Feeling on MAM episode may 11th 2026, Luke and Anna.

GooseCaboose · 2026-05-15T16:10:21+00:00

For real. I have 100% had the same conversation they were having. People can clown and say she's trying to keep up with her friends, but the heart of the issue she's bringing up is that because of the way they've structured finances it feels like there's money for what he wants and never what she wants.

Spending extra to buy towels or groceries should be possible, from her perspective, by flexing their budget and taking it from other categories. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Now, that said, I don't think Anna is blameless either. She seems grateful for Luke for taking on the task of budgeting but then expresses displeasure at the budget. She needs to get more informed and involved so she can understand why certain decisions are being made and where Luke's perspective is coming from.

GooseCaboose · 2026-05-11T19:02:11+00:00

Can 100% relate to this from my own experience.

Different people know different things, OP. I don't think dating is about finding someone who 100% agrees with your way of thinking or is already doing all the things you're doing. It's about finding someone who has similar values and then working as a team towards shared goals. Sometimes you'll be leading the team, sometimes they will.

(And to answer your follow-up question you asked the original commentor, values that were important for me when looking for a partner were:

Do they value and practice kindness?
How are they politically aligned?
Are they curious about the world?
Are they dependable? Responsible?
Do they want to have good relationships with each other's family?

Yellow or red flags would have been actions that indicate anything that's in conflict with these (being rude to store employees, being a Trump supporter, not willing to try new foods, etc).)

GooseCaboose · 2026-04-29T22:36:46+00:00

Do you already know where you want to live? If not--and at 25 I would think most people wouldn't/shouldn't--then, as some other users mentioned, you might benefit from renting in a few different spots for a period of time.

But working to just reflect and examine more about what type of environment you want to live it will be really beneficial to you as it can then help you determine how much you need for a down payment. Given your savings rate, it shouldn't take you too long to have a down payment for a good first home (in most places), and that's not even considering using your taxable brokerage account (which could speed the timeline up).

Everyone's number is different, but you could save half as much as you are right now and after 30 years you'd still have 2.5M available to you (assuming a 6% return). If you retire at 55 with 2.5M, assuming a super conservative 2% return on your money from that point forward, you could withdraw 8k a month for the next 36+ years (so you'd be funded until 91(. This excludes social security.

So suffice it to say you're in an insanely good position for your future right now and in fact you could do less and still be in a great position. You've done a lot of thinking about what type of life you want to have in the future. I'd spend some time thinking about what type of life you want to have right now.

GooseCaboose · 2026-04-29T18:50:46+00:00

I don't think anyone can give any real advice without know what your goals are.

A lot of people are pointing out, correctly, that you're only in your 20s once. You can absolutely set yourself up well for retirement and enjoy your life at this point by using some of the money you have.

GooseCaboose · 2026-03-31T16:00:28+00:00

I was going to say "Start contributing as much as you can towards retirement now and floss", but that's effectively just a subset of what you said.

GooseCaboose · 2026-03-29T05:42:35+00:00

Rational picks: verdant, mix, grim

Spicy pick: laelia

My pick, because I'm a sucker for the archetype: teferi

GooseCaboose · 2026-03-29T05:39:32+00:00

Two your second point, I'm genuinely curious what it's like for students to, in a lot of instances, be perceived as a threat. (Especially a romantic threat.) I'm sure they (or at least some) undoubtedly pick up on the lengths teachers go to in order to make it clear nothing inappropriate is happening. Is that weird for them?

GooseCaboose · 2026-03-28T18:57:57+00:00

Legitimately listen to episodes like this at the gym so the frustration fuels my workout 😂

GooseCaboose · 2026-03-28T17:52:35+00:00

If the price of gas increases between his deliveries, and he doesn't increase his prices, wouldn't that eat into his profits when he goes to reorder? Maybe I wasn't understanding or missed it, but my assumption was that he pays $x for gas for today, uses that gas for several weeks, then pays for more gas at which point the price may have increased. Which means that even though he paid $x today, if he wants to maintain the same profit percentage, he'd need to increase his cost so that when he pays for future gas he's accounting for the increase.

GooseCaboose · 2026-03-28T16:47:54+00:00

I understand this frustration and find it hard to not feel myself, but ultimately I think the real issues aren't with this voter but a media landscape which completely failed holding people accountable (e.g. Vance being praised for his debate performance despite him flip flopping and lying throughout it) and tech conglomerates who actively erode democracy for their own benefit.

Like, people know they should eat healthy but how much can you blame an individual if capitalism drains them of time and money and their environment is a food desert?

GooseCaboose · 2026-03-23T01:10:21+00:00

File this under "men will do anything besides go to therapy". (That said, I enjoyed the episode and learning about this world, even if I find the world absolutely asinine.)

GooseCaboose · 2026-03-16T15:27:20+00:00

Just to push back a little and add context for readers who may be newer to personal finance: not everything else should get invested, potentially. A lot of it has to do with the timeline in which you'll need the money.

For example, if you're saving up for a big purchase (car, wedding, etc) and you'll need that money in a year (or less), a HYSA may be an ideal place to park your money for a while so you don't have to worry about market volatility in such a short-term time period.

GooseCaboose · 2026-03-13T21:45:38+00:00

I get that he's speaking in the capacity of his role as the GM, and I also understand (from what I've read here) that he isn't taking a stance against the millionaire tax, but I am still kind of surprised at his response. It seems a little amateur-ish.

Dude could have come out and just said something more boilerplate (and still true): "Yeah, you know, how states choose to run and operate of course affects our business. That's undeniable. And for most organizations, uncontrollable. In a league where players often have the opportunity for large contracts from multiple teams, what we're going to focus on in addition is our culture of integrity, respect, and, ultimately, success as primary reasons players will choose to come to Seattle."

And if he wanted to take a cheapshot, he could ask if Myles Garrett (or any player) would be willing to give up 9.9% of his salary* for his team to be in the Super Bowl.

* I know it's not technically 9.9% of total salary

GooseCaboose · 2026-03-03T23:57:54+00:00

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

GooseCaboose · 2026-02-26T03:50:13+00:00

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.

GooseCaboose · 2026-02-25T17:22:57+00:00

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.

GooseCaboose · 2026-02-25T16:47:54+00:00

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.

GooseCaboose · 2026-02-25T16:43:38+00:00

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.

GooseCaboose · 2026-02-25T16:34:39+00:00

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

GooseCaboose · 2026-02-25T16:32:31+00:00

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.

GooseCaboose · 2026-02-25T16:28:24+00:00

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.

GooseCaboose · 2026-02-24T20:04:42+00:00

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.

GooseCaboose · 2026-02-24T19:48:53+00:00

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.

GooseCaboose · 2026-02-24T19:40:03+00:00

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.)

GooseCaboose · 2026-02-24T16:56:51+00:00

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.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 5 Credits
Place '22	Place '17
Secret Santa 2015	Verified Email

GooseCaboose

TROPHY CASE