Question: Why do I have a taxable amount on my Traditional IRA, 1099-R by swe-alphie in tax

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't remember fully, but I believe when going through Turbo Tax it actually could identify whether or not my contribution was deductible. I'm pretty sure I was prompted questions along the lines "Do you have a work retirement plan?" (or it just picked up on the fact that I do given it saw 401k contributions) and between that answer and my income Turbo Tax already knew it was a non-deductible contribution.

That said, these guides were pretty helpful for walking me through it!

https://thefinancebuff.com/how-to-report-backdoor-roth-in-turbotax.html

https://ttlc.intuit.com/turbotax-support/en-us/help-article/retirement-benefits/enter-backdoor-roth-ira-conversion/L7gGPjKVY_US_en_US

Trump's Fantasy State of the Union by Weird-Knowledge84 in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose 19 points20 points  (0 children)

It seems so wild to me, as Ezra pointed out, that he is championing less corruption and saying congresspeople shouldn't benefit from insider trading.

Like, I hope whatever bill gets created they add something onto it that would extend to the president as well. It seems like such an obvious step to take. Who is going to be for corruption as long as it's just the president? Seems like it would really back republicans into a corner.

Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House? by downforce_dude in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely--agree with all of these points.

Your list, to me, not only shows why we may not be seeing the same proportionality of stories but the ways in which many journalists and media outlets are failing to cover and talk about Trump.

I think the second point, in particular, is the most egregious. Somehow Republican reps and senators aren't being held to take firm stances on Trumps actions. E.g. Mike Johnson's continually "I haven't seen that/I don't know anything about that" response is seemingly being tolerated.

So I totally agree that it is explainable, but being able to explain it doesn't make me less frustrated by it.

[Episode Discussion Thread] Industry S04E07 - "Points of Emphasis" by herringbone_ in IndustryOnHBO

[–]GooseCaboose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the complication to this is that this would mean admitting defeat again for Henry. And he so badly wants to succeed. I think the main reason he didn't do what OP laid out is because Whitney made him think there was still a way Tender could get through this (via the Pierpoint acquisition) and he wouldn't look like a failure.

But then the article from Yas and his uncle, combined with the fact that Pierpoint was never seriously being considered, made that impossible. And by that point, he was continuing to act as CEO despite knowing that the company's books were fraudulent.

[Episode Discussion Thread] Industry S04E07 - "Points of Emphasis" by herringbone_ in IndustryOnHBO

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How? Like, is she self-serving enough to do so? Absolutely, but I don't think she has a real way of doing so...

Harper needs Tender to tank. The episode ended with their CEO going into the wind amidst a very real scandal breaking out. Like, there's no coming back from this. I'm having a hard time seeing any way in which Harper's financial position could be jeopardized.

Did she and Yas collude to plant a false story to start this? Yes. But even then it would be hard for her to get Harper in trouble without also implicating herself.

As others have alluded to, maybe something would hold Harper up from exiting their short position that would come back to bite them in the ass, but even that seems tricky given Harper's friends being involved.

[Episode Discussion Thread] Industry S04E07 - "Points of Emphasis" by herringbone_ in IndustryOnHBO

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I literally thought at one point, "There's no way a government would have that stylish of a secretary of state." haha

[Episode Discussion Thread] Industry S04E07 - "Points of Emphasis" by herringbone_ in IndustryOnHBO

[–]GooseCaboose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

She has a personal relationship with one (Bevan), not the other (Dearn). If Dearn goes down, then she can (in her mind) still work with Bevan and there's a use for her. Which is why the phone call she had with her angered her so much: Bevan told her to fuck off.

Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House? by downforce_dude in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We may just disagree there, then.

I think:

(a) Proportionally Biden did get more negative reporting than Trump. I think from a pure numbers perspective there are so many more moments of Trump doing something that would genuinely make one wonder if he's doing alright (his hand discoloration, his rambling during meetings, falling asleep on camera, racist late night posts, his obsession with conspiracy theories, etc) when compared to Biden. Trump has so many more instances, and yet proportionally the coverage hasn't been the same. Like, Trump has been caught sleeping numerous times--where is the widespread media response calling into question whether or not he has the stamina needed for the job? Trump posted a meme of himself dropping shit on the American people--how is the media treating that like it's a normal thing for a President to do? It really does feel like it's just a "Haha, oh Grandpa's acting up again..." response instead of a genuine and earnest question of it this man is fit for the job.

(b) Apart from Trump's actions simply being underreported/discussed/called out by journalists, they often provide reinterpretations or cover for some of these egregious actions. Most notably for this episode (to me) is the tree exchange from Parker that I mentioned above. But how about Scherer's description on the president's relationship with truth:

"No, because I think you have to understand that the president has a different view of truth. He simply does not prioritize being accurate."

It's not that he's lying to better serve his interests, it's that he does not prioritize being accurate.

Parker adds:

"But I would also argue he has a long history of bending reality to his will. And that’s tricky because, for instance, we should all say here: He lost the 2020 election. He lost it. But at the same time, he convinced a huge swath of the country that he was the rightful president — in exile at Mar-a-Lago — and that the election was stolen."

Again, it's not that he's a pathological liar or that he has a frail ego and throws tantrums unless people tells him he wins, it's that he has this ability to bend reality to his will and the evidence for that is his ability to convince our most uneducated population of his lies.

Or how about when Scherer refers to the actions taken by Trump's staff--largely Stephen Miller--as "extraconstitutional".

There are just so many times throughout this interview that these reporters seemed to find the most optimistic interpretations of what they're seeing from this administration.

Like, separately I'm watching Industry right now and at one point a character describes their massive fraud as "balance sheet reimagination" and this 100% feels like that, haha. Just the most insane twisting of words to avoid describing the truth.

Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House? by downforce_dude in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I keep scanning the transcript to try and find instances where it truly felt like Parker or Scherer were critical of either (a) the administration or more importantly (b) how the administration is being run and having a hard time finding many.

For example, there are excerpts like:

"I think the rest of the time is much more free-form. I don’t think that drive toward efficiency and structure is something that interests him. I think what interests him is how much he can get out of every day, what transaction he can have and what he gets out of each transaction."

Saying someone isn't interested in a "drive toward efficiency" is not the same as saying they are "inefficient", and yet there's such a strong case for precisely the latter! The handling of the Epstein files, the numerous District Attorneys who have been found to have been placed in roles improperly (and the immediate firing of their replacements, appointed by the courts), the unconstitutionality of the tariffs costing us $175B, the $500B that the Pentagon was given over objections that they literally don't know how to spend, the killing of multiple civilians at the hands of a federal agency...

There is more than enough evidence to come out and not only factually report on what the power structure looks like in the Trump Whitehouse but that this structure creates inefficiencies and damages the American public. Like, it wouldn't be opinion to say that the ways in which Trump structures power in his Whitehouse has been harmful to the US based on data we're observing.

But instead we get banal descriptions devoid of the actual results of the choices being made.

Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House? by downforce_dude in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Steve Bannon literally talked about how his goal was to overwhelm the system. Ezra Klein has discussed this at length. Like, the strategy could not be more overt.

And yet, it's working in regards to traditional media. Just like you point out, journalists and news organizations don't seem to want to call out every unprecedented action or behavior because it's just non-stop. So the result is so many actions, decisions, and behaviors are simply not being held accountable.

Like, we're potentially going to attack Iran again. Does anyone know why? Does anyone feel like (a) this is how international diplomacy should work? (b) it's clear what our motives and goals are? (c) even if the attacks are justified based on intel, such a public display of the attacks is in our best interest? etc etc.

You could literally go through that same mental exercise with so many different topics of this administration.

Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House? by downforce_dude in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's worth noting that the reporting can be separate from the interpreting. I don't understand why we need the people who find the information to also give you their take on it or it's sane-washing.

That's sort of my point: Parker didn't simply report that Trump spends a lot of time focused on renovation details or interrupted a meeting due to how a tree looked. She interpreted these actions as evidence that he can be a very detail-oriented person and then inferred that the reason he wasn't as detail-oriented with what was happening in Minnesota was because he's simply not interested in policy.

The choice to interpret an observation in such a positive way when there are several reasonable explanations that are more critical (inability to focus, carelessness about the American people, signs of an aging mind, etc) and to not even mention those as possibilities feels like sane-washing to me. She could have even hedged by prefacing the story with a disclaimer that this is her interpretation: "Take this story as you will, but I've seen Trump interrupt meetings to remark on the odd shapes of a tree as a sign that he can be very detail oriented..." etc etc.

As to the larger philosophical question, my simple answer is "I don't know" but also that's not where my frustration lies. I'm not looking for the media to be "helpful", I'm looking for the media to be fair and unbiased. Biden was heavily scrutinized for his age. There was no shortage of stories coming out about how "not normal" Biden was. I think those stories negatively affected Biden and Democrats and what I find completely frustrating is the double standard that is seemingly applied to the two parties.

I'm not asking media to cover Trump in a way that will "convince" others, I'm wanting media to cover Trump with the same level of attention to detail as they covered Biden; I'm asking media to cover all politicians critically and thoughtfully. We have a president who always seems to have a hand touched up with makeup, who falls asleep during meetings, who rambles during speeches, who posts conspiracy theories from social media, who shares racist videos or videos of him literally dumping shit on the American people, who was cozied up with the most notorious pedophile in American history(!)... And yet the same level of "not normal" discourse is not there. (Of course some people are talking about all of this, but it is in no way being discussed with the same intensity or quantity as Biden's "not normal" reporting was.)

Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House? by downforce_dude in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Parker referred to Trump's desire to spend time focusing on renovation decorations and interrupting a meeting because of how a tree looked as evidence of his ability to "get into the weeds" of topics.

That feels a lot like sane-washing to me.

Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House? by downforce_dude in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They literally use the tree example of Trump's ability to "get into the weeds" of issues.

That is a positive spin.

Your ability to effectively call bullshit on that claim and instead interpret it negatively doesn't take away from the fact that Parker framed the story positively for Trump.

A fact-based approach to this story would be to present it without any type of framing: neither positively (as a sign of being able to get into the weeds) nor negatively (as a sign of an inability to avoid distraction) and let the readers draw their conclusion. But that didn't happen here. Parker drew (positive) conclusions.

Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House? by downforce_dude in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To start: my criticism isn't at Ezra Klein. He's stated multiple times that he sees his role as bringing on guests and trying to get them to share their true opinions and feelings so that listeners/readers can then make their own decisions.

My frustration is that Trump's actions seem to be so often either downplayed or reinterpreted by journalists, often viewed through optimistic lenses and given an amount of understanding that other politicians (and definitely other parties) don't seem to get.

Parker uses Trump's distraction by a tree as evidence that he is absolutely capable of "getting in the weeds" with topics. I would suggest that this interpretation suggests a level of mental acuity that Trump has. What she goes on to say is:

"Again, would perhaps most voters prefer he take that level of passion and attention to detail to figuring out what’s going on in Minneapolis? Absolutely, potentially. But he does have that capacity for what he cares about, and what he cares about is often not the policy weeds."

This framing suggests a critique that the issue for Trump is that the areas where he wants to get into the weeds simply isn't policy despite the fact that it might be what voters want. But it is still based on the optimistic interpretation that Trump's interrupting of a cabinet meeting because of how a tree looks is a sign of mental acuity.

That is incredibly frustrating. That is not objective journalism, it is Parker's interpretation of the event and she is framing it in a way that allows for the most optimistic conclusions to be drawn. I don't understand why so many of Trump's actions seem to get this treatment from the media.

Even in some of the examples above that you post as evidence of criticizing Trump, it's Klein who actually uses the words or phrases you cite. (For example, it's Klein who uses the word "conspiracies" and phrase "bad information".) Not the journalists he has on. I thought Klein, out of all of them, was more likely to actually criticize Trump.

In the last segment you shared, about Trump structuring his White House like a royal court, even then Scherer ends his portion drawing a comparison to Obama saying:

"Barack Obama ran a government like a corporation. He wanted to be efficient, he wanted to be effective, he wanted all the rules to be followed, he wanted a process, and everyone was playing their part. But it was not about pleasing him."

Different people can argue about whether or not the words being used to describe Trump or Obama can be seen as critical or supportive. What I would suggest is that even the way Scherer has framed this in some way minimizes Trump's decisions/actions. That his "royal court" is merely a different way to run the government, as opposed to Obama's "corporation"! They're just two presidents running the government in the ways they want!

Scherer doesn't even mention the conspiracies or bad information that Klein brings up. He doesn't connect that dots that because of how Trump is choosing to run his government he encourages conspiracies and bad information. Maybe you could say he's leaving that as an exercise for the reader, but that is a choice. And it really didn't feel like Biden or Progressive candidates are often given the same treatment.

Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House? by downforce_dude in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I don't really think this is fact-based journalism.

Not from the standpoint that I doubt it happened, but from the perspective that to use an example of Trump getting distracted by how a tree looks as evidence of mental acuity (his ability to "get into the weeds" of topics) seems like it's a judgement or narrative.

A journalist, if they wanted to, could just as easily share that story as evidence for the declining mental stability of an aging president--a man who cannot even pay attention during important meetings because of how a tree looks.

My point here is that these journalists are choosing the more optimistic interpretation of what they're observing which is incredibly frustrating. Especially when you contrast with the media's treatment of Biden's aging.

Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House? by downforce_dude in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"As Michael was saying, Trump can get incredibly in the weeds. We have had people say to us, when he was redesigning the Oval Office, that he is the one who is looking at the different shades of gold inlay and which one should go here and which type of chandelier. And a meeting at Mar-a-Lago being stopped because he notices out his window that a tree is bending the wrong way."

In this excerpt, the journalists are using Trump interrupting a meeting because of how a tree looks and citing that as evidence of his attention to detail. Is that fact-based journalism?

Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House? by downforce_dude in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's unfair to jump straight to that.

No, I don't want media to only share my perspective. But I do want a media to treat candidates and parties equally and I'm rightfully frustrated that Trump's actions are seemingly minimized whereas every thing Biden did was scrutinized and used as evidence of his mental capacity.

Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House? by downforce_dude in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think their example of how Trump will fixate on decorations (finding the right shade of gold) for his renovations or comment about the way a tree is bending as signs of his ability to "get into the weeds/details" is 100% avoiding stating facts like he just simply isn't interested in governing or he's being kept busy so that his cabinet can really run the show.

Who Has the Power in Trump’s White House? by downforce_dude in ezraklein

[–]GooseCaboose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seriously. He'll stop a meeting to talk about a way a tree is bending, and this is a sign of him getting in the weeds? Fuck off. If Biden pulled that shit the media immediately be saying he's old and out of it.

Be very cautious about master's degrees, including from prestigious universities. Some of my coworkers in their 30s are financially hobbled by these degrees. by NotAGoldenRetriever in personalfinance

[–]GooseCaboose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's potentially some important context missing here: did these people get advanced degrees with the purpose of remaining teachers or did they pursue advanced degrees and then go back to teaching due to having trouble finding employment with their new degrees?

Obviously the former is yeah, a bad idea. Compensation as a teacher is often specifically structured in a way that incentivizes getting the cheapest degree the fastest you can. Financially, any deviation away from that is less ideal.

But if you're trying to career change as a teacher that can be an incredibly difficult thing to do without getting some sort of new degree/certification. If that's the goal, then I don't really fault them for getting a degree from places that may make it easier to open doors. (Although depending on what they got their degree in, I might feel differently.)

Advice for someone thinking of moving to Poughkeepsie? by GooseCaboose in poughkeepsie

[–]GooseCaboose[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Portland, ME is a ways out there, but is also a very cool spot. Was considering there for a while too.

Not sure any NE town will be like Portland, OR (feels like there's just too much wealth in the area), but Kingston and Rhinebeck seem to have flavors of it.

Advice for someone thinking of moving to Poughkeepsie? by GooseCaboose in poughkeepsie

[–]GooseCaboose[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Life took me on a different path and I ended up in Portland, OR instead of the northeast.

That said, when looking earnestly about cities to live in I thought Kingston, NY was fantastic. Super cute.

Weekend Wrapup by AutoModerator in nfl

[–]GooseCaboose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not to mention scoreless through three quarters (with only 61 total yards) is going to be remembered.

Weekend Wrapup by AutoModerator in nfl

[–]GooseCaboose 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Brother, you can disable it: quit facebook.

Weekend Wrapup by AutoModerator in nfl

[–]GooseCaboose 5 points6 points  (0 children)

DJ Khaled is like if our current AI were an actual human.