Bernie and Hil head to flint

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

What a couple of douche bags debating in Flint for their own benefit. Vote for me and you can get all the clean water you want !

What sucks about it is both going there trying to outdo each other in promising Federal money to fix the situation. The state of Michigan made a conscious decision to gamble with the health of the folks in Flint and lost the bet. The state now needs to pay off its gambling debt.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

Sorta, I just want someone who cares about the people but yet knows enough to stay the hell out of our home lives. Will not happen in my short lifetime.

you can't have both

if we move toward a system like Western European so************************ms or England's mixed economy with National Health government will grow a bit more intrusive.

[donquixote99]

In case I wasn't clear, the three features I listed in message 10 are features of all Obamacare plans.

Members of Congress have Obamacare plans. They get better than average versions, meaning lower deductibles/co-pays and low subsidized premiums, and VIP customer service, but at the 'catastrophic' end, it's same for everyone. 100% is 100%.

[Rajoo]

Since the ridiculous Citizens United ruling, the entire political system is totally out of control. So every man/woman for themselves in the political arena for all I care. If neither the media nor other politicians do not bother to correct blatant lying by the politicians, WTF?

Fearina grandstanded on the Planned Parenthood non scandal, why not let Bernie and Hillary make hay in Flint and shine a spotlight on their GOP governor? Par for the course.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

What sucks about it is both going there trying to outdo each other in promising Federal money to fix the situation. The state of Michigan made a conscious decision to gamble with the health of the folks in Flint and lost the bet. The state now needs to pay off its gambling debt.

If Michigan pays for it, all that will happen is that the water rates for Michiganders, as well as anything else they can tweak without being accused of "raising taxes", will go through the roof. In other words, the victims will pay for the solution. If, on the other hand, the Feds pay for it, the cost will be spread out over a population of 330 million Americans instead of 10 million Michiganders.

Of course, in the wake of Reagan and Thatcher, this flies in the face of what in Conservative circles passes for a philosophy. There is no such thing as society after all. We are just a collection of individuals with no responsibility for the welfare of anyone else.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

If Michigan pays for it, all that will happen is that the water rates for Michiganders, as well as anything else they can tweak without being accused of "raising taxes", will go through the roof. In other words, the victims will pay for the solution. If, on the other hand, the Feds pay for it, the cost will be spread out over a population of 330 million Americans instead of 10 million Michiganders.

Of course, in the wake of Reagan and Thatcher, this flies in the face of what in Conservative circles passes for a philosophy. There is no such thing as society after all. We are just a collection of individuals with no responsibility for the welfare of anyone else.

What needs to be made clear to the citizens of Michigan (and other states like Kansas) is that decisions to install States' rights, supply-side, run-it-like-a-business types will bite them in the ass. I live in a fairly high-tax and well managed state and county (i.e., I get what I paid for). Why the hell should I also pay for conscious (and criminal) decisions by right-wing ideologues that went wrong in places like Michigan?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

What needs to be made clear to the citizens of Michigan (and other states like Kansas) is that decisions to install States' rights, supply-side, run-it-like-a-business types will bite them in the ass. I live in a fairly high-tax and well managed state and county (i.e., I get what I paid for). Why the hell should I also pay for conscious (and criminal) decisions by right-wing ideologues that went wrong in places like Michigan?

Because there is such a thing as society.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Because there is such a thing as society.

And there is such thing as responsibility. This isn't Katrina, Sandy, a flood or a storm - all acts of God. This was a conscious decision by the state of Michigan, driven by the desire to save money on the backs of Flint residents. Responsibility/accountability dictate that those responsible (i.e., the state of Michigan) pay for it.

There is a hitch, however, in that the EPA Regional Administrator chose to bury the problem caused by Michigan's deliberate decisions. Accordingly, I can envision some degree of cost-sharing, with the state of Michigan paying the brunt of it.

However, asking the Fed to pay the billions needed to completely replace all lead pipes when, in 6 months, reverting to Lake Huron water with appropriate anti-corrosion admixtures will ameliorate the problem to pre-crisis conditions is a bridge too far. Why should the Fed pay for local capital improvements?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

And there is such thing as responsibility. This isn't Katrina, Sandy, a flood or a storm - all acts of God. This was a conscious decision by the state of Michigan, driven by the desire to save money on the backs of Flint residents. Responsibility/accountability dictate that those responsible (i.e., the state of Michigan) pay for it.

There is a hitch, however, in that the EPA Regional Administrator chose to bury the problem caused by Michigan's deliberate decisions. Accordingly, I can envision some degree of cost-sharing, with the state of Michigan paying the brunt of it.

However, asking the Fed to pay the billions needed to completely replace all lead pipes when, in 6 months, reverting to Lake Huron water with appropriate anti-corrosion admixtures will ameliorate the problem to pre-crisis conditions is a bridge too far. Why should the Fed pay for local capital improvements?

But not the people of Michigan, the people who will end up bearing the financial burden for the crisis.

The issue of replacing the pipes rather than allowing them to recoat isn't part of this conversation. I can only regard it as a deliberate distraction, a strawman, a chimera.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

But not the people of Michigan, the people who will end up bearing the financial burden for the crisis.

The issue of replacing the pipes rather than allowing them to recoat isn't part of this conversation. I can only regard it as a deliberate distraction, a strawman, a chimera.

Huh? Michigan's delegation in Congress has already started lobbying for $600 million in Federal dollars for a permanent fix for their problem (i.e., pipe replacement) by burying it in an energy policy bill.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/michi...or-flint-aid//

The people of Michigan elected Snyder and his governing philosophy and chose to reap the benefits or pay the price of his budgetary decisions. Should US taxpayers also bail out Kansas for the stupid budgetary decisions of Brownback (the Flint problems also resulted directly from budgetary decisions)? The rich folks living in Grosse Pointe and other such wealthy enclaves put Snyder in power. Let them pay for it.

One can't bitch about Federal mandates and states rights (and run and win on such a platform) and then demand a Federal bailout when they (deceitfully) ignored said mandates under the cover of states rights. The Federal government should demand a fix by Michigan, but shouldn't spend a dime itself in its implementation.