How does it, I never even said anything remotely resembling any of that. My point was that unlimited housing benefit was stupid (and probably raises rent prices!)That attitude of yours stinks of Victorian condescension.
How does it, I never even said anything remotely resembling any of that. My point was that unlimited housing benefit was stupid (and probably raises rent prices!)That attitude of yours stinks of Victorian condescension.
Rather than dealing with the issue through benefits, there should be more affordable housing in Greater London to begin with. The housing market there even for a basic flat is competitive to the point of absurdity; the resulting problem isn't that people need to make more money to rent increasingly expensive homes, but that lower-income homes need to be more accessible and affordable.
<NEW FIC!> Revolution #9: Somewhere out there, there's a universe in which your mistakes and failures never happened, and all you wished for is true. How hard would you fight to make that real?
[11:20:46 AM] GlowStiks: lucina is supes attractive
[12:40] Lace: lucina is amazing
[12:40] Neir: lucina is pretty much flawless
Benefits should be raised and housing prices controlled, in addition to large landholding individuals and companies having their holdings broken up.
But it was the expensive housing and generally high COLA that made it so easy to deduce that rin and shirou make a better then 6 figure salary working part time post UBW
:/
dont take that away, I was proud of that
Originally Posted by Bird of Hermes
Luvia owns their house, it is literally paid for by Shirou's dick.
That and Luvia is paying shirou and rin a minimum of about 250 k a year (household) to have sex on her bed once in a while.
and it's likely closer to 350-400 k.
which is why I always find it funny when people say rin's job must suck.
EDIT: in dollars, not pounds.
This made me look up the Robin Hood Gardens' current situation and while it's 214 social flats gone to make 1700, of which 700 are social, and while mixing up luxury with social is good in theory, I don't think I know of an example where it's worked. Maybe if it were 1000 social to 700 luxury in a more exclusive microlocation but as it is it looks like a token effort to keep it social while actual intentions are painfully obvious.
rubbish, everyone knows where Rin is getting her money
It does involve sucking, at least.
I guess that's one way to describe hoovering the floor
Last edited by 2Bad; September 13th, 2017 at 04:39 PM.
The "it will cost 32 Trillion dollars over the next 10 years!!!" attack on the medicare for all bill is pretty hilarious given that we are currently projected to spend 49 trillion over the next 10 years under the current system.
Also the Dems are now getting Trump to (supposedly) consider increased taxes on the rich
go boy, go get the dog biscuit, go get it!
Where did you even get the 32 number?
It has been the projected costs of his proposals for quite some time, and the bill officially on the table appears to match it. Hell, even the GOP has used it as their official line, though they're attempting to frame it as a bad thing.
- - - Updated - - -
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidne...Lwe#.epO0Mlyn5
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster’s memo directs top officials to warn staff against leaking information in a government-wide training program. We got the memo.The McMaster memorandum itself likely would be seen as a type of such a “controlled unclassified” document, as it is marked: “UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO [For Official Use Only].”
Are you reading this as 'will cost 32 instead of 49'?
That is the case, though yes they are attempting to present it as 32 ADDITIONALLY by lying via omission.
The number itself, however, is not fabrication but seems to be where the estimates (which have varied pretty wildly as different spins on the plan have been proposed through the campaigns and after the election) have settled.
that's political statements, of which 'technically true but materially false' are the best kind
what is materially true is that overall cost would be reduced
then I'm afraid I'm completely lost given that your npr link is +15.3 revenue - 32 outlay? unless you're trying to say that net national hc spending as % gdp is going to go down but then why not just put numbers to that effect up instead
Because you wanted the original source of the number (well technically the original would be an actual analysis of the Conyers bill but I'm not pulling papers when articles will do).
It is worth noting, of course, that the bill said number analyzes was just a placeholder from back in the campaign days, and the current bill is distinct, but the projections I've seen suggest it would be similar. The main thing is that it would introduce stability into our system so we're not constantly shooting costs up every single year due to unregulated drug prices and artificially inflated private insurance, and by encouraging preventative care. We already spent 3 trillion last year and it's projected to shoot up annually to reach the aforementioned 49 after a decade. It's why we have the most expensive healthcare system on the planet by a mile.
Last edited by 2Bad; September 13th, 2017 at 08:53 PM.
Posting Permissions
