the Democrats seem to have a pretty simple and effective platform: Raise the minimum wage Reinstate Glass Steagall (other than Hillary) Support renewable energy to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels Rebuild our crumbling infrastructure Increase funding for education (including college) Raise taxes on wealthy businesses and individuals along with closing loopholes to pay for it Add in that Bernie Sanders would prefer to go to a single payer healthcare system (Medicare for all, not just those who are 65+) which would decouple a person's primary insurance from their place of employment and I think within a few years the economy would be on its way to complete recovery. The problem is that even if they win the White House it would still be like pulling teeth to get these measures through Congress. There would have to be negotiations and compromises which would stall the progress.

It's the GOP so they will each roll out their spin on Reaganomics to the extreme. They are under the guise that the economy is just this mythical raging beast that has been shackled by things such as taxes and regulation and if only taxes were cut or eliminated and regulation reduced we'd experience so much economic growth that it would make up for tax cuts and there will still be plenty of money leftover to fight evil doers overseas. Oh and expect them to worship at the altar of the small business owner while pitting the common worker as well as unions as every bit the enemy that the EPA is.

Yes, sir. I was half expecting Murphy to take advantage of the extra innings and extend his home run streak to 7 games, but I guess it wasn't meant to be. Glad to see Wright get a couple of base hits as well. He's only had a couple decent nights with the bat this entire post season. I'm sure he's still battling back from his back ailment though.

Shame to see the Mets lose after 14 innings but they'll have another chance tonight. Hopefully DeGrom can shut them down.

Ok. So apparently there are more speculators than people interesting in attending games right now and if you give up your season tickets, another speculator will likely buy them under the hope that they'll be able to sell off the tickets for profit. They'll lose money like you are until the team turns the corner and enough people fill up the bandwagon and demand exceeds the supply and the aftermarket ticket prices go up. I just don't get why you seem to be upset by other people doing the same thing you're doing.

That's fine. Just don't expect us to shed a tear for you losing $10+ per ticket. Maybe if you give up your tickets like you were complaining about possibly having to do in post #122 the next person in line who buys them will hopefully buy them with the intent of actually going to the games and not buy them with the intention of selling most of them off.

They can't. There's a multi year waiting list because too many people want to play amateur scalper so they can pick and choose a handful of games to attend while guaranteeing themselves playoff tickets. Also, if you are bragging about attending games for free you are not just trying to break even. You are trying to make money on certain games to fund your ticket prices to other games. Again, you are completely within your rights to do so but don't expect sympathy when you lose money. You and people like you are the reason the stands are filled with fans of opposing fans and the arena sounds like a library half the time.

I'm not telling anyone they can't speculate, just don't expect sympathy when you lose money, especially when you come on here bragging about making money off selling tickets and attending games for free. People like that are exactly why opposing fans fill the stadium and the atmosphere is crap. I hope you all lose money.

Healing crystals are a scam, sir. Magic beans are where to invest your money.

If you've rarely slept past 10 am then you you don't sleep late, sir. It should never be cosidered sleeping in late if it's still a.m. when you wake up.

I'd trade him Ryan O'Reilly before I'd give up Reinhart. Eichel, Reinhart, and Ristolainen would be the only players who woud be off the table. Tampa has the leverage in that just about every team would love to acquire Stamkos but most teams don't have the cap space to make him a viable long term option.

I'm not trying to be high and mighty about anything, just stating the facts. If people are paying money for tickets with the hope/belief that they will be able to sell the tickets for more money at a later date all they are doing in speculating/gambling. Buying tickets when you never had any intention of attending and the sole purpose is to sell them (hopefully for more than you paid for them) makes you a scalper. And that's perfectly fine, I'm not trying to tell anyone what they can or can't do, but don't whine about it when you lose money. That happens sometimes when you try to buy low and sell high, just like in the stock market. Why buy season tickets if you either can't afford to go to all the games or don't have the time or ability to? Why not buy a mini pack or just buy individual tickets to the games you actually plan on attending?

A ton of people seem to buy tickets just so they can sell them in the after market. I can understand if you've owned seasoned tickets for years, move away temporarily for school or work, and plan to return to the area but that doesn't seem to be the case for the majority. Maybe if the people who fancy themselves amateur scalpers would simply not renew their season tickets all the people who sit on the waiting list for years would actually be able to get season tickets and the arena wouldn't sounds like a library or half filled with fans of the opposing team. It's like a Neo wet dream (no offense intended Neo), everyone is like a tiny venture capitalist trying to take advantage of the emerging market that is the Buffalo Sabres post tank. If that's how you want to play it, that's fine, it's perfectly legal (I assume) and all that but just like in the stock market, sometimes you are going to bust that way.