President Trump- The Implications

[patric]

And the hijacking of the Republican party just keeps on rolling.... Good job, Illinois!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCw7RJ5eE8

[rebound]

Setting a growth in expenditures and holding to that is pretty unwise. I'd like to increase my expense budget 3% a year, but shockingly (sarc) it hardly ever works out. There are extenuating circumstances beyond just petty political bickering. If you hadn't noticed over the last five or ten years, Europe hasn't exactly been swimming in growth.

And at that rate (4.3%), it would only take 17 years to double the budget. You really think that is realistic?

Not arguing for or against Nationalized Health Care here, but the original critique by Trump (and you due to the reference) is not valid. The protests were not against the NHS, rather they are against the lack of funding for it.  The people apparently like their system, and simply want the govt to fund it as promised.

Pick any major govt system and the scenario would be (and is) the same.  Fund it well (and maybe even a little too much...) and it will work well.  Reduce the funding such that the funding does not match up with expected level of service, and there will be an outcry.  Look at Military Spending, or Social Security.  Depending upon which parties you ask, both are underfunded and not performing as expected.

Britain's (or Canada's) healthcare system is not ours, but we definitely have a similar situation here.   The ACA is being "pecked to death" by the GOP and Trump by taking away key mandates and funding.  Then, the claim is being made that it isn't working.  Underfund anything (see above examples), and it does't work.  But it is the height of arrogance to claim ignorance that the two issues are unrelated.

[erfalf]

Not arguing for or against Nationalized Health Care here, but the original critique by Trump (and you due to the reference) is not valid. The protests were not against the NHS, rather they are against the lack of funding for it.  The people apparently like their system, and simply want the govt to fund it as promised.

I understood it, and I think it just bolsters the point that there are major issues with NHS, namely that there are a finite amount of funds to keep it going. I don't really see how this disqualifies his take, other than he could have been more "Presidential" about it.

Pick any major govt system and the scenario would be (and is) the same.  Fund it well (and maybe even a little too much...) and it will work well.  Reduce the funding such that the funding does not match up with expected level of service, and there will be an outcry.  Look at Military Spending, or Social Security.  Depending upon which parties you ask, both are underfunded and not performing as expected.

Britain's (or Canada's) healthcare system is not ours, but we definitely have a similar situation here.   The ACA is being "pecked to death" by the GOP and Trump by taking away key mandates and funding.  Then, the claim is being made that it isn't working.  Underfund anything (see above examples), and it does't work.  But it is the height of arrogance to claim ignorance that the two issues are unrelated.

Not saying that so much as I just don't think there are enough resources out there to promise what they are promising to every citizen.

[heironymouspasparagus]

My point is that it is debatable whether it works any better or worse than other systems out there, ours included. There are pros AND CONS to every system, NHS included. But let's stick with calling the other side stupid. That solves a lot of real problems.

You make my point - Trump not only calls them stupid, he degrades, dismisses, and flat out lies about their efforts and results.

When in another one of those 'reality' points - it is Trump that is not only stupid, but vindictive, dishonest, rude, vile, criminal, and just plain ole' disgusting.

If you know of an actual redeeming feature he has, I, along with most of the planet, would love to hear it.

Singapore apparently has the "best" system - at least according to a lot of analysts.  And there are 37 other first world countries that have a better system than ours.  Unless ya just wanna buy into what Trump says without listening to actual experts.  Just like with global climate change topic.  Or the whole idea that coal is a clean fuel....

[heironymouspasparagus]

Setting a growth in expenditures and holding to that is pretty unwise. I'd like to increase my expense budget 3% a year, but shockingly (sarc) it hardly ever works out. There are extenuating circumstances beyond just petty political bickering. If you hadn't noticed over the last five or ten years, Europe hasn't exactly been swimming in growth.

And at that rate (4.3%), it would only take 17 years to double the budget. You really think that is realistic?

It is what modern, non-metallic based economies do.  Can't get away from it. 

And that number is combination of economics (inflation at 2 or 3%) and population growth.  One - inflation - is gonna happen, no matter what  you do.  So is the other.  The ONLY way it is NOT realistic is if they take the approach the US did for the last 35 years - let NO increases due to inflation happen so that you keep the lowest paid at the bottom and getting lower, and let the richest get richer.  That is why we have a legal minimum wage of $7.25 - or one half the equivalent of what it was when it peaked in 1968.  (That is where the $15 an hour number comes from one hears about in the minimum wage protests from time to time.)

Inflation AND population in the UK have probably been about at that 4% number.  Population growth for them has been sluggish - running in the .5%-ish range since 1960.  Meaning most of that is taken up by inflation, which is valid number.

https://www.google.com/search?q=population+growth+in+uk&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS775US775&oq=population+growth+in+uk&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.7743j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


As for your budget - you are experiencing the direct effect of the conscious effort to hold the minimum wage down - it is a "trickle up" reality.  Not to be confused with trickle down theory...   Except for the fact that someone is pissing down your back and telling you it's raining both ways!

[heironymouspasparagus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCw7RJ5eE8

Yeah...and it's 'sequel' scene... Everyone needs a little Tom Petty from time to time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q6swtzJpJw

[erfalf]

It is what modern, non-metallic based economies do.  Can't get away from it. 

And that number is combination of economics (inflation at 2 or 3%) and population growth.  One - inflation - is gonna happen, no matter what  you do.  So is the other.  The ONLY way it is NOT realistic is if they take the approach the US did for the last 35 years - let NO increases due to inflation happen so that you keep the lowest paid at the bottom and getting lower, and let the richest get richer.  That is why we have a legal minimum wage of $7.25 - or one half the equivalent of what it was when it peaked in 1968.  (That is where the $15 an hour number comes from one hears about in the minimum wage protests from time to time.)

Inflation AND population in the UK have probably been about at that 4% number.  Population growth for them has been sluggish - running in the .5%-ish range since 1960.  Meaning most of that is taken up by inflation, which is valid number.

https://www.google.com/search?q=population+growth+in+uk&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS775US775&oq=population+growth+in+uk&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.7743j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


As for your budget - you are experiencing the direct effect of the conscious effort to hold the minimum wage down - it is a "trickle up" reality.  Not to be confused with trickle down theory...   Except for the fact that someone is pissing down your back and telling you it's raining both ways!

Over the last decade, inflation has not been as kind to GB, hence the limited funding. Good try though. It's just an arbitrary number, probably one that they thought would keep the system solvent. I doubt it had much to do with inflation or growth, because neither has been high for some time.

http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/great-britain/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-great-britain.aspx

[erfalf]

You make my point - Trump not only calls them stupid, he degrades, dismisses, and flat out lies about their efforts and results.

When in another one of those 'reality' points - it is Trump that is not only stupid, but vindictive, dishonest, rude, vile, criminal, and just plain ole' disgusting.

If you know of an actual redeeming feature he has, I, along with most of the planet, would love to hear it.

Singapore apparently has the "best" system - at least according to a lot of analysts.  And there are 37 other first world countries that have a better system than ours.  Unless ya just wanna buy into what Trump says without listening to actual experts.  Just like with global climate change topic.  Or the whole idea that coal is a clean fuel....

Go ahead and continue to meander about what we were originally discussing. Because A does not mean B, means that Trump, with all his faults may be right some time. And in this case, it's really difficult to be wrong, because as I mentioned, the "best" system is rather subjective. And on the face of it, there appears to be some issues with the British system.

Now, Trump should have kept his mouth shut. But seeing a march demanding more funds for NHS would make most sane minded people think that maybe something isn't working quite right over there.

[TeeDub]

The ONLY way it is NOT realistic is if they take the approach the US did for the last 35 years - let NO increases due to inflation happen so that you keep the lowest paid at the bottom and getting lower, and let the richest get richer.  That is why we have a legal minimum wage of $7.25 - or one half the equivalent of what it was when it peaked in 1968.  (That is where the $15 an hour number comes from one hears about in the minimum wage protests from time to time.)

You still can't get me to believe that minimum wage should support a family...  

If that is the case, should we have a bifurcated system where some individuals (you name it...  high school students, non-full time employees, etc) are allowed to be paid less?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Over the last decade, inflation has not been as kind to GB, hence the limited funding. Good try though. It's just an arbitrary number, probably one that they thought would keep the system solvent. I doubt it had much to do with inflation or growth, because neither has been high for some time.

http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/great-britain/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-great-britain.aspx

Limited funding is a direct result of their version of the Hijacked Republican Party doing the same thing to them that Trump and Minions are doing to us.  

Their number changes and has worked for 70+ years.  Calculated more like an actuarial table rather than a year to year "guess" - not at all arbitrary.  They actually plan and then work the plan.  And that has been drastically reduced for the last 2 years, as noted before, by the extremists with no reason other than dogma.  Certainly not a fiscal reason.  Not even a good try, though.

Did you look at the tables and graphs you linked??  Their inflation has been similar but just a bit higher than ours since the 90's.

Their system will continue working long after their right wing extremists are dis-elected.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You still can't get me to believe that minimum wage should support a family...  

If that is the case, should we have a bifurcated system where some individuals (you name it...  high school students, non-full time employees, etc) are allowed to be paid less?

Why shouldn't it?   And we HAVE a bifurcated system already - just look at all the exceptions to who does and does not get minimum wage.    


The real minimum wage in this country would be $15 if it were ONLY keeping up with inflation - NOT getting a better standard of living!  Even that is not enough to support a family - that just barely gets you above the poverty line (about $23,000 annual).

And yet, instead of their wages being cut in half, like most people in this country, the top 1% has seen theirs grow by 250 times... not 250%... 250 times as much!


But hey, I guess all those under the 1% shoulda just made better life choices, huh??  Like become people who can buy their own Congress!!   Geez....why didn't I think of that 40 years ago!!   My bad...

[erfalf]

Limited funding is a direct result of their version of the Hijacked Republican Party doing the same thing to them that Trump and Minions are doing to us.  

Their number changes and has worked for 70+ years.  Calculated more like an actuarial table rather than a year to year "guess" - not at all arbitrary.  They actually plan and then work the plan.  And that has been drastically reduced for the last 2 years, as noted before, by the extremists with no reason other than dogma.  Certainly not a fiscal reason.  Not even a good try, though.

Did you look at the tables and graphs you linked??  Their inflation has been similar but just a bit higher than ours since the 90's.

Their system will continue working long after their right wing extremists are dis-elected.

Sure it will...

http://www.newsweek.com/quora-question-why-single-payer-healthcare-wont-work-611168

Ironically health care is a "problem" that well over half the country is happy to have.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sure it will...

http://www.newsweek.com/quora-question-why-single-payer-healthcare-wont-work-611168

Ironically health care is a "problem" that well over half the country is happy to have.

And tens of millions don't have... but you keep repeating the lies to yourself and stay in that little room.

But 37 first world countries - the ones who have better health care systems than us - are pretty good evidence that it indeed does work.  And there are probably at least some second and third world countries with those systems.   And no, that is NOT why they are 2nd and 3rd world countries.  Like Saudi Arabia (3rd) and Greenland (3rd).

[TeeDub]

 Even that is not enough to support a family - that just barely gets you above the poverty line (about $23,000 annual).

The federal poverty line is at $12,140 for one individual....   That is actually less than minimum wage.

It isn't to $23k until you have between 3-4 kids.

I wouldn't want to try to provide for just myself for $15k...  ($7.25 x 2080 hrs)    That being said, most people should (and can) make more than minimum wage.

[erfalf]

The federal poverty line is at $12,140 for one individual....   That is actually less than minimum wage.

It isn't to $23k until you have between 3-4 kids.

I wouldn't want to try to provide for just myself for $15k...  ($7.25 x 2080 hrs)    That being said, most people should (and can) make more than minimum wage.

I don't know the exact number but of those working over 16 years of age and being paid by the hour, less than 1% make exactly minimum wage.