Viewed news program that showed a modified pistol that would fire off 15 rounds in 2 seconds . Just what every gun nut needs !?

Here is a piece from VOX to follow up what @AndyJ posted above :

they have proven unwilling to make major cuts to the three biggest components of the federal budget: Social Security, Medicare, and the military. And so their just-passed spending plan focuses heavily on what’s left: mostly, programs for the poor.

https://vox.com/future-perfect/2023/4/29/23701153/medicaid-work-requirements-republicans-food-stamps-cash-welfare

@AndyJ, I was responding your comment while commenting on a broader context. Sorry that I should have link to your earlier post. In the last few months, the 1 and 2 yr treasury’s have been volatile, especially in March with the SVB and Signature. There was only 2 days when 2 yr Treasury went over 5.0% in March and it stays below that ever since.
The inverted yield curve makes prediction challenging beyond 2 years. As for fixed income investing, I like these bond funds:
Vanguard short term treasury index, ETF, VGSH, Avg effective maturities -2.0 years, 30 days SEC yield - 4.43%.
Taking on a bit more on credit risk,
Vanguard short term corporate index, ETF, VCSH. Avg effective maturities - 3.0 yr, 30 days SEC yield - 5.22%.
I like your approach for potential cap gain for longer duration bond finds such as BND and BOND. Since the beginning of this year, I have invested back into BND and DODIX on dollar cost verage basis. If the FED is near the end of rate hike, bonds in general will do okay. If the FED starts to cut rate, the intermediate-term bonds will be in good position to have good capital gain.

Intermediate duration is doing pretty well recently ... in funds. And, @Sven, if you were responding to my older post, I think my language wasn't clear enough: I realize 5% in a 2y is not happening. The point is that under more normal circumstances, the 2y runs fairly closely along with the Fed rate, and we are far from normal circumstances.
A 1y in the high 4's (~ 4.8 now), though, is pretty attractive for part of an FI portfolio if you assume short rates will be falling over time, and even 4.02 for a 2y wouldn't be all that bad under those circumstances. A combination of some HTM T's of 1y or longer (including some higher-yielding shorter term T's for current safe yield) with a fund or funds for good yield and possible cap gains, or at least limited risk of loss, wouldn't be a bad approach.

Good interview:
1. He believes FED will pause after May3rd FOMC meeting and holds the rate above 5% for a bit longer than people think; perhaps into 2025.
2 FED is losing money by holding long dated treasury yielding 2% while many are paying 4% today. FED is not buying more and let the rest mature and rolling off their book.
3. Mentioned that the FED made the mistake (QE and zero interest rate policy) and now trying to contain inflation that they created when they pumped too much money into people during the pandemic. Vast consumption post-pandemic caused high inflation. (Think the exact root causes are more complex than just the consumer driven event)
4. Large banks are doing fine through this turmoil but he believes there will be more consolidation and regulations just as the time period of S&L crisis.
5. He believes US financial system is strong and recommends investing in S&P 1500 that covers large-, mid-, and small-caps stocks. (Noted that large cap tech stocks are reporting good earnings, and that may not be the case for the smaller caps. Also the earning expectation has been guided downward, not the other way around)
6. Also he like bonds in general, but he like stocks better for the long term

Next week, the FED is likely to hike another 25 bps rate. In light of the banking turmoil, that may be the last rate hike the rest of the year. I think it is too optimistic to expect the FED to cut rate soon unless the economy falls into s severe recession.
I think that's right. About the rest of your post:
I'm holding intermediate-term junk.
Effective duration on PRCPX is down to 3.41 years. I just checked. The portfolio manager has moved shorter than before. Yield = 6.03%.
TUHYX effective duration =4.15 years. Yield = 6.62%.
I'm still enjoying the ride. Share price has crept up, too.
Source: Morningstar.

I was personally affected when in 2015 Prospect Medical Holdings ( owned by Leonard Green a PE firm) bought our CT hospital after two previous publicly traded companies "suitors" ( hoping to buy both hospitals in town) had been chased off by the left wing Democratic Governor. The hospital was close to going under.
The two previous offers were to build an entirely new hospital and combine both institutions, so they would not longer undercut each other in our small city. These offers were far superior and could have been much better monitored because they involved public companies and a pension fund. Unfortunately, the CT governor was beholden to our hospital union and threw up all sorts of crazy conditions, so they backed out.
We got all sorts of promises about capital infusions etc from Prospect but none materialized.
We sold our practice to the hospital/Prospect in 2018. At the physician level Prospect was fairly benign, although they refused to buy any new equipment like scanners and computers. I retired, in 2019 after 40 years of practice that I loved, because the electronic medical record required me to work to 9PM just entering data. They refused to pay $20 an hour to hire a scribe to help me. It was apparently far more efficient to make a physician do the work of a clerk. Both of my replacements have quit in less than a year.
Since then, Leonard Green had Prospect to borrow $1.2 Billion in 2019. Prospect paid Green and the chief executive a $675 million dollar dividend. Prospect CEO alone got $90 million. To pay the loan back, Prospect sold all their hospitals to Medical Properties Trust (MPW) and then leased them back. By 2021 they had stop paying rent, and MPW stock is down to $8 from $25.
Two Prospect hospitals in Delaware ( one the only source of care for 80,000 people I think) and three in Texas have closed completely. Rhode Island AG refused to let them sell the two there until they put up $80 million in escrow.
MPW is unloading the CT hospitals to Yale New Haven Hospital for the amount it paid for them in 2020, because Yale doesn't want the other big CT system, Hartford Hospital to get them. The hospitals in Delaware and Texas are closed for good.
As I have posted before, ProPublica has done an excellent series on Prospect documenting the millions Green got, but Prospect didn't have cash to buy gas for the ambulances.
https://www.propublica.org/article/rich-investors-stripped-millions-from-a-hospital-chain-and-want-to-leave-it-behind-a-tiny-state-stands-in-their-way
Another excellent source on the abuses of PE I have found is
https://pestakeholder.org/

TNR: "Republicans also want work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Adults without children must fulfill work requirements up to the age of 56, overturning current law that has the threshold at age 49. Not only are such cuts punitive in nature, but they effectively leave people more vulnerable to precarity."
The objective and the results are pretty clear: throw more people off these programs. The estimate in the Moody's piece shows it would "save" $120 billion over the ten year time frame.
Meanwhile the MSM continues to accept and parrot the GQP framing. None of the talking heads ever ask about rescinding the 2017 tax cuts for those who don't need them.

For some folks the "theater" could cost them their lives if McCarthy et al have their way: https://newrepublic.com/post/172066/house-gops-debt-ceiling-plan-calls-medicaid-snap-work-requirements

On Medicaid, Republicans want recipients to fulfill certain income and work thresholds. If they don’t, states could kick them off their health insurance plans. A Congressional Budget Office report estimated that Medicaid work requirements would cause two million people to lose health coverage.
Republicans also want work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Adults without children must fulfill work requirements up to the age of 56, overturning current law that has the threshold at age 49. Not only are such cuts punitive in nature, but they effectively leave people more vulnerable to precarity. The less we support people preemptively, the higher the costs will be if they fall through the cracks.

The movement of the short and long duration yields is independent to each other. The longer end is determined by the market while the short end is controlled by the FED’s rate. It is counterintuitive to extend duration toward the intermediate duration, ~5-7 years. Treasury yield curve is still inverted and the probability of having 2yr yield at 5% is nearly nil. However, IG bond funds with short- and intermediate- duration are yielding 5%.
Next week, the FED is likely to hike another 25 bps rate. In light of the banking turmoil, that may be the last rate hike the rest of the year. I think it is too optimistic to expect the FED to cut rate soon unless the economy falls into s severe recession.

“ … there may be many more gun-manufacturer-free funds out there. The list above comes from Kipplingers 25 favorite MFs, a pretty small sample.”

Agree @BenWP - That’s just a small sample. There’s a hard to find link in the article that takes you to a screener.
Here it is: FUND GUN SCREENER
By way of example, here’s what the screener produced when I entered ASRAX: ”Gun grade: No holdings flagged for our civilian firearm screens. Assigned a grade of A.”
Unfortunately, some funds i tried to screen (CEF @ OEF) were not found. One was a fund-of-funds which likely makes the task more difficult.
Thanks @msf for all the clarification and added information. It gets complicated for sure. I hope some of the major fund companies will go on record and, in some way, shape, or manner, disavow investments in arms manufacturers whose non-military, non-law enforcement related products too often wind up in the wrong hands and do so much damage to innocent persons. (I think there’s already been some limited progress.) There’s likely to be different interpretations and implementation of such policy. But, heavens, we need to start somewhere.

The cite given in the article, gunfreefunds.org, is under the As You Sow Invest Your Values umbrella that I've suggested before.
In calling out Lockheed Martin (LMT), it seems the writer is conflating two different though related issues: military weapons manufacturing and civilian firearms manufacturing. If your concern is about companies involved with the leading cause of death of children in the US, then look at the list of gun free funds.
According to Money Magazine, there are only two publicly traded US companies that manufacture (civilian guns): Smith & Wesson (SWBI) and Sturm, Ruger & Co. (RGR), though American Outdoor Brands (AOUT) is the parent company of Smith & Wesson.
https://money.com/avoid-gun-stocks-investing-advice/
There are many other gun manufacturers, but they tend to be private. Here's a list of the top 25 firearm manufacturers. It includes familiar names like Colt (Colt CZ Group SE, traded on the Prague stock exchange), Beretta (privately owned, Italian parent), and Glock Ges.m.b.H (privately owned).
https://orchidadvisors.com/top-25-largest-firearm-manufacturers-of-2021/
GunFreeFunds takes ownership a step further (as noted in the Kiplinger piece) by considering parent companies of privately owned manufacturers. For example, it looks out for ownership of Colt CZ Groupe SE (CZG). Here's its whole list of companies it looks for:
https://gunfreefunds.org/how-it-works
M* has an article similar to Kiplingers.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1133372/how-to-find-gun-stocks-in-your-fund-portfolios
It offers its own sampling of gun free funds

If you're interested in avoiding companies involved in weapons of war (military contractors, munitions manufacturers, nuclear arms manufacturers, etc.), Invest Your Values provides the site weaponsfreefunds.org.

@hank: there may be many more gun-manufacturer-free funds out there. The list above comes from Kipplingers 25 favorite MFs, a pretty small sample.

There were 11 banks in the attempted private rescue of $FRC via deposit infusions (that didn't work):
Gr 1, $5 billion: $BAC, $C, $JPM, $WFC
Gr 2, $2.5 billion: $GS, $MS
Gr 3, $1 billion: $BK, $PNC, $STT, $TFC, $USB
From this list, serious contenders now seem JPM (Gr 1), PNC (Gr 3), BAC (Gr 1), USB (Gr 3). We should know by Sunday Noon/PM.

FDIC:
Sunday noon deadline for rescue.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jpm-bank-of-america-consider-first-republic-bids-as-fdic-sets-sunday-noon-deadline-183757831.html

Now you're going all metaphysical on us :-)
If I have $400K in a bank split between two accounts and the bank fails, I'm covered for $250K. Cash being fungible, does it really matter whether the FDIC covers $200K in my savings account and $50K in my checking account or vice versa?
It's all just numbers in a book (or bits in RAM). Nothing real to begin with.

That's all well and good, but it sounds as if one of the CDs would either have to be sold in the secondary markets, or cashed-in early (likely with substantial penalties) prior to the six month deadline.
Also, let's say the two CDs are each for $200k. So does that mean that one CD is completely insured, but only 50k of the other is insured? If so, which one, and why?
Like I said- a great question.

I purchased a CD at JP Morgan Chase through Fidelity several months ago. I also have a CD at First Republic. If, as has been reported, the FDIC were to "persuade" Chase to take over First Republic, the combined value of my two CDs at Chase would now exceed the $250,000 FDIC limit. A sale to Chase would likely mean that all of First Republic’s deposits would become accounts at the acquiring bank.
Curious if, through no fault of my own, the excess amount over the FDIC limit now suddenly becomes uninsured?
Fred

On the last cycle, the Treasury said that you wouldn't get the old rate if you purchased savings bonds on Oct 30th (Mon) or 31st. Now it is saying much the same thing:

When did I need to complete my I bond purchase to receive the initial rate of 6.89 percent?
If you were buying in TreasuryDirect, you needed to complete your purchase and receive a confirmation e-mail by Thursday, April 27, 2023, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/help-center/savings-bond-faqs/
How does a financial institution ask you to lend it money (make a deposit, buy a savings bond, etc.) without telling you (either in numbers or by formula) how much it will pay you for that loan? Maybe that's why the figure was released early. Though by that reasoning it should have been released yesterday morning.

The SEC writes in its Investor Bulletin "Bank Sweep Programs",

If you have more than $250,000 in cash in your broker-dealer’s bank sweep program, you may want to consider:

• Public Information about the health of the bank.
  You may want to take advantage of the financial and other information available to consumers on FDIC’s website at https://banks.data.fdic.gov/bankfind-suite/bankfind [corrected]. One relevant consideration when assessing the health of the bank may be the percentage of deposits derived from concentrated sources such as brokered deposits or one or more bank sweep arrangements.
• Your broker-dealer’s affiliation with the bank.
  Your broker-dealer could choose not to limit or end a relationship with an affiliated bank that experiences financial difficulties, even if doing so would be in the best interests of broker-dealer’s customers.

Brokers using affiliated banks include among others, Schwab (Charles Schwab Bank, Charles Schwab Premier Bank, Charles Schwab Trust Bank, TD Bank, TD Bank USA), E*Trade (self-directed accounts are limited to Morgan Stanley Bank and Morgan Stanley Private Bank; other accounts also use Citibank), and Merrill (Bank of America, Bank of America, Calif.; qualified Merrill retirement accounts may also use other banks)
Other brokerages do not have affilliated banks. Vanguard is only now beginning to roll out a couple of FDIC-insured products, Vanguard Cash Deposit (sweep account) and Vanguard Cash Plus Account. But those are pilot programs open by invitation only. Fidelity offers a bank sweep program with slightly different banks for its CMA accounts and for its IRA accounts for its IRA accounts.
Fidelity shows that it uses First Republic Bank, but that the bank is now unavailable in its program. According to Fidelity, that means only that it cannot add new money to First Republic (or presumably its successor bank?). This seems reasonable and responsible, as the moneys deposited there are below the FDIC limit and pulling money out would simply exacerbate the run on the bank. (First Republic is also on Merrill's list of banks for qualified retirement accounts.)
Notable also is that Huntington National Bank is on Fidelity's IRA list of banks but not on its CMA list of banks. Recent change? I don't know. Huntington National Bank is the principal subsidiary of Huntington Bancshares, listed a month ago as a vulnerable bank. More recently, the bank said that it was working to shore up its assets and provided figures to substantiate that.
So long as one's cash in a bank is below the FDIC limit, I don't think there's any reason to be concerned about losing money. The 2014 SEC warning about bank risks due to concentrated sources seems prescient.