This Didnt take long

[rushmc 23]

Guess getting re-elected by doing the peoples will has more power than Obama Chicago strong arm tactics?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31693.html

Quote

The fallout: Democrats rethinking health care bill
By: Carrie Budoff Brown and Patrick O'Connor
January 19, 2010 09:33 PM EST

Republican Scott Brown’s upset win in Massachusetts threatened to derail hopes of passing a health reform bill this year, as the White House and Democratic leaders faced growing resistance Tuesday night from rank-and-file members to pressing ahead quickly with a bill following the Bay State backlash.

Democratic leaders and the White House insisted ahead of the vote they aren’t preparing to desert health care. They admit they’ll have to come up with a new strategy to win passage, but said they didn’t want to allow one Senate race to take them off-course on the president’s top legislative item for the year.

But several House members said Tuesday night that they had no interest in pursuing the most likely scenario for moving ahead with a bill — approving the already-passed Senate version of health reform in the House – and some said President Barack Obama should step back and start over.

In fact, early signs of split emerged as the polls closed in Massachusetts – between leaders like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer who said “the Senate bill is better than nothing,” and individual members who didn’t want to swallow the Senate’s version of health reform whole.

And with the winning majority for a health reform bill in the House so thin, almost any defections at this point would be fatal to reform’s prospects.

"The only way to go forward is to take a step back. If there isn't any recognition that we got the message and we are trying to recalibrate and do things differently, we are not only going to risk looking ignorant but arrogant,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), one of the leading advocates for health reform in the House.

"I don't think it would be the worst thing to take a step back and say we are going to pivot to do a jobs thing" and include elements of health care reform in it, he said.

Brown’s victory means that Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate, and Democrats are increasingly reluctant to try to ram through a revised reform package in the roughly two weeks before he takes office.

Democrats are floating the idea of a two-step process – passing the Senate bill in the House in step one, then passing a second “clean-up” bill to fix the things in the Senate bill that House members don’t like. The Senate then would have to pass the clean-up bill in a reconciliation process – meaning it would only need 51 votes.

But the deep resistance to the Senate bill among many House members shows that even this legislative tactic would be difficult to pull off.

"If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we are going to end with nothing because I don't hear a lot of support on our side for that bill,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.)

Lynch was even skeptical of the two-step scenario. “I've heard that theory but I don't know if it works," he said. "The problem is this we are spending almost a trillion dollars and folks are telling me I should vote yes and we will fix it later. You wouldn't buy a car for a trillion dollars and say yeah, it doesn't run but we will fix it later."

Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) said, "I don't put as much stock into what happens in Massachusetts. It's what we negotiated in the House. We were fully expecting to go some kind of conference committee and work out those differences. And there are still differences to work out. I cannot imagine, from one person, one member from Indiana, that this House would accept the Senate bill as is."

As the early results poured in, House leaders and the three chairmen with jurisdiction over the bill walked their colleagues through changes that had been negotiated with the White House and Senate – but barely mentioning the political meltdown in the Massachusetts.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) told colleagues that the three parties were close to an agreement on adding a new Medicare tax on unearned income for individuals who make more than $200,000 and couples who earn more than $250,000, people present said. On a normal night, that would amount to big news.

On Tuesday, it was a sidebar to the drama resolving itself in Massachusetts.

Weiner said the tone of the caucus meeting was "whistling past the graveyard."

After the caucus, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said of the bill: "The reports of its death – as Mark Twain would say - have been exaggerated."

He downplayed the negative comments from members, saying they routinely leave caucus meetings and declare it dead.

"Everytime we come out of a caucus, everyone pronounces the bill dead or it's not going to pass," Larson said.

Earlier Tuesday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that House Democrats are still "right on course" with the health care reform bill, regardless of what happens in the Massachusetts special election. She also said she has not been pressured by the White House to simply accept the Senate bill.

"In spite of all the activity that I know you're aware of in Massachusetts and the rest, we're still on course to resolving the differences between the House and the Senate bill. And we have revenue and investment issues that were sent to the CBO already, and now we're dealing with some of the policy issues. So we're right on course, and we will have a health care reform bill," Pelosi said.

House Republican Leader John Boehner fired back, with spokesman Michael Steel saying, “Regardless of what happens in Massachusetts, it’s clear that jamming this government takeover of health care through Congress will set off a political firestorm. The American people are screaming, ‘stop’ at the top of their lungs, and out-of-touch Democratic leaders ignore them at their peril.”

Despite the deep misgivings of rank-and-file members, a decision to abandon health care reform would contradict every major rationale offered by the president and congressional Democrats as to why they pushed so hard for it over the last year.

Before Tuesday, Obama and congressional Democrats were actually on the verge of passing a major overhaul of the health care system that has eluded generations of presidents and lawmakers. Giving up on it now might appear reasonable from a political standpoint in light of a Massachusetts defeat, but some Democrats fear they will look back at some point and regret deserting the bill given how far along they actually were.

The move would also run counter to the reputed ethos of the Obama White House, which regards itself as taking the long view and not reacting to every development. Plus, Obama and Democrats have argued they cannot solve the nation’s budgetary problems before dealing with health care. Those policy challenges will still be present after the polls close in Massachusetts, Democrats argue.

"For a lot of us it is our second round, and the most important thing is we know we will never get this economy under any kind of control until we get health care costs under control," Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said. "We're not doing this to aggravate people."

From a political standpoint, the White House will argue that Democrats own the bill either way. Most members of Congress have already for voted for the legislation, so they should take this last push to get it over the finish line and have a product to tout at the end -- rather than failure.

But under the most-discussed scenario, the White House and Senate leaders would need to convince a skeptical House to trust them – that the Senate will approve the same set of changes as part of a reconciliation bill. With relations between the House and Senate strained, at best, it will be a tough lift, aides said.

But if the alternative is no bill at all, Democrats may have little choice.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Well, at least on Dem senator is looking at this correctly

from the Politico

Quote

Senator Jim Webb puts out a statement that puts the notion of a quick Senate vote out of reach and pretty much makes a certification fight moot:

In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Well, at least on Dem senator is looking at this correctly

from the Politico

Quote

Senator Jim Webb puts out a statement that puts the notion of a quick Senate vote out of reach and pretty much makes a certification fight moot:

In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.

He says that now but will prob. still end up voting for it even though the majority doesn't want it!

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[georgerussia 0]

In my opinion, the Senate version just sucks after they added all this pork there. The House version is much better, hopefully it will be taken as the base for a new bill.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Gawain 0]

Quote

In my opinion, the Senate version just sucks after they added all this pork there. The House version is much better, hopefully it will be taken as the base for a new bill.

Not happening. With all the back peddling going on, it's as good as "start over" again, but it doesn't matter because the President, and his health care agenda have been a massive distraction from far more important issues: the economy, and the war.

The President began squandering his momentum from the start. He promised moderation in areas where he's delivered extreme solutions instead. Promoting bi-partisanship and "change" while idly letting the closed door sessions and henchmen throw bi-partisanship under the bus.

I get it, some of it is pay-back for 2000-2006, but they really overreached, and they did not listen.

The reality is this: concentrating on market solutions to reverse employment trends provides a viable, and real solution to two issues: health insurance, and tax revenues (locally and federally). It sets a firmer foundation for a real look at "reform" of the healthcare sector, which does not need massive mandates and buyouts, but subtle incremental changes that, if thought through carefully, would deliver huge results: tort reform, and pre-existing conditions. Start there and readdress after the market adjusts.

Then, use the increased tax revenues to pay off this massive spending spree over the past twelve months, and find real cuts to real spending, because, there's no need to raise taxes if the tax base expands.

Even liberal rags like The Economist are calling for cuts to spending versus tax increases.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Not happening. With all the back peddling going on, it's as good as "start over" again, but it doesn't matter because the President, and his health care agenda have been a massive distraction from far more important issues: the economy, and the war.

Well, pretty much everyone - including Republicans - agree that healthcare system needs to be fixed. They just disagree with proposed methods to fix it, so the discussion will likely continue. Even the Senate version would not be that bad if they strip out all the pork and giveaways they added there (although I consider public option "a must" to control healthcare costs - because once maintaining health insurance becomes mandatory, there would be nothing else to stop private insurers to raise the premiums).

Quote

The President began squandering his momentum from the start. He promised moderation in areas where he's delivered extreme solutions instead.

To me it looks more like he was abused by more experienced politicians, who thought they'd cut a piece for themselves, as usual. This didn't work this time, and some of them are already started backing up. Even here in liberal Bay Area - which was pretty much labor-friendly - it looks like people are slowly turning against unions, especially public unions.

Quote

I get it, some of it is pay-back for 2000-2006, but they really overreached, and they did not listen.

I would not say they _really_ overreached - it is more likely that nobody really cared in 2000-2006, being busy of recovering from dotcoms, and then being really busy to make quick bucks by buying and reselling overpriced properties. Now because of the overall situation a lot of people are paying attention to what's actually going on, which forces media to provide better coverage for the events, which in turn increases the mass activity.

Quote

The reality is this: concentrating on market solutions to reverse employment trends provides a viable, and real solution to two issues: health insurance, and tax revenues (locally and federally). It sets a firmer foundation for a real look at "reform" of the healthcare sector, which does not need massive mandates and buyouts, but subtle incremental changes that, if thought through carefully, would deliver huge results: tort reform, and pre-existing conditions. Start there and readdress after the market adjusts.

The problem here is that you cannot simply fix pre-existing condition by banning insurers of charging more premiums or denying coverage. This will lead to massive insurance drops, when people would only get insurance when they got sick, and drop it again once they are fine. To prevent this, you'd need to require everyone maintaining the insurance (and then you'd have to either provide insurance to poor, or exempt them from this requirement), and add penalties for non-compliance. This will lead to workarounds like getting the placeholder plan (a $5 a month plan which does not cover anything until you satisfy $10M deductible), switch to real plan when one needs coverage, and switch back after treatment. To prevent this kind of workaround, you would need to require people maintaining the health insurance plan which would cover some basics - and then you will have to set up the minimums which must be covered. At the end you'll likely end up with yet another 1,000 pages bill, which doesn't really different from what the House passed.

Quote

Even liberal rags like The Economist are calling for cuts to spending versus tax increases.

Easier said than done. Can you realistically cut your personal budget by 30%? Yes, you can. But will you? It is not that easy.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Not happening. With all the back peddling going on, it's as good as "start over" again, but it doesn't matter because the President, and his health care agenda have been a massive distraction from far more important issues: the economy, and the war.

Well, pretty much everyone - including Republicans - agree that healthcare system needs to be fixed. They just disagree with proposed methods to fix it, so the discussion will likely continue. Even the Senate version would not be that bad if they strip out all the pork and giveaways they added there (although I consider public option "a must" to control healthcare costs - because once maintaining health insurance becomes mandatory, there would be nothing else to stop private insurers to raise the premiums).

And thus why these reforms need to be addressed an issue at a time. Tort reform is a great place to start because the ripple effect across all sorts of costs becomes nearly immediate. Pre-existing conditions then become less cost-burdensome because the tort reform has lessened the insurance risk to extraneous judgments and payouts by juries that pull numbers out of thin air.

Quote

Quote

The President began squandering his momentum from the start. He promised moderation in areas where he's delivered extreme solutions instead.

To me it looks more like he was abused by more experienced politicians, who thought they'd cut a piece for themselves, as usual. This didn't work this time, and some of them are already started backing up. Even here in liberal Bay Area - which was pretty much labor-friendly - it looks like people are slowly turning against unions, especially public unions.

California is a double whammy because the state is in such piss poor financial condition, yet retirees are receiving massive payouts in retirement, some 120%+ of their salary, plus benefits. Secretaries in the UC system are part of collective bargaining agreements. CARB can't account for 57% of their budget, and an Assembly committee voted along party lines NOT to audit the agency.

President Obama could've concentrated his momentum to focus his stimulus to actually "stimulate" private sector growth. Instead the thing did little more than grow government jobs (many of them union), keep teachers (more union), and go to meaningless pork that no one knows how to track. The ARRA forms that have to be filled out for certain government bids make no sense. NO SENSE. Companies bidding on jobs using ARRA money have to pull numbers out of thin air to figure "jobs saved or created" and come up with an arbitrary number...this is before the solicitation gets awarded.

Quote

Quote

I get it, some of it is pay-back for 2000-2006, but they really overreached, and they did not listen.

I would not say they _really_ overreached - it is more likely that nobody really cared in 2000-2006, being busy of recovering from dotcoms, and then being really busy to make quick bucks by buying and reselling overpriced properties. Now because of the overall situation a lot of people are paying attention to what's actually going on, which forces media to provide better coverage for the events, which in turn increases the mass activity.

$1.5Tr spent with nothing to show for it. Closed door session for legislation and bold faced lies to the American people about what's going on. Have you not been to any town hall meetings? Even Mayor Newsom gets it.

Quote

Quote

The reality is this: concentrating on market solutions to reverse employment trends provides a viable, and real solution to two issues: health insurance, and tax revenues (locally and federally). It sets a firmer foundation for a real look at "reform" of the healthcare sector, which does not need massive mandates and buyouts, but subtle incremental changes that, if thought through carefully, would deliver huge results: tort reform, and pre-existing conditions. Start there and readdress after the market adjusts.

The problem here is that you cannot simply fix pre-existing condition by banning insurers of charging more premiums or denying coverage. This will lead to massive insurance drops, when people would only get insurance when they got sick, and drop it again once they are fine. To prevent this, you'd need to require everyone maintaining the insurance (and then you'd have to either provide insurance to poor, or exempt them from this requirement), and add penalties for non-compliance. This will lead to workarounds like getting the placeholder plan (a $5 a month plan which does not cover anything until you satisfy $10M deductible), switch to real plan when one needs coverage, and switch back after treatment. To prevent this kind of workaround, you would need to require people maintaining the health insurance plan which would cover some basics - and then you will have to set up the minimums which must be covered. At the end you'll likely end up with yet another 1,000 pages bill, which doesn't really different from what the House passed.

Concentrating on a single component at a time is a lot simpler than trying to ram a $1Tr load of BS through the system. If the legislation was so good they wouldn't need to "bribe" Senators to support it. The existing Government programs (Medicare and Medicaid) have costs spiraling out of control and will be insolvent within 10-15 years. The answer is not more government. The answer is not "more insurance". The answer is "less insurance". The mentality has become that whether you have a sore throat or a compound fracture, it shouldn't cost anything, to anyone, for any reason. That's not reality. People should have catastrophic coverage just like they cover themselves for housing, automotive, business liability, and surety. If a doctor's office didn't have to maintain a staff of 5 to handle paper work for 100 different insurance companies, he wouldn't have to quintuple-book his time to pay for it. Taking personal responsibility for one's health first, then basic care on a cash basis second, is less expensive than any insurance plan. Guaranteed. If someone wants to "Supersize" three times a day, it's on them. No one else should foot the bill for that person's diabetes medication down the road (or cholesterol medication, or heart surgery, or high blood pressure care...et al).

Quote

Quote

Even liberal rags like The Economist are calling for cuts to spending versus tax increases.

Easier said than done. Can you realistically cut your personal budget by 30%? Yes, you can. But will you? It is not that easy.

Wrong, and yes. If I needed to tomorrow, I could cut my expenses in half if I absolutely needed to. I don't have the option like the government to print my own money without recourse and spend it...though, the way things are nowadays, I may as well try it.

I realize that not everyone can do the same with their expenses. 30% is not an unrealistic goal though....cut a cell phone bill, stop buying coffee, trim back on extras at the grocery store, drive less, or sell a car, and it can be done...small pieces at a time. Having dabbled in enough personal debt in my life and seeing with absolute horror the debt that has been accumulated the past 10 years, I will not do that again. Alas, it will probably take a cataclysmic event to make Congress pursue that event again.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Easier said than done. Can you realistically cut your personal budget by 30%? Yes, you can. But will you? It is not that easy.

I certainly can. That's the savings portion. And there's the difference. I couldn't have increased my spending to that level in the first place.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

And thus why these reforms need to be addressed an issue at a time. Tort reform is a great place to start because the ripple effect across all sorts of costs becomes nearly immediate.

Tort reform is even more difficult than pre-existing conditions. Doctors are human, and do and will make mistakes, and treating them often cost a lot of money. For example, a patient may need a transplant which would cost a fortune. Who is going to pay for that? If you limit 'pain and suffering' damages, but do not limit actual damages, i.e. doctor's insurance would have to pay for the treatment, then nothing is likely to change at all - the risk is still great. If you limit total payment, then it is not clear who will pay for the treatment, and how.

Quote

Pre-existing conditions then become less cost-burdensome because the tort reform has lessened the insurance risk to extraneous judgments and payouts by juries that pull numbers out of thin air.

As I have said before, I see no reason why insurance company would use this lessen risk to pack up more profit and keep the doctor premiums the same as before. This way such reform would reduce consumer protection, and would not lead to cost decrease - it would only benefit insurance companies. I doubt such a reform would be useful at all. And according to GeorgiaDon, this is exactly what has happened in Georgia once they passed their tort reform. I see zero incentives for insurance companies to translate lessen risk to less expenses for doctors, and even if they do it, I see zero incentives for doctors to lower their prices - most consumers do not care about it anyway, they only care about the copay.

Quote

$1.5Tr spent with nothing to show for it. Closed door session for legislation and bold faced lies to the American people about what's going on. Have you not been to any town hall meetings? Even Mayor Newsom gets it.

As far as I read, Newsom is not better. Regarding spendings, we have here couple of bridges repaired and roads repaved. Much better to me than starting yet another useless war.

Quote

Concentrating on a single component at a time is a lot simpler than trying to ram a $1Tr load of BS through the system.

I just showed in previous post why you CANNOT just fix "one problem a time" without creating an immediate loophole which will make the problem much worse than it is now. If you just ban denying preexisting conditions and do nothing else, a lot of people who're now maintaining insurance would drop it to save money - after all, if/when they need medical help, they will apply for insurance and get it, right? - which will push insurance companies out of business very fast. The current bill is complex for a reason.

Quote

If the legislation was so good they wouldn't need to "bribe" Senators to support it.

This is pretty bad criteria. Senators do not care whether it is good or not, they only care about their sponsors and special interests.

Quote

The existing Government programs (Medicare and Medicaid) have costs spiraling out of control and will be insolvent within 10-15 years.

Medicare costs increase about 0.9% a year, while private insurance premiums increase about 10% a year, so your statement is kinda out of touch. Note that Medicare also need to pick up those who were dropped by private insurance companies as "too expensive".

Quote

The answer is not more government. The answer is not "more insurance". The answer is "less insurance". The mentality has become that whether you have a sore throat or a compound fracture, it shouldn't cost anything, to anyone, for any reason. That's not reality. People should have catastrophic coverage just like they cover themselves for housing, automotive, business liability, and surety. If a doctor's office didn't have to maintain a staff of 5 to handle paper work for 100 different insurance companies, he wouldn't have to quintuple-book his time to pay for it.

Well, "it shouldn't cost anything, to anyone, for any reason" is not the case with current plans. What you have is basically partially prepaid care - so it indeed cost you.

I did not understand "people should have catastrophic coverage" statement. Are you saying that "everyone should be required to maintain at least catastrophic coverage", or "only catastrophic coverage should be available"? How do you define this "catastrophic coverage" - what should it cover, and with how much deductible?

Quote

Taking personal responsibility for one's health first, then basic care on a cash basis second, is less expensive than any insurance plan. Guaranteed.

You do understand that you're not proposing a solution, right? It is just like a dream in style of "if everyone were responsible". However this is not possible. A lot of people are NOT responsible and you will not fix it, this is the matter of life, and it would be stupid to legislate assuming the opposite.

Quote

If someone wants to "Supersize" three times a day, it's on them. No one else should foot the bill for that person's diabetes medication down the road (or cholesterol medication, or heart surgery, or high blood pressure care...et al).

Interesting. Using the same logic this insurance should not cover skydiving, skiing or motorcycle incidents as well - after all, why should anyone else foot a bill for someone who's jumping out of perfectly good airplane? If you stayed at home and didn't go out at winter, you wouldn't break your leg - so it's your bad choice and we should not foot the bill for it, as everyone knows that when it's winter there is ice outside, which is slippery. It all sounds good until you apply the same rules for yourself. Then it suddenly doesn't look that good.

Quote

Wrong, and yes. If I needed to tomorrow, I could cut my expenses in half if I absolutely needed to. I don't have the option like the government to print my own money without recourse and spend it...though, the way things are nowadays, I may as well try it.

See? You _can_ do it (and so can government), but you do not want to do so. And the government does not want to do so too, and they do not see it as absolute necessary.

Quote

I realize that not everyone can do the same with their expenses. 30% is not an unrealistic goal though....cut a cell phone bill, stop buying coffee, trim back on extras at the grocery store, drive less, or sell a car, and it can be done...small pieces at a time.

In my opinion if you can cut 30% without life-changing efforts, you're wasting a lot of money. To me 15% is already significant overhead. For example, we cannot cut 30% because of a simple fact that 90% of our expenses are mortgage, business and kids-related (and dropping the mortgage and starting renting would make it worse, because we would lose a significant tax deduction, which - unlike 90% of available deductions - does not fade away in our income bracket). Being a certified cheapskate, I look through our budget every month, and I don't really see where else we can cut it. So no, it is not always possible.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I certainly can. That's the savings portion.

"Savings" is not "spending", it is basically money you move from one account to another. I do not see how this would be considered cutting spending.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I certainly can. That's the savings portion.

"Savings" is not "spending", it is basically money you move from one account to another. I do not see how this would be considered cutting spending.

It's the same idea behind tax cuts. People say, how do you pay for that? Well, the money isn't theirs to begin with, and they haven't spent it yet, so a tax cut, in effect, costs nothing.

If you don't spend it, the money is therefore saved - QED.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rehmwa 2]

Seriously, I hope the cancellation of the super-majority will just give all the Senators the balls to vote per their constituency.

Now that they don't have a strangle hold, it might be less pressure to divide up on party lines and follow the orders of the party leadership - currently happening. I mean, seriously, if a single Dem votes against any aspect of the socialist agenda, he'd be thrashed. Now it's not as critical.

Similar argument can be made on the other side of the aisle too, they don't have to toe the line as a group either so much.

Edit: I can't take it, this will never happen.

The only thing that might happen is that now the wheeling and dealing will increase as the left will now try to buy off individuals on the right and give even more sweetheart deals to special groups to ram the legislation through.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ron 10]

Quote

Can you realistically cut your personal budget by 30%? Yes, you can. But will you? It is not that easy.

Easily.... But the cool part is since I am positive on my balance sheets the way things are that I don't even have to think about it.

I make more than I spend, invest plenty, and play with the rest.

Quote

In my opinion if you can cut 30% without life-changing efforts, you're wasting a lot of money.

You call it "waste", I call it living my life.

Since I invest more than I "waste", have never taken a day of unemployment, never taken a single dime of welfare, am ahead of my savings goals for my retirement, already have 6 mths expenses in reserve, already have ZERO credit card debt, have both my and my wifes 2006 cars TOTALLY paid for, and already have enough saved to pay cash for my *next* car.... I think I should be allowed to "waste" as much of my income as I want.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I certainly can. That's the savings portion.

"Savings" is not "spending", it is basically money you move from one account to another. I do not see how this would be considered cutting spending.

Well, fine, if you insist. My monthly spending *requirements* are less than 60% of my net income. If I needed to, I can immediately switch to not eating out, be it at lunch at the office (~8-9/day), dinners. I can substantially alter my grocery choices as well. No new gadgets. If it really gets tight, drop the directv, and think about different rent situation.

The major blow comes with Cobra costs if I lose the job. Company PPO plans aren't cheap if you pay full freight. But Kaiser doesn't believe in PT, so no thanks.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Since I invest more than I "waste", have never taken a day of unemployment, never taken a single dime of welfare, am ahead of my savings goals for my retirement, already have 6 mths expenses in reserve, already have ZERO credit card debt, have both my and my wifes 2006 cars TOTALLY paid for, and already have enough saved to pay cash for my *next* car.... I think I should be allowed to "waste" as much of my income as I want.

shhhhhhhhh - 75% of the posters here don't consider that money to be yours - they'll find a way to legally take it if they know it exists

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

shhhhhhhhh - 75% of the posters here don't consider that money to be yours - they'll find a way to legally take it if they know it exists

That's why he "wastes" a good portion of it.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Well, fine, if you insist. My monthly spending *requirements* are less than 60% of my net income.

Including or excluding taxes?

Quote

If it really gets tight, drop the directv, and think about different rent situation.

I wonder why dropping directv is something which is only considered when it's really tight? But I don't have any TV at all (I'd rather read a book, and having no TV forces my kids to find other ways to entertain themselves), so maybe it's just me.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Easily.... But the cool part is since I am positive on my balance sheets the way things are that I don't even have to think about it.

That's the way the government does it. Why cutting spendings if they can "balance the sheet" by printing more money, or (in case of California) by using some accounting gimmicks? The sheet looks fine in both cases.

Quote

Since I invest more than I "waste", have never taken a day of unemployment, never taken a single dime of welfare, am ahead of my savings goals for my retirement, already have 6 mths expenses in reserve, already have ZERO credit card debt, have both my and my wifes 2006 cars TOTALLY paid for, and already have enough saved to pay cash for my *next* car.... I think I should be allowed to "waste" as much of my income as I want.

So what? This is definitely my situation as well (just to add that I never paid interest on a credit card balance in my life, and the only reason I got loans for both cars was because the dealership gave me a discount for that. I paid both loans in full next month though). Isn't it what a lot of people have?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Ron 10]

Quote

That's the way the government does it. Why cutting spendings if they can "balance the sheet" by printing more money, or (in case of California) by using some accounting gimmicks? The sheet looks fine in both cases.

Except in my case, *I* can't just print money. I manage my budget and I expect others (to include the Govt) to do the same.

Quote

So what? This is definitely my situation as well (just to add that I never paid interest on a credit card balance in my life, and the only reason I got loans for both cars was because the dealership gave me a discount for that. I paid both loans in full next month though). Isn't it what a lot of people have?

You need to get out more if you think most people are like us and have no debt.

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080720/NEWS01/807200404/1002/NEWS01

Nearly two-thirds of Americans -- 61%, continue adding to their debts because they feel confident in their income and ability to pay off their debt.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=80270

Prior to the recent, unprecedented string of deficits, Kasriel says there have been only seven other years American households have been so upside-down in their finances since 1929.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/proof-americans-living-beyond-means

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Well, fine, if you insist. My monthly spending *requirements* are less than 60% of my net income.

Including or excluding taxes?

Quote

If it really gets tight, drop the directv, and think about different rent situation.

I wonder why dropping directv is something which is only considered when it's really tight? But I don't have any TV at all (I'd rather read a book, and having no TV forces my kids to find other ways to entertain themselves), so maybe it's just me.

net means after taxes. If you want to deal in gross, then the carrying costs are close to 30% of base income.

Directv is a 1% item, yet if I'm not working, has considerable value. It's also, like the cell phone, something that has start/stop costs associated with it, whereas choosing to eat at home rather than sushi is an instant one.

Rent is more than half my monthly costs, but I don't need a 2/2 in the City. But again, it's a major start/stop effort to change the living situation, so it's not the first priority.

Yeah, my parents tried that whole spartan upbringing (along with a lot of other hippie bullshit). Kids learn to stay over at friends and other methods. Me - I'm not giving up football, the Tour, or movies on blu-ray.