Disqus - Latest Comments for nidsu

Re: The Budget Review: Before or after the month? - Blog - bob stanke | thoughts and best practices around personal development, productivity, self-tracking

Jeremy — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:18:45 -0000

Most months we do use the envelope system as well. It definitely helps to make the budgeting more concrete because you only have a certain amount of cash available to spend on the specific item. It truly makes the point of finite resources. I would say that we do spend less when we use cash instead of plastic.

Re: The Budget Review: Before or after the month? - Blog - bob stanke | thoughts and best practices around personal development, productivity, self-tracking

Jeremy — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:43:02 -0000

Bob, I'll tell you what I didn't used to be a believer in the assigning dollars in advance model... but I am now. We used to be pretty good with budgeting and spending but we still decided to do the Dave Ramsey course. Before the course, we did budget and plan (before the month) and then analyze it somewhat at the end of the month. I learned a lot from the course but one of the best things was his zero based budgeting model. He encourages you to plan where ALL of your money will go during a given month. You can have "misc" and "pocket money" accounts and such but you assign everything at the beginning of the month. The "zero based" simply means start the budget with income, subtract all expenses/investments/etc, and at the end of the month you should be at zero. I find it to work quite well for us. I'm not a 100% Ramsey convert (maybe 90%) but I am definitely a believer in that budget model.

Best of luck with your budgeting!

Re: 2011-2012 Area of Focus #3: Relationships - Blog - bob stanke | thoughts and best practices around personal development, productivity, self-tracking

Jeremy — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:08:35 -0000

Bob, I love the idea of investing in "social capital". I could not agree with you more. It is something that I want to spend more time doing as well. That said, it is quite difficult to measure from a numbers standpoint.

Re: 2011-2012 Area of Focus #1: Career - Blog - bob stanke | thoughts and best practices around personal development, productivity, self-tracking

Jeremy — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 11:01:36 -0000

Interesting post Bob. Career is always a tough one for goals because you really have no idea what opportunities will arise. That said, I agree that some form of focus for your career is very important although in my mind that typically is probably longer range.

I usually focus on what will I learn or add to skillsets. That in turn typically helps direct my career. Obviously, that won't always be the case but it definitely makes a difference.

Re: A close call reminds me to live more in the moment - Blog - BobStanke.com | the intersection of community, communication and content in the health and fitness industry

Jeremy — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:14:52 -0000

Glad to hear that you are alright. That's just crazy. It's amazing how quickly things can happen. Thanks for sharing.

Re: Many Still Failing with Technology

Jeremy — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:50:18 -0000

It's truly pathetic. Why even bother? The system is completely useless for people. I think someone just heard how cool tracking was and so they built something. Given, it's of no value but it can hand out tracking numbers. Truly amazing.

Re: Lame duck

Jeremy — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:25:58 -0000

Mark, I'm with you on both accounts. Find a solution to the tax issue. Stop posturing and fix it. The margin of difference is so small... just do it. I don't think increasing taxes in the new year is a good idea at all. Extend the 98%... compromise on the 2%... sunset it in 2 or 3 years and move on.

I'm not sure I have much of an opinion on the DREAM act. I think they're going to consider it during this session. Not sure whether it will get traction or not.

Re: Media groupthink

Jeremy — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 21:22:57 -0000

I guess you proved my point that it completely depends on you perspective. I would say that calling W a conservative (by my definition of conservative) is completely off. Social con maybe. Neo-con sure. But true conservative (small government fiscal conservative) is not correct by any stretch.

I completely agree with you on the focus of the news organizations. Typically I think it's based on the staff viewpoint but I also think that you are right that $$$ makes them focus. Fox News did it. Recently, so did MSNBC. Makes complete sense to me. It's all about differentiation. If all news orgs were the same how would they make money?

Re: Media groupthink

Jeremy — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 11:24:49 -0000

Dead on... you are exactly right. It only make sense. Just like it makes sense when people on the left say George W. Bush was right-wing while I would say he was a pretty moderate Republican. It's all about your view. If you're Mao, everyone seems like crazy right-wingers!! LOL.

I also agree that trying to get un-biased reporting is next to impossible. After all, define un-biased. What does that mean? People say just the facts. Well what are "facts"? An example... what about global warming? If I report on how humans are causing global warming, some would say that's fact while others will say that's biased reporting. It's all about perspective.

Re: Working Naked: A guide to the bare essentials of home office life

Jeremy — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:23:24 -0000

What you started working in an office and then needed a sport-coat? Getting all formal now? LOL.

Re: The Broken Two Party Political System Of America

Jeremy — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 20:56:40 -0000

I think it's a gigantic leap to go from wanting informed and motivated voters to a poll tax. In fact, I think that comparison is way off. The 'Rock the Vote' movements in this country are designed to get people to the polls who do not care enough without the program to go vote. They also don't care enough to educate themselves before voting. They hear a celebrity say go vote for Harry, so they do. They have no damn idea who Harry is or what he stands for... they just like that celebrity. Or worse yet, the organizers say we'll give you a t-shirt, a beer, or something else if you just go vote for Harry. Again we get a voter who doesn't give a damn and has no idea who they're voting for. This is destructive to democracy. Would you like to have candidates buy votes ($100 if you vote for Harry)? It's the same thing.

Do I support voter education? Yes. Would I like to see the end of the stupid 'get out the vote' programs? Absolutely yes. They do nothing but get uninformed and disinterested people to go to the polls for no other reason than the celebrity told them to. They are ridiculous. I also really don't care which groups (Dem or Repub) the programs are nothing but manipulation of the system.

As for your comment on intelligence, I have no idea where you came up with that. There is an huge difference between intelligence level and how informed you are. People who are intelligent can be completely ignorant about a candidate or all current events if they're not interested. On the other hand, someone with low intelligence can know exactly why they are going to the polls to vote for a person. It's about 2 things: information and motivation. Disinterested people will not inform themselves and thus should not vote.

As I said, voting is a right but it is also a duty. There is responsibility that comes with it. Inform yourself before you go to the polls, otherwise... stay home. That is the responsible thing to do.

Re: Do we need more than 2 parties?

Jeremy — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:57:24 -0000

I completely agree with the first part Shaun. I think that is a huge issue and leaves many voters disgruntled about both parties. Because they are so broad you have to pick which one is closest. Neither party can be all things to all people (even though the try via spin).

I don't believe that Republicans are any more beholden to corporate interests than Democrats are. They're just beholden to different corporate interests. They are all bought and paid for. For some reason people think that the unions aren't big business... they are. As are trial and personal injury attorneys that support Democrats. Both parties are owned. Why do you think that HC Reform brought huge dollars into insurance companies? Why didn't HC Reform contain any tort reform? Why do you think UAW got a huge piece of the new GM? Why is card check on the table? All because the Dems are just as owned as the Republicans are. Just different lobbies. We are about as close to corporatocracy as there is.

I'm not convinced of the third party threat. I don't see how they can change the system. We would either need to completely open it up (multi-party system) or go non-partisan. Not sure how we could do much else...

Re: The Broken Two Party Political System Of America

Jeremy — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:30:26 -0000

Alright, you two need to be on the Election Reform Committee.

I completely agree with you both. I would LOVE to see the 'get out the vote' crap end. I agree it is your right to vote. But using philosophy from Spiderman: "With great power comes great responsibility". If you don't take the time to educate yourself... stay home. You don't know what you're voting for and quite honestly your causing us all problems. Take the time to educate yourself... then go vote. The only reason that politicians like the "high turnout" crap is because they know how to manipulate it. Busing people to polls or giving beer for voting... yeah that is great for our country. We are moving ever closer to the movie Idiocracy.

Interestingly enough, that was the debate when they were discussing the Constitution. The people argued the idea of democratically electing the President vs. Parliamentary style election via the House of Reps. One side wanted democratically elected while the other side was afraid that the people wouldn't take the time/effort to pick the best candidate. The compromise? The Electoral College. Like the EC or not... it was caused by the same base argument.

Also, Senators were supposed to be representatives of the state and selected by state government not by popular vote. That is how it was for over 100 years. So they wouldn't have been campaigning either.

I actually wonder that it might have worked better to not put the President and Senate up for popular election. That way you only had to educate yourself on one federal race - your House Rep. Obviously, that would have made state races more contentious. Not sure...

Re: The Broken Two Party Political System Of America

Jeremy — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:17:10 -0000

Mark, you have my vote. Excellent article and reasoning. I like the concept.

Check beside Mark Nielsen for Supreme Election Reform Czar.

Re: Do we need more than 2 parties?

Jeremy — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:53:40 -0000

I think maybe my point was slightly missed. I agree that reform would be nice but here's the issue... legislators have no intention of legislation against themselves. So the alternative? Legislate away the ability for the groups they don't like to have their political speech. Instead of targeting the politician (as it should be) we try to target individual rights of the citizenry. I don't have any problem regulating/limiting politicians and Washington. I do however have an issue with those politicians putting limits on citizens.

It's easy to target the evil rich or the evil corporations but I believe that we have to protect everyone's rights not just our own. Who's political speech should be next? Maybe the NRA... yeah they're rich "special interest". Then maybe talk radio. Oh wait, now a new Republican is in office and doesn't like Daily Kos or maybe MoveOn or maybe even a pro-life push decides to not allow NARAL to put in money. This doesn't have anything to do with politics or the class warfare that they keep using to argue it, it has to do with the rights of a free people. Every single one of those groups has the right to voice their opinion.

I understand that some people have more money to do it. How do you think the NRA or Club for Growth or NARAL or NOW got that money? From every day citizens who have a views. Those terrible special interests are us!! The politicians are using this rhetoric to limit what we can say about them.

This is definitely an issue that I want to discuss one week. As you can tell I am very opposed to limiting free speech. It is a key foundation that makes America great. I have no problem limiting legislators because they are paid to work for us just like an employee. We don't work for them.

On the media changing, I think the point I was making was that anyone can absolutely get their viewpoint heard. You have many media 'outlets' that are freely available (Twitter, FaceBook, Blogs, etc). That didn't used to be the case. My point was that the Internet and social media has democratized marketing and influence. I understand that money will always exist and have influence... no way around that.

Re: Do we need more than 2 parties?

Jeremy — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:27:07 -0000

Thanks for the comment Greg. I agree that we focus way too much on what separates us and not enough on our common ground. We also make no real attempt in politics to find common ground we just call each other names. It's pretty sad.

I honestly think that Reagan was able to unite and we really haven't seen anyone with that ability since then. He definitely had his faults but from the uniting standpoint... he should be a role model. I think the landslide election of 1984 is enough to prove that he had the support of the country. The country supported him because he tried to focus on standing together and he actually spoke in a positive way.

In my opinion, Reagan and Clinton both understood one thing: the President is the only person who serves the entire country. Senators and Reps only serve their districts. So in that way, the President to be successful must rise above the bickering in the Senate and House. W and Obama never caught on to that. Reagan and Clinton understood that they must stay above those fights and show the vision they had. They approached it from a bring people together view. They both had positive approaches to fix the issues of the day. They both discussed how they were making things better and what the future looked like. I think it's about showing people the vision with your words as President (like Reagan's 'shining city of the hill'). Both of those Presidents had high approvals. W and Obama have been pulled down into the trenches of political warfare and you see what has happened.

I guess my point is the parties fuel this division and this 'pick a team' mindset. Some people can rise above it but most just get pulled in. Adding more parties would just add to this issue in my opinion.

Re: Do we need more than 2 parties?

Jeremy — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:59:13 -0000

Thanks. I really am not sure that coalition governments are any better than the other options like our system.

I'll tell you that I am always leery of campaign finance reform. Why? Because the people who have their hands in the cookie jar are the ones promising to "reform" the system. I believe that is exactly why the first amendment exists. Freedom of speech applies to all of our political speech, including money donated to run ads. Like the disaster that was McCain-Feingold... the reform was really designed at silencing voices they didn't like more than it was about them getting their hands on the money. I am pretty hesitant to support anything that career campaigners would call campaign finance reform. It just doesn't fit in their interests.

Second reason, I don't believe the finance reform is necessary is that the media is changing. Money used to buy elections... I think that is changing. Funny enough I posted an article on the Facebook page today by Seth Godin discussing that exact thing: http://sethgodin.typepad.co....

Re: Limit the Damage

Jeremy — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:19:45 -0000

Yep... I'm with you on that. In theory we shouldn't need them... in reality I think we do.

Re: Limit the Damage

Jeremy — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:08:44 -0000

Honestly Mark, I think career politicians are one of the main reasons we have the issues we have. They aren't affected by at least half of the legislation they pass, they don't live in their districts, they don't have jobs that are affected. The model was of true citizen legislators that lived with the people they represented. This as a whole is not the case in America today. I think that this has been a huge part of the building the two classes that exist in America today: Ruling class and peasants.

Re: The Doctor Will See You Now: The Reform After the Reform

Jeremy — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:34:40 -0000

Mark,

I'm curious. Have you ever taken a look at other country's systems? Which do you think make the most sense? I'm intrigued by Switzerland and Australia. Would like to learn more about their systems and how they make it work. Your thoughts?

Re: Limit the Damage

Jeremy — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:20:02 -0000

On the Supreme Court issue, I don't want them to campaign (anymore than they do today). I would only give them one term. After their term is up... someone else should replace them. I have a problem with anyone being in office for more that about 15 years. We need to continue to have new ideas and visions to keep the system working.

Will term limits solve corruption? Of course not. It will just help to limit the damage by removing people after a certain period of time. Many of our current crop of politicians have been bought and paid for since before I was born. There's something wrong with that. We need more turnover than that.

I don't believe that term limits are the end all be all. I think they are a step in the right direction. We need to work to keep politicians as CITIZEN LEGISLATORS instead of CAREER POLITICIANS. That is a huge problem in politics today.

As for the money debate... I think that is a very difficult debate. Are politicians bought off? Of course. Does freedom of speech (especially political speech) protect that? I believe it does. I think that's a great weekly special topic for the future.

Re: The Doctor Will See You Now: The Reform After the Reform

Jeremy — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:18:43 -0000

Oh yeah, wanted to say I also completely agree with disconnecting insurance from your place of employment. No question. That is an excellent point. It's ridiculous that my choice to change employers should open me up to such liability. People should be able to buy into pools without the need for an employer pool.

Re: The Doctor Will See You Now: The Reform After the Reform

Jeremy — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:16:12 -0000

Mark, I truly enjoyed your insights.

I am with Brian that I think the "public option" is just a backdoor to the single payer system. I don't believe that the government is needed to create competition. Although it conflicts with my view of state's control... I believe that allowing insurers to compete across state lines would dramatically increase competition. There is also probably a need for a high risk pool that is mandated by state/federal government. Many states have this for auto or home insurance and it makes sense for health care as well.

I am completely with you on your thoughts on mandates. No one should be forced to have coverage but no one should be forced to provide coverage if they don't have it either.

I believe that the malpractice issue is an enormous one right now and the new legislation did absolutely nothing to deal with this issue. It seems that the trial attorney lobby and malpractice insurance lobby were favored over real reform in that area. Sad because that is probably the #1 place where they could have worked on costs.

I think we'll have to dig a little deeper into how to solve the issues in a future Weekly Special!

Excellent thoughts.

Re: Health care “reform” = Higher costs for all

Jeremy — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:44:30 -0000

Well Brian, I can definitely appreciate your opinion. I think the key issue for our debate is role of government. I don't believe that government belongs in this role. I don't believe that they belong in most roles. I do believe that in most cases they solve problems. I'm not sure how you compare civil rights to social programs. I didn't say that legislation wasn't ever needed (not an anarchist), I specifically outlined the "social programs" that they continue to mess up. I have a major problem with handing over another program to them when we have the disasters of Social Security and Medicare that are looming. How about solve the existing disasters before creating yet another.

I do object to certain parts of how elections are handled and we'll talk about term limits. That said my point was that the legislation was designed to fund campaigns not to fix problems especially the cost issue that the Democrats sold it for.

Anyway, I think the fundamental principle of role of government is always going to cause issues in this debate. I think that if the Democrats wanted a solutions that won't get torn apart in the future... they probably should have considered what the people were saying. I think they could have passed aspects of their plan without the mandates and may have much less of a chance for it getting defunded. I truly believe that aspects of the bill will probably live on the other hand I think many of the pieces won't survive the next Congress or the court system. That's just my take.

Re: “YEA” on Healthcare Reform

Jeremy — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:56:47 -0000

Dave, good post. I think the sad thing is that this package wasn't designed to fix anything... it was designed to reward campaign donors. If they were going to fix things, why wouldn't they look at a place like Mayo?

Mayo is one of the best hospitals in the entire world. People from all over the world go to little Rochester, MN for care. Yet, they provide care that is efficient and cost-efficient. How do they do that? They have taken a paradigm shift from the traditional model. They focus their energies. I had a family member go to Mayo a couple of years ago. She walked in and met a TEAM of doctors. They ran her through a bunch of tests all day one day. The team met with the results and discussed their findings with her the next day. Instead of it taking 2 months to get all the labs, read the findings, blah, blah, blah. In less than two days, she knew their thoughts and their recommendations.

This wasn't about "reform". It was about "stimulus" for the insurance companies. It was about powerful lobbies like the AMA. The government said, "Just keep doing what you're doing and we'll simply tax and regulate to pay for it."