🇺🇸 The Flint poisoned water situation.

[MessiahDecoy123]

So the people of Flynt, Michigan have been using led poisoned water for the last 2 years. The governor covered it up, doesn't want to fix it AND doesn't want help from Federal help.

You know cuz small government.

Why is he not in prison?

What else should be done?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Snyder is one of the worst governors in the country. He is like a third world president, but without the fancy hats.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Snyder is one of the worst governors in the country. He is like a third world president, but without the fancy hats.

It's not the person. It's his agenda.

Small government policy has no place deciding the fate of entire cities.

Let's be honest.

Some things aren't a natural fit.

If you want to play Atlas Shrugged, do it in a small town with a population of 700.

 

[SV Fan]

You know cuz small government.

Funny thing is this is an act of "Big Government" coming in and telling a city how it should be run. Where are all the we hate Big Government conservatives on this issue.

Simple fact is this issue could have been easily resolved if the Big Government Emergency Manager Snyder appointed just listened to suggestions to treat the water properly(it would have cost 100 dollars a day).

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Yeah, I'm not sure tossing in politics is the solution for this thread. A Libertarian government certainly wouldn't have caused this.

 

[Thundercrack85]

So apparently the state government was shipping water to state officials in Flint last year.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Yeah, I'm not sure tossing in politics is the solution for this thread. A Libertarian government certainly wouldn't have caused this.

A Libertarian government would let cost cutting utility companies do what they want without much regulation and if that company ruined the city's infrastructure or had an environmental disaster, Libertarians would refuse to fix it with tax payer money.

You need big government to serve the public interest for any major city.

 

[Slushy]

Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore doesn’t want you or anyone to send any water to Flint, Michigan and he actually makes a compelling point.

Flint has 102,000 residents, each in need of an average of 50 gallons of water a day for cooking, bathing, washing clothes, doing the dishes, and drinking (I’m not counting toilet flushes, watering plants or washing the car). But 100,000 bottles of water is enough for just one bottle per person – in other words, just enough to cover brushing one’s teeth for one day. You would have to send 200 bottles a day, per person, to cover what the average American (we are Americans in Flint) needs each day. That’s 102,000 citizens times 200 bottles of water – which equals 20.4 million 16oz. bottles of water per day, every day, for the next year or two until this problem is fixed (oh, and we’ll need to find a landfill in Flint big enough for all those hundreds of millions of plastic water bottles, thus degrading the local environment even further). Anybody want to pony up for that? Because THAT is the reality.

Instead of sending water, Moore argues that Michigan Governor Rick Snyder needs to be arrested and that the federal government needs to be put in charge of the crisis in Flint, Michigan.

There is one big issue with Moore’s plan though. What are the residents of Flint, Michigan supposed to do for drinking water?

Here’s what Moore thinks should be done:

For those who choose to stay in Flint, FEMA must create a temporary water system in each home. One idea that has been suggested is to deliver two 55-gallon drums to every home in Flint. Each day water trucks will arrive to fill them with fresh clean glacial water from Lake Huron. The drums will have taps attached to them. People can’t be expected to carry jugs of water from buildings that are miles away.

I typically don’t agree with Michael Moore, but this actually makes quite a bit of sense and it should be looked at.

Credit: Epic Times



Edit: The death penalty was invented for people like Gov. Snyder, who knowingly had the citizens of Flint poisoned in order to save a few bucks.

 

[Thundercrack85]

They could also just have trucks bring in water, or recycle properly.

 

[Wildcard]

Snyder is a terrible governor & an even worse human being. What he's done to the people of Flint is beyond appalling & I pray and hope they take him down for it.

 

[TheCommissioner]

someone should pay for this but won't because Flint is poor and considered a s**thole

 

[summerteeth]

Funny thing is this is an act of "Big Government" coming in and telling a city how it should be run. Where are all the we hate Big Government conservatives on this issue.

Simple fact is this issue could have been easily resolved if the Big Government Emergency Manager Snyder appointed just listened to suggestions to treat the water properly(it would have cost 100 dollars a day).

The EPA is a joke, with this and the toxic waste spill they caused awhile back what the heck are they doing?

 

[The Overlord]

The EPA is a joke, with this and the toxic waste spill they caused awhile back what the heck are they doing?

If the EPA doesn't actually do anything, isn't that a problem with under regulation rather then over regulation? Heck why does the EPA do nothing? Are there powerful political and business interests that don't want the EPA to do anything meaningful, so they don't?

Here is one of the problems I have with modern Republican ideology, the small government mandate has gone from something that could be reasonable and pragmatic, seeing potential waste that could be cut to make things more efficient, to a form self justifying ideological dogma, where almost any cut (except for defense, I guess) is seen as a instant good, rather then part of a well considered political calculation. The government in Flint changed the water system to save a couple of million bucks every year, but the fall out from that decision will cost them far more then that. They cost themselves more money, by trying to cut corners on an important government function, providing safe water to citizens.

Now the straw man version of a liberal, wants to create government bureaucracies just because, but in real life, most liberals see government as just a tool, it can be used to solve some problems, but not others. If the EPA doesn't serve its primary function, why shouldn't be replaced by an agency that does? Creating bureaucracies that don't do anything helps almost no one, any money they get is a waste if they don't do their job and serve no purpose, I don't think any reasonable liberal or conservative would support that.

 

[TheCommissioner]

the FBI should investigate the state of Michigan for willful endangerment, the governor should resign

and I wouldn't be opposed to some jail time

 

[summerteeth]

If the EPA doesn't actually do anything, isn't that a problem with under regulation rather then over regulation? Heck why does the EPA do nothing? Are there powerful political and business interests that don't want the EPA to do anything meaningful, so they don't?

Here is one of the problems I have with modern Republican ideology, the small government mandate has gone from something that could be reasonable and pragmatic, seeing potential waste that could be cut to make things more efficient, to a form self justifying ideological dogma, where almost any cut (except for defense, I guess) is seen as a instant good, rather then part of a well considered political calculation. The government in Flint changed the water system to save a couple of million bucks every year, but the fall out from that decision will cost them far more then that. They cost themselves more money, by trying to cut corners on an important government function, providing safe water to citizens.

Now the straw man version of a liberal, wants to create government bureaucracies just because, but in real life, most liberals see government as just a tool, it can be used to solve some problems, but not others. If the EPA doesn't serve its primary function, why shouldn't be replaced by an agency that does? Creating bureaucracies that don't do anything helps almost no one, any money they get is waste if they don't do their job and serve no purpose, I don't think any reasonable liberal or conservative would support that.

It isn't a problem of under regulation they just failed to act on the information they had. There was nothing stopping them except the type of incompetence commonly found in government beuracracy. I'm not exempting Snyder from any blame, I just don't know where the heck the EPA was on this one. It's important to note these failings of big government though as it is rather in vogue to see big government as a solution to many problems, but it sure didn't do it's job here did it?

 

[C. Lee]

I was a water treatment plant operator for over 20 years. How this managed to go on up there in Michigan is beyond me. We had constant interaction with the State DOW and were encouraged to call in the Feds if we felt they were under or over stepping their bounds. This whole situation boggles my mind.

 

[The Overlord]

It isn't a problem of under regulation they just failed to act on the information they had. There was nothing stopping them except the type of incompetence commonly found in government beuracracy. I'm not exempting Snyder from any blame, I just don't know where the heck the EPA was on this one. It's important to note these failings of big government programs though as it is rather en vogue to see big government as a solution to many problems, but it sure didn't do it's job here did it?

Well, why did they fail to act? Is it just incompetence or are there vested interests that want to ensure that they didn't do their job or a combination of the two? If the EPA isn't doing anything, is that really big government? Do you really thing any left winger wants to create government bureaucracies just for the heck of it? No that doesn't make sense. In Canada, the NDP, the social democratic party, criticized the Canadian Senate as a useless, corrupt, tax dollar wasting body and wanted to get rid of it. They are a pretty left wing and they wanted to get rid of government body that they saw as useless. Most real left wingers, not total political and partisan hacks, only support government bodies if they serve some greater purpose and don;t support them if they don't. If they don't then there is no reason to support them, very few left wingers have a bigger government at all costs mind set and there is a huge middle ground between

Wouldn't be bigger government if they actually did their job and tried to protect the environment? If the EPA did its job, would that be big government and would be a bad thing? It seems like this smaller government at all costs would demand a more useless EPA or replacing them with nothing, unless I am missing something.

Also was it big government when Snyder thought changing the water system would score some quick and easy short savings? Was that big government or more of this small government at all costs dogma?

I'm not against the idea of cutting wasteful government spending after some well reasoned political calculations and well thought out planning that determines why we don't need this government body anymore, I'm against a dogmatic ideology that says all government cuts are instantly good, cutting the size government becomes an instant magical solution to all problems, no thinking beyond that is require, the ideology is now self justifying.

 

[C. Lee]

As I said earlier....the whole situation doesn't make sense to me. We had a situation once where we found a contaminate in the water supply and immediately reported it. The EPA came in and at first treated us as the bad guys like we had contaminated the water ourselves...and we were the ones who reported it to them. So having the EPA do nothing in Flint is just nuts.

 

[summerteeth]

Well, why did they fail to act? Is it just incompetence or are there vested interests that want to ensure that they didn't do their job or a combination of the two? If the EPA isn't doing anything, is that really big government? Do you really thing any left winger wants to create government bureaucracies just for the heck of it? No that doesn't make sense. In Canada, the NDP, the social democratic party, criticized the Canadian Senate as a useless, corrupt, tax dollar wasting body and wanted to get rid of it. They are a pretty left wing and they wanted to get rid of government body that they saw as useless. Most real left wingers, not total political and partisan hacks, only support government bodies if they serve some greater purpose and don;t support them if they don't. If they don't then there is no reason to support them, very few left wingers have a bigger government at all costs mind set and there is a huge middle ground between

Wouldn't be bigger government if they actually did their job and tried to protect the environment? If the EPA did its job, would that be big government and would be a bad thing? It seems like this smaller government at all costs would demand a more useless EPA or replacing them with nothing, unless I am missing something.

Also was it big government when Snyder thought changing the water system would score some quick and easy short savings? Was that big government or more of this small government at all costs dogma?

I'm not against the idea of cutting wasteful government spending after some well reasoned political calculations and well thought out planning that determines why we don't need this government body anymore, I'm against a dogmatic ideology that says all government cuts are instantly good, cutting the size government becomes an instant magical solution to all problems, no thinking beyond that is require, the ideology is now self justifying.

I'm not saying get rid of the EPA I'm just pointing out how they are at fault in this instance as well. Here's what's problematic and I see it right in your post and I've seen it with Bernie Sanders and other far left liberals as well. Liberals often respond to a failure of big government as well if it were bigger it would have been better, but the facts are that they knew about it back in April and did very little about it. I mention Bernie because he was extremely slow to react to the VA scandal even though he was on the committee because he was hesitant to be critical of a system that favors big government.

 

[SV Fan]

I'm not saying get rid of the EPA I'm just pointing out how they are at fault in this instance as well.

The EPA warned the State Government of the problems as early as June 2015 and the State Government ignored it. Question is how much more power do you want the EPA to have to go beyond that?

 

[The Overlord]

I'm not saying get rid of the EPA I'm just pointing out how they are at fault in this instance as well. Here's what's problematic and I see it right in your post and I've seen it with Bernie Sanders and other far left liberals as well. Liberals often respond to a failure of big government as well if it were bigger it would have been better, but the facts are that they knew about it back in April and did very little about it. I mention Bernie because he was extremely slow to react to the VA scandal even though he was on the committee because he was hesitant to be critical of a system that favors big government.

Well the failure I see in your logic is the "smaller government is a magic solution to almost anything" style dogma, anything that shrinks the size of government is almost instantly considered a good thing, it is self justifying ideology, that doesn't promote actual critical thinking, its just reflexive. Was Snyder promoting "big government" with this water switch over that was designed to promote short term savings? Whenever this ideology fails, the followers of it somehow blame big government, like you saying its the EPA's fault for not doing their job. Again, that begs the question, why doesn't the EPA do its job? Is it big government when these agencies don't do anything, wouldn't it be bigger government if the EPA actually did its job? Is it just incompetence, rather some influence from vested interests? I have my doubts. If this was happening in a wealthier area then Flint, would the government response be as slow? I have my doubts.

Again if all left wingers want to just make government bigger for the sake of it, I think you are ignoring my NDP wanting to get rid of the Canadian Senate example (I'm picking Canadian examples, because there is a stronger left wing in Canada then in the US, Hilary seems like a opportunist rather then a real left winger, for example, so its easier for me to find examples of what I am talking about outside of America).

Really if cutting government is almost always good, how do you account for the many areas Scandinavia is ahead of the US? They are social democratic countries and are way ahead of the US in terms of education, crime reduction and health care, I would bet they have better environmental protection agencies then the US has. I'm not sure how many cities in the Scandinavian countries have problems similar to Flint.

Do I think government is the solution to everything, no that's ludicrous. But this notion that smaller government is almost always an instant good an any failures it has are somehow the fault of "big government" seems ludicrous. I would argue my views about government's role in society are far more pragmatic then yours, IMHO. Frankly, I know about the failures and short comings of government, I'm not a fool, but I don't see the point of throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is a huge middle between a libertarian society (which I think is very Utopian and frankly unrealistic) and a society like say North Korea, where the state is all controlling.

I mean really, what is the small government solution to this problem? If you have one, I am all ears.

 

[SV Fan]

Was Snyder promoting "big government" with this water switch over that was designed to promote short term savings?

I should point out the city of Flint actually voted for the water change, it wasn't Snyder's choice. It was Snyder's Emergency Manager though that oversaw the switch and didn't follow the recommendation to treat the water(it basically would have cost $100 a day to treat the water so it wouldn't be as corrosive as it was, thus causing issues with the lead pipe). The Emergency Manager also ignored warning and complaints for the past year

 

[The Overlord]

I should point out the city of Flint actually voted for the water change, it wasn't Snyder's choice. It was Snyder's Emergency Manager though that oversaw the switch and didn't follow the recommendation to treat the water(it basically would have cost $100 a day to treat the water so it wouldn't be as corrosive as it was, thus causing issues with the lead pipe)

Fair enough, but was the failure to treat the water part of this "short term savings at all cost" mentality? If so, I think my point stand.

 

[SV Fan]

Fair enough, but was the failure to treat the water part of this "short term savings at all cost" mentality? If so, I think my point stand.

I just point it out because the Snyder apologists will call you out for it(completely ignoring the Emergency Manager's roll in this)

 

[The Overlord]

I just point it out because the Snyder apologists will call you out for it(completely ignore the Emergency Manager's roll in this)

That's fair, I don't mind being corrected on my mistakes, I can make a better argument if my mistakes are pointed out. But I feel like my overall point still stands.

I feel like with some people who say government is almost always the problem, cut funding for some of these agencies (or ignore the vested interests that can hamper these agencies) then use the worst performance they do with less resources is a reason to say that they are doing a bad job and enact more cuts. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and feeds into this self justifying ideology.