Trump slams air traffic controllers who called out during the government shutdown
Following are excerpts from a current NPR report:

President Trump is slamming U.S. air traffic controllers who called out of work during the government shutdown, during which they were forced to stay on the job without pay.
Trump said in a post on Truth Social Monday morning that he was "NOT HAPPY" with controllers who took time off. "All Air Traffic Controllers must get back to work, NOW!!! Anyone who doesn't will be substantially 'docked,'" he wrote.
In a statement to NPR, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association said, "This nation's air traffic controllers have been working without pay for over 40 days. The vast majority of these highly trained and skilled professionals continue to perform one of the most stressful and demanding jobs in the world, despite not being compensated. Many are working six-day weeks and ten-hour days without any pay."
"These unsung heroes, who report for duty to safely guide this country's passengers and cargo to their destinations, deserve our praise. They have certainly earned it."
Meanwhile, Trump called controllers who took no time off during the longest shutdown in U.S. history "GREAT PATRIOTS" and said he would recommend giving them each a $10,000 bonus.
He said any controllers who wanted to quit shouldn't hesitate, but would receive "NO payment or severance of any kind!" and would be "quickly replaced by true Patriots." (In fact, one reason for the shortage is that it takes years to train and certify new controllers.)
Others offered sharp criticism of Trump's comments. "The President wouldn't last five minutes as an air traffic controller," former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a post on X, "and after everything they've been through - and the way this administration has treated them from Day One - he has no business s****ing on them now."

Comment: Trump said in a post on Truth Social Monday morning that he was "NOT HAPPY" with controllers who took time off.
The report does not state if Trump made these comments from the golf course at Mar-a-Lago.

@FD1000 said,
BTW, the Original Medicare Medigap went from $145 to $206 in the last 3 years. That's over a 40%.
I believe @FD1000 is referring to Part B increases.

No.
Supplement Insurance (Medigap) Plan G policies.

@FD1000 Thank you for your partial response to my question. Could you please clarify which insurance company’s premium for Plan G increased from $145 to $206 over the past three years? Also, what age did you use to calculate these premiums?

The idea that I have answered — or will ever answer — your question is ludicrous.

Buffett is a shrewd and patient investor. Understatement maybe?
A very sensible and level-headed individual. I wonder if he could have translated his skills over into the political forum. We don't have many such people as leaders.
95 years old - god bless him.

https://www.artemis.bm/news/catastrophe-bond-ucits-fund-returns-accelerate-to-8-88-after-october/
The above link has a chart of the returns for the CAT bond index going back to 2011. The past three years were by far the best and all because it was a “hard” pricing market going forward from Hurricaine Ian in 2022. Now all we are hearing about is the ‘soft” pricing market for 2026. I didn’t think we would see double digit returns in 2025. There is a seasonality in CAT because you are paid for the risk of holding through hurricane season. As those who have held also know, Fridays are when they are priced and there have been outsized gains during the year on Fridays especially going into and in Hurricaine season. I would think anyone just getting into CAT have missed the boat and gains going forward will be more like the gains in the above chart ex the past three years, The momentum has already slowed recently. But I could be wrong because of the still outsized yields on these funds They are a good diversifier and not subject to the whims of the stock and bond market. I hold some CBYYX but it is not a huge position and if the momentum continues to abate will sell.

@FD1000 said,
BTW, the Original Medicare Medigap went from $145 to $206 in the last 3 years. That's over a 40%.
I believe @FD1000 is referring to Part B increases.

No.
Supplement Insurance (Medigap) Plan G policies.

@FD1000 Thank you for your partial response to my question. Could you please clarify which insurance company’s premium for Plan G increased from $145 to $206 over the past three years? Also, what age did you use to calculate these premiums?

@FD1000 said,
BTW, the Original Medicare Medigap went from $145 to $206 in the last 3 years. That's over a 40%.
I believe @FD1000 is referring to Part B increases.

No.
Supplement Insurance (Medigap) Plan G policies.

@FD1000 said,
BTW, the Original Medicare Medigap went from $145 to $206 in the last 3 years. That's over a 40%.
I believe @FD1000 is referring to Part B increases. Here's the history of those increases;
2021 $148.50
2022 $170.10
2023 $164.90
2024 $174.80
2025 $185
2026 $206
part-b-premium-increase-history#Medicare-Part-B-premiums-in-detail
@Mona asked,
@FD1000 Which company had over a 40% incrrease?
Answer:
Company = US Giverment

BTW, the Original Medicare Medigap went from $145 to $206 in the last 3 years. That's over a 40%

@FD1000 Which company had over a 40% increase and for what plan letter?

We have to use my wife's Medicare Advantage choices to get $2100 per year each.
Humana's HMO plan H4141-017-003 isn't an option.
Every HMO has a rating of 3.5/5. Every PPO is 4.5/5. The PFFS is better than all, IMO.
All the HMOs don't have all our doctors. That's a no-go.
What happens if we vacation in CA and I get a heart attack? No HMO covers me in-network.
The last surgery I had, the doctor and the facility were not in-network. I pay the same as in-network.
Case closed. My MOOP is $6700. So far I have saved + investing about $20K.
Add my wife and in 10 years, it would be over $150K. I will take the chance.
BTW, the Original Medicare Medigap went from $145 to $206 in the last 3 years. That's over a 40% increase.
Income investing doesn't exist and never did. There are only 2 parameters. Total performance and risk/SD. When I was younger, I cared about performance. At retirement I cared a lot more about risk-adjusted performance. Although I invest mostly in bonds, I don't care about income.
I think I will keep what I have done since 2018, investing at least 95% in bond OEFs with extremly low losses . See
https://ibb.co/zT6QGzSs
Investing has so many more choices.

I like the analogy. I understand where you are coming from in terms of risk management.
In both choosing longer-term investments and health insurance, a person's ability to cover unexpected costs (or losses) is a major consideration. When choosing a healthcare plan, the maximum out-of-pocket is something that I look at. And our typical out-of-pocket annual expenses.
Example, I save around $2500 a year by opting for my employer's "standard" health care coverage over the "premium" policy. In a very bad year I might hit the worst case scenario of $6000 out-of-pocket. Meanwhile, the standard plan pays a little less over the year. If our health care expenses were very high, and we hit that maximum often, the premium policy would work out better. That is not the case for us, though. After 10 years of saving $2500/yr, we are well ahead.
Basically, a form of "self-insuring". The same principal applies to high-deductible plans. Which are better suited for younger and healthier people. And those with good financial resources.
msf said: "If you've bought an HMO and you don't want to switch providers, your out of pocket expenses become uncapped." That is a big dice roll, right there. Which is most likely to happen in the event of a catastrophic illness, really adding to stress at the worst possible time.

Wake up call, at the conclusion of his latest book. I think, unfortunately, he's correct.
"I am confident that the next 5-10 years will be a period of enormous changes... Going from now till then will feel like going through a time warp into a very different reality. Countries and companies that are now up will be down, and vice-versa. How we think and what we do will be very different, in ways we cannot possibly anticipate.
The best way to play this set of circumstances is to play the probabilities, diversify well, and stick with sound fundamentals. The best places to be will be the countries that get these fundamentals right: the ones that educate their people well, so that they are skilled and civil, in an atmosphere of opportunity; with strong national income statements and balance sheets, with internal order rather than disorder... low risk of being in an international war, low risks from destructive acts of Nature, and that will benefit most from changes in technology...
Unfortunately, I believe that the chances of mutual cooperation (between the Parties in the USA) for our collective benefit are not good... We know from history that extreme factionalism kills. .. Hopefully, this picture makes people worry and motivates them to do what is still in their power to improve things.
If you're not worried, you need to be, and if you're worried, you don't need to worry. That's because worrying about the things that can go wrong will protect you, while not worrying about them will leave you exposed".

I don’t see a strong connection between choosing the right Medicare plan once per year and managing investments.
Medicare: I evaluated the risk and reward years ago, and in my county, a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan turned out to be a better option for us. By investing the money we save, the choice becomes even more beneficial.
Investing: We’re in a comfortable financial position, so our overall risk is very low. I can adjust anywhere from 0% to 100% in stocks or bonds, depending on market conditions. Since retiring in 2018, I’ve chosen to focus on unique bond funds to take advantage of current opportunities. This flexible approach has worked very well across different market environments.
Staying flexible, paying attention to current market conditions, and tuning out the noise are essential.

@Observant1. That is a very interesting read, and it is what I believe is likely. That the hype will be overblown in many investors minds, there will be corrections, maybe a few really big ones. But overall, this could be a sea change. Most of us watched precisely that happen, in 2000, and the following decades.
Imagine if here are big breakthroughs in quantum computing, along the way.
"In the late 1990s and early 2000s, dot-com-related stocks went through a correction and digestion phase. But in the next 20 years, the internet became embedded in everything we do, creating value over time. That is the road map I’m using to think about generative AI.
I am a believer in [futurist Roy] Amara’s Law: We tend to overestimate the impact of technologies in the short term but underestimate them in the long term. I use Netscape, the internet-browser company, as an example. It went public in 1995 and brought the internet to the masses—similar to ChatGPT. That was the starting line [of the internet cycle]."

Barron's mentioned in July 21, 2025 issue that CAT bond issuance for YTD (then) was already more than that for full 2024. Be careful with hot areas attracting lot of money.
If there are no recent catastrophic events, then the CAT bond investors win.
In the last few years, there have been some catastrophes related to fire and flooding.
Barron's August 19, 2024 had this:
INCOME FUNDS. Catastrophe bonds (CAT BONDS) are speculative insurance-linked bonds whose principals absorb insurers’ catastrophic losses (from hurricanes, earthquakes, etc), if any. If there are no, or not enough, claims for catastrophic events, then the cat bond holders win. Mentioned are OEFs ACBAX, SHRIX, EMPIX; several ETFs are coming; there are also some (nontraded) interval-funds.

Thanks - definitely being mindful of how hot the space has been and the related risks from that. Sizing an allocation accordingly

Should not have lowered the rate, both in Sept. AND Oct, '25. Inflation is not at target. The Big Ugly Bill will raise Fed deficit to $7.1T over ten years. How long does it take to even fathom such a number???? THEN, the only way out of the looming debt crisis is through more DELIBERATE inflation by shrinking the dollar, via printing lots more of them. Loaf of bread for $20.00? Ya. My decision to put money in overseas companies in countries which keep their houses in much better order looks better and better.

From a WaPo email I received written by Shira Ovide - The Tech Friend:
Bonkers dollars in AI
Maybe you’ve heard that artificial intelligence is a bubble poised to burst. Maybe you have heard that it isn’t. (No one really knows either way, but that won’t stop the bros from jabbering about it constantly.)
But I can confidently tell you that the money being thrown around for AI is so huge that numbers have lost all meaning. The companies pouring money in are so rich and so power-hungry (in multiple meanings of that term) that our puny human brains cannot really comprehend.
So let’s try to give some meaning and context to the stratospheric numbers in AI. Is it a bubble? Eh, who knows. But it is completely bonkers.
• In just the past year, the four richest companies developing AI — Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Meta — have spent roughly $360 billion combined for big-ticket projects, which included building AI data centers and stuffing them with computer chips and equipment, according to my analysis of financial disclosures.
(Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)
That same amount of money could pay for about four years’ worth of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the federal government program that distributes more than $90 billion in yearly food assistance to 42 million Americans. SNAP benefits are in limbo for now during the government shutdown.
• How do companies pay for the enormous sums they are lavishing on AI? Mostly, these companies make so much money that they can afford to go bananas.
One example: Google’s sales from showing us digital advertisements, $212 billion so far in 2025, are more than the annual revenue of Texas taken in from all sources, including from all state taxes, income from the federal government and land income.
• Eight of the world’s top 10 most valuable companies are AI-centric or AI-ish American corporate giants — Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Broadcom, Meta and Tesla. That’s according to tallies from S&P Global Market Intelligence based on the total price of the companies’ stock held by investors.
My analysis of the S&P data shows that the collective worth of those eight giants, $23 trillion, is more than the value of the next 96 most valuable U.S. companies put together, which includes many still very rich names such as JPMorgan, Walmart, Visa and ExxonMobil.
• No. 1 on that list, the AI computer chip seller Nvidia, last week become the first company in history to reach a stock market value of $5 trillion.
That alone was more than the value of entire stock markets in most countries, Bloomberg News reported, other than the five biggest (in the U.S., China, Japan, Hong Kong and India). Alas, Nvidia was down to a measly $4.4 trillion as of Friday morning.
• All the announced or under-construction data centers for powering AI would consume roughly as much electricity as 44 million households in the United States if they run full tilt, according to a recent analysis by the Barclays investment bank as reported by the Financial Times.
For context, that’s nearly one-third of the total number of residential housing units in the entire country, according to U.S. Census Bureau housing estimates for 2024.
• Nvidia pledged this fall to invest up to $100 billion in ChatGPT parent company OpenAI as part of its insatiable hunger for cash and resources. (The Post has a content partnership with OpenAI.)
Or, nearly the equivalent amount could be spent on police, firefighters, courts, public schools and hospitals, social services, parks and more for 8.5 million people. The government spending of New York, the largest city in America, was $118 billion in the last fiscal year.

@Junkster Good info. Thanks. Since insurance companies have been fleeing from risk for a while now, that shouldn't be too surprising, I suppose.
I was, of course, making a joke. Still, most riskier bond funds have been doing quite well for 3 years.

It's insane, a trillion dollar pay package? A trillion seconds is around 32 THOUSAND YEARS!! What happened to reality? He could spend 93 MILLION a year and not run out for over 10 thousand years!!

Wouldn't a good mutual fund ticker be "SUCER"? For, Seems Unlikely Catastrophic Events Result?

Cat bonds have had double digit returns going on three years now with virtually no volatility along the way. The last major triggering event was Hurricaine Ian in 2022. Most cat bonds are protection against Florida landfall and property damage events. The cat bonds weren’t impacted by Hurricaine Helene which virtually closed parts of NC for weeks and was the most damaging catastrophic event to ever hit that state.

Below is largely esoterica. That's where the fun is :-)
QCDs can be made only from TIRA
QCDs can also be made from Roth IRAs if the distribution would have been taxable. For example, if you only opened your first Roth less than five years ago. Almost always an inferior choice to making the QCD from a TIRA.
It's that time again
An exception to the rule of thumb that one take distributions later in the year (since markets go up more years than not) is when doing Roth conversions. For those, earlier in the year may be better since the same number of dollars represents a higher percentage of the TIRA than later in the year. Again under the assumption that markets go up.
If you're using QCDs to satisfy your RMD, you have to do that before you can do a Roth conversion. So these two rules of thumb (early for conversions, late for QCDs) are in conflict. Whether it is better to do both early in the year or both late varies case by case and depends on the size of each.
The annual limit is inflation-adjusted ($108K in 2025; 2x for couples).
Each spouse is still restricted to the individual limit of $108K. This differs from something like the estate tax, where, if one spouse does not use up their entire exemption, the other spouse gets to use it. With QCDs, if one spouse doesn't contribute the full $108K, the other spouse can't increase their limit by the unused amount.