I'm not sure. (PDF warning)

Under "Why not 100% stocks?"

> In short, although a strategy that fully invests a retirement portfolio in stocks can be perceived as riskier than most alternatives, is that really the case? Is a strategy that has the lowest probability of failure, provides the same or better downside protection, and higher upside potential really riskier than other strategies simply because a retiree is more uncertain about (how much higher will be) his bequest? If not, then having a retirement portfolio fully invested in stocks is a strategy that should be seriously considered by retirees.

Damn, all 50 states put their voting machines on the internet?

I don't know of any reputable source claiming they had direct access to any voting machine. Mind providing a source?

Elections matter.

Do you have anyone at home who could sell it for you? You're about to have some very stable income and be spending next to nothing for the next 10 weeks and then still spending very little in technical training.

You might be able to save up enough to pay the difference between what you bought it for and what you'll likely have to sell it for in short order.

If that's a possibility you may want to see about getting a power of attorney written up so this other person can sell it for you but you need someone you can trust.

Edit: Also, start contributing to your TSP ASAP and ensure it's not just going into the G fund. If you don't want to research or manage it manually, pick a target date fund in line with your projected retirement date.

>There has not been one for pfas but it is irrelevant. Any shit attorney can tell you how to sidestep it

By making a slightly different formula? Yeah, I preemptively addressed this argument by suggesting a reg to "encompass all PFAS-like compounds rather than playing whack-a-mole".

Or did you mean something else?

>also with the neutering of the administrative state, regulations are even more worthless nowadays.

I agree that a weak administrative state isn't good. What I'm arguing for is better regs and I suppose by extension as a neccessary prerequisite, better government.

Edited.

>Right. Because this has absolutely worked so far.

I wasn't aware one had been written and passed. Can you link me to it?

>Seriously? Nothing, you can ignore that. Just keep voting blue. Neo liberalism will fix this.

Classic. When asked to get specific you have nothing. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously until you can actually explain what you mean. Just keep suggesting "changing the system". That will fix it.

> What I would be making is an argument for changing the system entirely.

This is so vague so as not to mean anything. Would you mind expanding on what you mean here?

Regulation could be written so as to encompass all of those PFAS-like compounds rather than playing whack-a-mole with specific formulas.

Is that a good argument for allowing it to continue?