living paycheck to paycheck

[Sour Masher]

You may be correct about some of this - but its closer (in my mind) to anything else that you are looking for.

I did say I endorse putting money back into the hand of the people - poor and rich both. I dont believe that we should do away with some social safety nets. You agree that additional money would help some communities but not others. Thats an interesting thing - maybe once a community is "fixed" we can allocate from the pool more to that other community - or maybe a series of good decisions is what helps one community succeed over another community.

I dont buy everything that Rand Paul says - but lets consider this from the short clip I posted earlier. 3 programs totaling 3million dollars in government spending was wasted on - whether there was an "A" in a historical statement - (700k)
whether people will eat sneezed on food at a buffet line (2million)
whether Japanese quails are hornier on cocaine (300k)

There was also spending on Ugandan gambling habits and how to prepare the Philippines for global warming (undisclosed in clip).

Thats at a minimum 3million dollars and probably closer to 5 or 6million in FRIVOLOUS spending that could be better spent on real issues in our own backyard. That was money specifically wasted and is not spent toward fulfilling the social contract. Why do you believe that the government is any better at fulfilling the social contract than people?

Just because they provide a program doesnt mean that they are any better at it. They overspend on just about everything that they purchase and cant stay within any budget that they create.

I think most folks would agree that if we want to belt tighten, the examples you give are an obvious place to start. They fall into the unneeded and wasteful category I mentioned. However, unfortunately, all of that waste doesn't add up to enough to cut taxes. The big budget items aren't the pennies we all agree can be cut as unnecessary government expenses. It is in the bigger stuff we fight over. Libertarians don't want to just cut the frivolous stuff, they want to cut things I think we need to do as a society. We need to do them efficiently, for sure. But we need to do them.

[nots]

Libertarians don't want to just cut the frivolous stuff, they want to cut things I think we need to do as a society. We need to do them efficiently, for sure. But we need to do them.

A. Yes, Things you think we need to do as a society, not necessarily things we Libertarians think we need to do as a society.
B. Please let me know a few things the government administers efficiently. Or better yet, a couple things the government has stopped doing because they are inefficient.

[Sour Masher]

JJ, I understand what you're saying. And yes, we have to live with the decisions that we make. Where do you draw the line of living today vs. living tomorrow?

I don't think it is unrealistic to expect to travel for 10 days every year? It's not over the top to take some vacation for both mental and physical well-being. Masher's wife, IMO, isn't asking too much.

As for their pursuit of PhD's, were do we draw the line in fulfillment of life? Perhaps they could have stopped at a Master's but then maybe they couldn't teach at the university which is their passion?

Sometime the sacrifice of money, security and knowing I can have the winter house in AZ, just don't mean enough to me, and others to slog through life completely unfulfilled.

Yeah, all of this. I'm more ant, my wife is more grasshopper. I think we meet in the middle and don't live over the top. We pay a lot for what I think of as necessities. We pay 25k a year for daycare right now. I do bristle at the notion that I'm hurting my kids with out spending habits. They live better now because of our spending--we buy them better food, a better place to live, better schools to go to. I accept we are making decisions that balance short term gains vs long term gains for them, but most decisions we make that cost a lot of money directly impact them, and a lot of the money we spend now positively impacts them in the short term.

I also think those who paint with a broad brush of, I live tight, you should too, don't take into account that some people have different lives. Some people have more medical expenses, or child care expenses, or need to help others in their family that need money to stay off the streets. Not everyone making the same amount of money as the same amount of baseline, non-frivolous expenses.

[Judge Jude]

JJ, I understand what you're saying. And yes, we have to live with the decisions that we make. Where do you draw the line of living today vs. living tomorrow?

I don't think it is unrealistic to expect to travel for 10 days every year? It's not over the top to take some vacation for both mental and physical well-being. Masher's wife, IMO, isn't asking too much.

As for their pursuit of PhD's, were do we draw the line in fulfillment of life? Perhaps they could have stopped at a Master's but then maybe they couldn't teach at the university which is their passion?

Sometime the sacrifice of money, security and knowing I can have the winter house in AZ, just don't mean enough to me, and others to slog through life completely unfulfilled.

I get it.
just a matter of priorities. my parents didn't fly us anywhere, but we did drive places on vacation.
the other sacrifices they made were so that they could pay for their children's college costs. that, to them, was a far bigger priority than most discretionary spending.

I suspect there are a lot of young adults out there who wish their parents had made far different choices on how to allocate money as they grew up, given the size of their college loans since their parents couldn't afford to help them with those bills.

anyway, I appreciate the feedback - I realize I'm kind of hugging the third rail with this.....

[Sour Masher]

A. Things you think we need to do as a society, not necessarily things we Libertarians think we need to do as a society.
B. Please let me know a few things the government administers efficiently. Or better yet, a couple things the government has stopped doing because they are inefficient.

I think medicare is done okay. I've seen how it is done in the private sector with insurance companies, and medicare is more efficient in many ways. So, health care. It can be improved, but it does a lot of good for a lot of people. And yes, I'm aware my thoughts are different from libertarians on what a society needs. I respect those differences of opinions, but it is what keeps me as a D rather than an L. In my perfect world, the R party would be very much an L party, because I think the healthy push and pull is between progressivism, which may go too far sometimes in its single-minded pursuit to help all, and Libertarianism, with its pure pursuit of less government. The R party has so much more baggage, with the neo-con stuff, the religious stuff, the fear/hate stuff--it has gotten so much worse now with Trump. I think progressivism needs libertarian push back, and libertarianism needs progressive push back.

[gcstomp]

http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7

Counter argument. Govt is not the enemy, and supports programs that are very succesful as outlined. Its not all keystone cops bungling.

[In the Corn]

Yeah, all of this. I'm more ant, my wife is ore grasshopper. I think we meet in the middle and don't live over the top. We pay at on for what I think of as necessities. We pay 25k a year for daycare right now. I do bristle at the notion that I'm hurting my kids with out spending habits. They live better now because of our spending--we buy them better food, a better place to live, better schools to go to. I accept we are making decisions that balance short term gains vs long term gains for them, but most decisions we make that cost a lot of money directly impact them, and a lot of the money we spend now positively impacts them in the short term.

I also think those who paint with a broad brush of, I live tight, you should too, don't take into account that some people have different lives. Some people have more medical expenses, or child care expenses, or need to help others in their family that need money to stay off the streets. Not everyone making the same amount of money as the same amount of baseline, non-frivolous expenses.

Excellent point. Just a recent story, I got home last night, and my wife hands me an email from her brother with the subject line: Bill Collector. He's asking each of the siblings to help pay for some of her mom's expense. It's a $100 every three months. I said, "With you working, we can do that." Her comment back was, "I want to give more. We haven't done anything to help previously." I said, "We haven't been in a position to do anything previously. You're mom is going to AZ to visit her daughter. If you want to give her $100 for some spending money, fine. However, if you do anything more, we won't have any money for when we visit our family next month."

That $100, if Mrs. ITC is working, would really pinch us for the month. It's a $100, it should be difficult, but it is.

[nots]

I think medicare is done okay. I've seen how it is done in the private sector with insurance companies, and medicare is more efficient in many ways. So, health care. It can be improved, but it does a lot of good for a lot of people. And yes, I'm aware my thoughts are different from libertarians on what a society needs. I respect those differences of opinions, but it is what keeps me as a D rather than an L. In my perfect world, the R party would be very much an L party, because I think the healthy push and pull is between progressivism, which may go too far sometimes in its single-minded pursuit to help all, and Libertarianism, with its pure pursuit of less government. The R party has so much ore baggage, with the neo-con stuff, the religious stuff, the fear/hate stuff. I think progressivism needs Libertarian push back, and Libertarianism needs progressive push back.

Medicare pays on average 87 cents to a hospital for $1 treatment. (https://www.aha.org/data-insights/20...er-2017-update)
Private insurance pays more ($1.12 i believe) to hospitals, allowing them to accept Medicare and remain viable. The reason Medicare is ‘successful’ is because of the private insurance industry— the one the Blue Team is trying to do away with.
But let’s say for arguments sake, I give you that one( I really don’t). Can you tell me something the government has stopped funding because it’s ineffective?

[nots]

http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7
Counter argument. Govt is not the enemy, and supports programs that are very succesful as outlined. Its not all keystone cops bungling.

Hard to take an article seriously that proclaims Social Security as an example of good government. Barring a change in the way it’s run now, their will be a 23% reduction in benefits in 2034 due to a shortfall. The Dems refuse to address this and often demonize the GOP when they bring up its potential insolvency.
It’s a great idea and has been a benefit to many over the years, but it is on life support now
BTW-posting a blog from a Professor of Politics at Mt Holyoke college isn’t going to move the needle too much with a lot us. I wouldn’t post an article from a fellow at a Libertarian think tank and say ‘see, my side is right!’.

[In the Corn]

I get it.
just a matter of priorities. my parents didn't fly us anywhere, but we did drive places on vacation.
the other sacrifices they made were so that they could pay for their children's college costs. that, to them, was a far bigger priority than most discretionary spending.

It costs Mrs. ITC and me $300 for round trip flights from Mpls to Boston...we fly the cheapest we can. Even if we had a car that used gasoline, it would take 2-3 days to fly to Boston...the gas, hotels and meals would be more than cost of the flights.

I suspect there are a lot of young adults out there who wish their parents had made far different choices on how to allocate money as they grew up, given the size of their college loans since their parents couldn't afford to help them with those bills.

anyway, I appreciate the feedback - I realize I'm kind of hugging the third rail with this.....

Perhaps that goes along with the feeling of entitlement that a lot of the younger generation has. I don't expect a dime from my folks when the die. My folks did help me with college, as much as they could. I believe they did all they could to set me up for success, and I appreciate it. I'm sure my folks look and think they could have made some different choices. I certainly look back and think I could have made some different choices, but I have a pretty fulfilled life, so I guess I'm content.

To be frank, I'm worth more dead to Mrs. ITC than I am alive. I have a decent life insurance policy. It's not going to set her up to eat bon-bons the rest of her life, but it will give her some freedom. I've told her, "If I die, cremate my body, take the insurance and pay off the house. You'll have enough to live on for the next 2-3 years, after that you're on your own or find another man."

[baldgriff]

Hard to take an article seriously that proclaims Social Security as an example of good government. Barring a change in the way it’s run now, their will be a 23% reduction in benefits in 2034 due to a shortfall. The Dems refuse to address this and often demonize the GOP when they bring up its potential insolvency.
It’s a great idea and has been a benefit to many over the years, but it is on life support now

Social Security is essentially a government Ponzi scheme - you know illegal if citizens do it, but ok for the government to do it. No that populations that pay into the system are declining it cant support those already "paid in".

[gcstomp]

Out of that list, I dont want to defend SS as the gold standard of govt efficiency, but even in its wasteful broken state.... "About 62 million people, or more than 1 in every 6 U.S. residents, collected Social Security benefits in June 2018. . The Social Security Administration estimates that 21% of married couples and 43% of single seniors rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income". Literally millions of people would have nothing without SS.

That said, some big changes have to happen with SS, and sooner than later.

[Sour Masher]

Medicare pays on average 87 cents to a hospital for $1 treatment. (https://www.aha.org/data-insights/20...er-2017-update)
Private insurance pays more ($1.12 i believe) to hospitals, allowing them to accept Medicare and remain viable. The reason Medicare is ‘successful’ is because of the private insurance industry— the one the Blue Team is trying to do away with.
But let’s say for arguments sake, I give you that one( I really don’t). Can you tell me something the government has stopped funding because it’s ineffective?

I worked in a hospital for a number of years. Part of that was working patient accounts. All those numbers are gamed. Actual costs of treatment is a moving target, manipulated by hospitals and doctors to get as much as they can from whoever they are dealing with. Not blaming them, as they have to, because the other side tries to pay as little as they can as well. All of that amounts to inflated cash rates for folks not using insurance (if you ever have to pay cash, negotiate, because that is what insurers do--they don't pay the amount on your bill). The Medicare pay rate is pretty fair and sustainable, and there are other things not factored in, like how much longer some private insurances take to pay than medicare, and the resources needed to collect. Some carriers, Avmed being one, if my memory serves, took many wasted man hours of calling and follow up to ensure proper and timely payment.

[nots]

Out of that list, I dont want to defend SS as the gold standard of govt efficiency, but even in its wasteful broken state.... "About 62 million people, or more than 1 in every 6 U.S. residents, collected Social Security benefits in June 2018. . The Social Security Administration estimates that 21% of married couples and 43% of single seniors rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income". Literally millions of people would have nothing without SS.

That said, some big changes have to happen with SS, and sooner than later.

Those people paid into SS—they are getting their money back.
Again, it was a good idea back when the average life expectancy was 67, but now it’s a Ponzi scheme. I hope next time the GOP wants look at ways of making it solvent, you won’t be one of the ones screaming about how they want to steal your money and cut your benefits.

[nots]

I worked in a hospital for a number of years. Part of that was working patient accounts. All those numbers are gamed. Actual costs of treatment is a moving target, manipulated by hospitals and doctors to get as much as they can from whoever they are dealing with. The Medicare pay rate is pretty fair and sustainable, and there are other things not factored in, like how much longer some private insurances take to pay than medicare, and the resources needed to collect. Some carriers, Avmed being one, if my memory serves, took many wasted man hours of calling and follow up to ensure proper and timely payment.

Do you have a link showing the numbers being ‘gamed’ because my 87 cent figure is pretty well documented.