Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    53224
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    313

Posts posted by Brisketexan

  1. 2 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

    It's a pretty wild world we live in where a lower rate of increase in spending is somehow viewed as a "slash" in spending.  It's also wild that people can, with a straight face, proclaim that because an unsustainable rate of spending wasn't maintained that there is now a "funding gap."  

    It's wild that you are 1) that predictable, and 2) that bad at math.

    Here, take an example.  In 2000, you were paid a salary of $50k.  The amount of goods you could buy was X.  Each year, for the next 5 years, your salary increased by 4%.  In 2005, you could still buy X amount of goods (or just a tiny bit more than that)....because of inflation.  Of course, in 2000, you ALSO had a kid.  The number of people your salary had to provide for increased.  But instead of increasing your salary 4% a year starting in 2005, your employer increased it only 1% a year.  By 2010, the amount of goods you could buy was LESS than X.  AND, the amount of goods you could buy per member of your household had declined significantly.

    Costs increase, both due to inflation and due to an increasing number of people in the system.  Failure to INCREASE spending in a manner that at least KEEPS PACE with those factors means that you can afford LESS in the way of goods and services than before on a per capita basis.

    Are you really that bad at math, or purposefully disingenuous, or.....the obvious answer...."both?"

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  2. 5 minutes ago, Guadaloopy said:

    image.png.d83aef3901247fcb1429d3b052fa53d3.png

    Where did they "slash spending"?

    The article he cited said exactly what they did -- the slashed the historical annual rate of increase (a measure that functionally keeps pace based on the fact that prices for goods and services typically increase annually, plus the amount of people needing them increases slightly as well):

    Quote

    The health service received just 0.1% real-terms increases to its funding each year until 2015 – far short of the 4% real-terms rises it had averaged annually since it was established and the 6% it averaged under the previous Labour government. 

    At the time, the King’s Trust health think tank said the NHS was facing the “biggest financial challenge in its history” and warned that the 0.1% settlement would “not be enough to meet increasing cost pressures or cope with increasing demand for services from an ageing population”.

    From 2016 onwards, the Conservative government increased the NHS budget by 1.6% a year. In 2018, then prime minister Theresa May announced that the NHS would receive an average 3.4% increase in its budget each year until 2023, as a “birthday present” to mark the 70th birthday of the NHS. But by then, the gap between the health service’s budget and what it would have had if the average 4% increase had been maintained since 2010, had grown to £42.2bn, according to analysis by the British Medical Association. 

    Boris Johnson announced a further uplift in 2021, setting real-terms annual spending increases at 3.9% a year until 2025. By now, the funding gap stood at £50bn. Although the move put funding increases back in line with the historical average, the “new plans allow for little or no long-term additional costs as a result of the pandemic”, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

    Yes, spending for most every program of every sort -- government, private sector, etc. -- increases year-to-year because of the factors I pointed out.  If the increases do not keep pace with those factors, then the real dollars available on a per patient basis are, functionally....cut.

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 2
  3. 24 minutes ago, Helobious said:

    Read the manifesto. Absolute unimaginative victimhood garbage. Literally said “it’s not my fault, it’s everyone else’s” about her life and the ills of the world multiple times. Talked about revolution and freedom of thought yet parroted very common racist talking points multiple times. 
     

    Similar to Uvalde shooter, she had a romantic partner that she met online and had never met in person. 

    It's almost like not-fully-formed adolescent brains, which are quite susceptible to being totally broken, should perhaps not have super-easy access to firearms.

    • Hook 'Em 6
  4. 11 minutes ago, C-Man said:

    My BIL went to med school at UTMB.  They had an easy screening question for when the crackpots came in: "oh....does your hair hurt?"  When they got the inevitable "yes, it does!", they knew that they could shuffle that one off to the crazy pile.

    That article is CLASSIC mass hysteria shit.  "A rash of people are reporting that the mysterious aircraft are making them have to pee when they wake up in the morning!"  Fucking post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, on a mass level.

  5. 43 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

    Holy shit this is annoying. Just back into a fucking spot, so you can pull right out when you leave. Instead of backing up 3 feet to see if there's anyone behind you. Then another foot. Then another. Then slowly backing out the rest of the way.

    The problem with this take is the following fact: 100% of people who back-in park say "I'm super-good at it, I can get it done in an instant," but 99% of them are dead-fucking wrong.  

    Signed, someone who regularly gets stuck in a parking lot waiting while someone takes 20 minutes to execute their 300-point back-in parking maneuver and blocks the whole fucking lane.

    I don't know when this became such a thing, but it's fucking maddening, because for all the "it's safer and faster" bullshit I hear....I must have the worst luck on earth to always get stuck behind the guy who just can't seem to pull it off without adjusting his angle 5,734 times.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  6. 50 minutes ago, luke duke said:

    Black olives don’t belong anywhere near burritos/enchiladas.

    Do you even 1970s-early 80s Taco Bell, bro?

    And I say this as someone who fucking hates black olives.  They taste like pointless dirt.  But some people dig 'em, and they are the international symbol for cheap california mex food.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. BA will check your bags all the way through. That helps..a lot.

    But the multiple bus rides and having to go through security again doesn’t.

    Not a fan of transferring at LHR.
  8. Agree - hire out that high up work. 

    When my old man listened to me talking a out borrowing the neighbor’s extension ladder to patch a piece of siding up at our very high roof line: “how much are you worth to your family alive? How much do you bill by the hour? You dumbass, pay someone to do that dangerous shit.” The old man can bring the wisdom sometimes.

    I don’t work on anything I can’t reach with a six foot folding ladder now.
    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  9. 1 hour ago, royiv said:

    I’m done caring. My mental health is much better for it.

    This.

    If the majority of Americans don't give a shit about a majority of Americans/actively want to inflict pain on other people/are too fucking stupid to see obvious lies to them for what they are.....why should anyone else waste .000000000000000000001% of a fuck caring about them?

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...