Flint's Water Problem

[Ethereal]

So Flint Michigan is another city run almost exclusively by Democrats going back several decades. All their mayors going back to at least 1975 have been Democrats. Yet the narrative being spun by Democrats is that Flint's water problems are somehow the fault of Republicans, especially the Republican governor of Michigan.

I'll concede that I haven't really researched this issue in depth and that it's entirely possible it is all the Republicans' fault, particularly the governor's. Maybe the Democrats who have been running Flint for decades had nothing to do with how terrible Flint is as a city or how terrible its water supply is. Entirely possible.

But based on my past experience, I'm disinclined to believe this for obvious reasons, not least of which is the Democrat track record in America's major cities. Whether it's Detroit, Trenton, or Flint, the Democrat party has a way of turning decent cities into financially insolvent urban toilets. Don't take my word for it. Just look at all the worst cities in America in terms of their poverty, crime, infrastructure, and finances, and you will see the majority of them are run by Democrats.

Is this just a big coincidence? I'll let you be the judge of that.

P.S. - This should not be taken as endorsement of Republicans. I have plenty of issues with them and with their policies. But there is something to be said about the Democrat party's proximity to so much poverty, crime, and decay. It needs to be discussed.

[Adelaide]

I don't see how Democrats can blame Republicans. I read up on this issue and it was local officials who tried to hide the water issue for 2 years. The EPA was involved in the peripheral, but it was mostly very bad deception by local officials.

[Ethereal]

I don't see how Democrats can blame Republicans. I read up on this issue and it was local officials who tried to hide the water issue for 2 years. The EPA was involved in the peripheral, but it was mostly very bad deception by local officials.

Well that's just how it works. Democrats blame Republicans, Republicans blame Democrats. Neither side ever takes responsibility for anything that goes wrong. But when the Democrats have been exclusively in charge of a city for decades, it becomes a little bit harder to shift blame away from your party. At least with Iraq, Republicans can point to how many Democrats, Clinton included, voted in favor of it. But Flint has been run by Democrats for at least forty years, so their attempt to shift blame is much more of a stretch. But maybe they're right. Maybe the people who have been in charge of Flint for over four decades had nothing to do with the sorry state of that city's infrastructure. Perhaps it is all the Republicans' fault. I just don't believe it.

[Ethereal]

I mean, it's not like Flint was this great city until Rick Snyder became governor of Michigan. Virtually everything in that city has been in a state of severe decay for decades, so why would its water be any different? Are we really supposed to believe that the decades of mismanagement and neglect that preceded this incident had nothing to do with what happened there?

[Peter1469]

I called it as a local issue from day one. The boot-licks here piled on and tried to shift the blame to the governor.

[Ethereal]

I called it as a local issue from day one. The boot-licks here piled on and tried to shift the blame to the governor.

That Democrats would try to blame someone else for their failures is predictable, bordering on pedestrian. What is so amazing is how bad Republicans are at combating these false narratives. They always go on the defensive and that immediately makes them look guilty. Instead, they should go on the offensive, and aggressively. They should point out that Flint is comprehensively a failed city and that it's problems with water are just a symptom of a much deeper problem. And that problem is the Democrat party. That's not to say Republican policies don't contribute, because the federal war on drugs is a huge contributor to the problems that urban municipalities like Flint are facing, but that does not absolve Democrats of anything because they are just as supportive of the war on drugs as Republicans are. Most of the war on drugs enforcement happens on the state and local level anyway. So Republicans, as usual, have only themselves to blame, and it's because they are such ineffectual wimps when it comes to combating the Democrats. They're more worried about being sensitive than about being right and that is how the Democrats manage to blame them for something Democrats are almost exclusively responsible for. I can assure you, Democrats are not the least bit worried about being sensitive. They didn't waste a second exploiting this tragedy for crass political gains. If Republicans don't fight fire with fire, then they can expect to continue losing the public debate.

[Peter1469]

I agree.

[Ethereal]

Democrats are expert at controlling narratives. And they do so by relentlessly going on the offensive. Blame, blame, blame. And then watch as Republicans evade, defend, and deflect. That keeps the Republicans on their heels when they should be charging headlong into the fray by pointing out how horribly, dismally, pathetically Democrat policies have failed in virtually every single urban setting throughout the country, to include Flint, which was a complete ramshackle hellhole decades before Rick Snyder became the governor.

[Dr. Who]

Democrats are expert at controlling narratives. And they do so by relentlessly going on the offensive. Blame, blame, blame. And then watch as Republicans evade, defend, and deflect. That keeps the Republicans on their heels when they should be charging headlong into the fray by pointing out how horribly, dismally, pathetically Democrat policies have failed in virtually every single urban setting throughout the country, to include Flint, which was a complete ramshackle hellhole decades before Rick Snyder became the governor.
Flint didn't have a water problem until the decision was made to switch the source to the Flint River. That decision was predicated on economics, because the price Flint was paying to use Detroit water was deemed excessive. That decision was made by the State of Michigan under Governor Snyder. The political stripe of the government is irrelevant. A decision was made to use a water source that is polluted and corrosive because it was cheaper and this fiscal decision was compounded by either a lack of due diligence regarding the impact of corrosive water on a decaying infrastructure or a complete disregard for the potential health impact. Take your pick. It's not like the deplorable state of the city's infrastructure was an unknown factor. You can blame the demise of that infrastructure on all governments that went before, but you cannot blame them for the decision to change the water source to something that is a cesspool of industrial waste and further to ignore known protocols for deacidifying the water, knowing that the infrastructure continues to employ lead pipes.

Once a decision is made, the consequences of that decision fall upon the decision maker to ensure that people are not victimized. Those children living with lead toxicity had nothing to do with the politics of that community. They are now the collateral damage of many bad decisions, but the consequences of the last one were preventable if the State of Michigan was considering more than just the bottom line.

[Safety]

I keep hearing here constantly that the one at the helm is responsible....

[del]

I keep hearing here constantly that the one at the helm is responsible....

that's different

[Safety]

that's different

Silly me, I forgot.

[del]

Silly me, I forgot.

tighten the fuck up

'murica

[Safety]

tighten the fuck up

'murica

Guess I better step back...

[del]

Guess I better step back...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXg1AxBXN5g

[domer76]

I keep hearing here constantly that the one at the helm is responsible....

I can't say that would be the governor. It was the city manager, or whatever his title is (or soon to be 'was') that made the decision to switch. I haven't even heard his party affiliation. But the governor has been lousy in his response.

[BleedingHeadKen]

Flint didn't have a water problem until the decision was made to switch the source to the Flint River. That decision was predicated on economics, because the price Flint was paying to use Detroit water was deemed excessive. That decision was made by the State of Michigan under Governor Snyder. The political stripe of the government is irrelevant. A decision was made to use a water source that is polluted and corrosive because it was cheaper and this fiscal decision was compounded by either a lack of due diligence regarding the impact of corrosive water on a decaying infrastructure or a complete disregard for the potential health impact. Take your pick. It's not like the deplorable state of the city's infrastructure was an unknown factor. You can blame the demise of that infrastructure on all governments that went before, but you cannot blame them for the decision to change the water source to something that is a cesspool of industrial waste and further to ignore known protocols for deacidifying the water, knowing that the infrastructure continues to employ lead pipes.

Once a decision is made, the consequences of that decision fall upon the decision maker to ensure that people are not victimized. Those children living with lead toxicity had nothing to do with the politics of that community. They are now the collateral damage of many bad decisions, but the consequences of the last one were preventable if the State of Michigan was considering more than just the bottom line.

Why was it "too expensive"? That's meaningless rhetoric. It implies that Flint had other priorities for spending. One of those major priorities is to fund pensions for retired city workers. This is a common problem with progressive municipalities that offer fat salaries, golden pensions, and short work careers to city employees. It garners votes for the politicians who will not be around when the bills come due.

So, where do you think the money would come from for better water? Do you have evidence that the Flint river is a "cesspool of industrial waste" or are you just parroting conspiracy websites? It seems to have a high chloride content, which could be a combination of soil and salt from de-icing. No one has claimed that there's industrial waste in the water supply. But I guess that makes good headlines.

You get the government you deserve, not the government you want. You progressives have been demanding high priced,bloated government for decades without wanting to pay for it. Pass it on to future generations you say. Oh, and you'll compromise with the conservatives who don't want to pay for their wars and overpriced defense projects. You have failed the coming generations with your selfishness and greed.

[Dr. Who]

Why was it "too expensive"? That's meaningless rhetoric. It implies that Flint had other priorities for spending. One of those major priorities is to fund pensions for retired city workers. This is a common problem with progressive municipalities that offer fat salaries, golden pensions, and short work careers to city employees. It garners votes for the politicians who will not be around when the bills come due.

So, where do you think the money would come from for better water? Do you have evidence that the Flint river is a "cesspool of industrial waste" or are you just parroting conspiracy websites? It seems to have a high chloride content, which could be a combination of soil and salt from de-icing. No one has claimed that there's industrial waste in the water supply. But I guess that makes good headlines.

You get the government you deserve, not the government you want. You progressives have been demanding high priced,bloated government for decades without wanting to pay for it. Pass it on to future generations you say. Oh, and you'll compromise with the conservatives who don't want to pay for their wars and overpriced defense projects. You have failed the coming generations with your selfishness and greed.So tell me, why are children suddenly exhibiting high lead levels? They were not previously. It was the change of water supply that was the issue and someone failed to consider the ramifications of corrosive water on old infrastructure. By the way, the Flint River was not being used for since the 1960's as a source of water because it was heavily contaminated by industry and required major clean up to make it viable. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/9100LFR4.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=Prior to 1976&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A\ZYFILES\INDEX DATA\70THRU75\TXT\00000013\9100LFR4.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h|-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p|f&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x
I'm sure road salt is contaminating the river, but industry dumped chorides and other metal metal salts in that river for a very long time. Perhaps some of the more problematic heavy metals etc have diminished over the years, but the river is still not ideal as a water supply and the people in charge failed to implement the proper protocols for dealing with the corrosive water quality. At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding.

[Cigar]

So tell me, why are children suddenly exhibiting high lead levels? They were not previously. It was the change of water supply that was the issue and someone failed to consider the ramifications of corrosive water on old infrastructure. By the way, the Flint River was not being used for since the 1960's as a source of water because it was heavily contaminated by industry and required major clean up to make it viable. http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/9100LFR4.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=Prior to 1976&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A\ZYFILES\INDEX DATA\70THRU75\TXT\00000013\9100LFR4.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h|-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p|f&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x
I'm sure road salt is contaminating the river, but industry dumped chorides and other metal metal salts in that river for a very long time. Perhaps some of the more problematic heavy metals etc have diminished over the years, but the river is still not ideal as a water supply and the people in charge failed to implement the proper protocols for dealing with the corrosive water quality. At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding.

Don't bother, everyone wants you to believe it's all imaginary or it just "those" people looking for another handout or something free. If you notice, you'll see numerous threads attempting to minimize or make excuses the situation or blame entire political party for water physically getting poisoned. In reality, something that a few don't live in, an Emergency Manager is Accountable to and Reporting to no one but The Governor of The State of Michigan; that's an undeniable FACT of Reality. State Employees report to The Governor of Michigan, unless someone's reality is different.


Time Magazine Photos taken by the Local Flint Reporter.

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/353*467/timemagazine2.jpghttp://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/66323efae19f1fb4624381139594e9fdbb75201b/c=136-0-2264-1600&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2016/01/21/DetroitFreePress/DetroitFreePress/635889788144705208-FLINT-WATER-011316-rhb020A.jpg
https://d2nyfqh3g1stw3.cloudfront.net/photos/time_20140.jpg

[Dr. Who]

Don't bother, everyone wants you to believe it's all imaginary or it just "those" people looking for another handout or something free. If you notice, you'll see numerous threads attempting to minimize or make excuses the situation or blame entire political party for water physically getting poisoned. In reality, something that a few don't live in, an Emergency Manager is Accountable to and Reporting to no one but The Governor of The State of Michigan; that's an undeniable FACT of Reality. State Employees report to The Governor of Michigan, unless someone's reality is different.


Time Magazine Photos taken by the Local Flint Reporter.

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/353*467/timemagazine2.jpghttp://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/66323efae19f1fb4624381139594e9fdbb75201b/c=136-0-2264-1600&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2016/01/21/DetroitFreePress/DetroitFreePress/635889788144705208-FLINT-WATER-011316-rhb020A.jpg
https://d2nyfqh3g1stw3.cloudfront.net/photos/time_20140.jpg
I can't imagine why partisanship should simply blind people to negligence. These are children who are being maimed, possibly for life. Arguing about who did what first, is inane. It's who did what that directly resulted in this outcome that is important. I wouldn't care if Snyder represented the Socialist Party of America. He was in charge and the person in charge is ultimately responsible. This happened on his watch and no one else's. The state took over management of Flint. There is no one else to blame.

[Peter1469]

There are lead problems in a lot of places. Solve the problem and stop politicizing the issue.

[Ethereal]

Flint didn't have a water problem until the decision was made to switch the source to the Flint River.

Yea, but that decision does not exist in a historical or political vacuum. The decision must be put in its proper context.


That decision was predicated on economics...

And the economic condition of Flint is directly related to its political structure and composition.


...because the price Flint was paying to use Detroit water was deemed excessive. That decision was made by the State of Michigan under Governor Snyder. The political stripe of the government is irrelevant. A decision was made to use a water source that is polluted and corrosive because it was cheaper and this fiscal decision was compounded by either a lack of due diligence regarding the impact of corrosive water on a decaying infrastructure or a complete disregard for the potential health impact. Take your pick. It's not like the deplorable state of the city's infrastructure was an unknown factor. You can blame the demise of that infrastructure on all governments that went before, but you cannot blame them for the decision to change the water source to something that is a cesspool of industrial waste and further to ignore known protocols for deacidifying the water, knowing that the infrastructure continues to employ lead pipes.

Once a decision is made, the consequences of that decision fall upon the decision maker to ensure that people are not victimized. Those children living with lead toxicity had nothing to do with the politics of that community. They are now the collateral damage of many bad decisions, but the consequences of the last one were preventable if the State of Michigan was considering more than just the bottom line.

Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if some Republicans to include the governor are culpable in this. But I find it hard to believe that they're more culpable than the Democrats who allowed the entire city of Flint to decay over many decades.

[Ethereal]

I keep hearing here constantly that the one at the helm is responsible....

As I already I said, I'm not ruling out the possibility of the Republican governor being culpable in this. I'm just questioning the DNC narrative that it's all the Republicans' fault.

As for "at the helm", wouldn't that also apply to the Democrat Mayors of Flint going back to at least 1975?

[Peter1469]

Localities control their water supply.

[Ethereal]

that's different

The Mayor of the city in question seems to fit the description of "at the helm".

[Ethereal]

Silly me, I forgot.

Forgot what?

[Ethereal]

Don't bother, everyone wants you to believe it's all imaginary or it just "those" people looking for another handout or something free. If you notice, you'll see numerous threads attempting to minimize or make excuses the situation or blame entire political party for water physically getting poisoned. In reality, something that a few don't live in, an Emergency Manager is Accountable to and Reporting to no one but The Governor of The State of Michigan; that's an undeniable FACT of Reality. State Employees report to The Governor of Michigan, unless someone's reality is different.


Time Magazine Photos taken by the Local Flint Reporter.

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/353*467/timemagazine2.jpghttp://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/66323efae19f1fb4624381139594e9fdbb75201b/c=136-0-2264-1600&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2016/01/21/DetroitFreePress/DetroitFreePress/635889788144705208-FLINT-WATER-011316-rhb020A.jpg
https://d2nyfqh3g1stw3.cloudfront.net/photos/time_20140.jpg

I don't doubt that the water in Flint is unhealthy or of poor quality. The entire city is a cesspool and has been for decades. But that's just the point. Flint's state of advanced decrepitude is the result of systemic and historical factors, not the sudden involvement of a Republican governor. He may have had a hand in the present incident, but it's beyond absurd to ignore the systemic and historical context of Flint's water problems.

[Ethereal]

Blaming Snyder for the water problems in Flint is kind of like blaming Honorius for the fall of Rome. Sure, Rome was sacked by the Visigoths during his reign, but the empire had been in decline for centuries by then. It's entirely reasonable to assign him some responsibility for what happened, but turning him into a whipping boy is just simplistic and dishonest.

[Ethereal]

I can't imagine why partisanship should simply blind people to negligence.

Except I have no partisan allegiance to the Republican party. I routinely bash Republicans for their police statism, war mongering, and hypocrisy. Anyone who has paid attention to my post history knows this is true. It's not my "partisanship" that is the problem here.


These are children who are being maimed, possibly for life. Arguing about who did what first, is inane.

Why is it inane to attempt to identify the major causal factors underlying a serious public incident?


It's who did what that directly resulted in this outcome that is important. I wouldn't care if Snyder represented the Socialist Party of America. He was in charge and the person in charge is ultimately responsible. This happened on his watch and no one else's. The state took over management of Flint. There is no one else to blame.

If you want to know what "directly resulted in this outcome", then you need to examine the causal chain of events in its entirety, which is what I'm doing.

[Safety]

As I already I said, I'm not ruling out the possibility of the Republican governor being culpable in this. I'm just questioning the DNC narrative that it's all the Republicans' fault.

As for "at the helm", wouldn't that also apply to the Democrat Mayors of Flint going back to at least 1975?

Sure, let's look at all the possible reasons this happened. You haven't seen me once say this happened because he was republican, just drawing a parallel to the calls of "democratic" controlled cities. Now, that also is applicable to the other calls about Obama being blamed for everything because he is currently at the helm.

[Safety]

Forgot what?

That there are different rules depending on who is blamed for things.

[Ethereal]

Sure, let's look at all the possible reasons this happened.

So why do you think it happened?


You haven't seen me once say this happened because he was republican, just drawing a parallel to the calls of "democratic" controlled cities. Now, that also is applicable to the other calls about Obama being blamed for everything because he is currently at the helm.

Yea, but where have I blamed Obama for "everything" bad that happens in America?

[MisterVeritis]

Sure, let's look at all the possible reasons this happened. You haven't seen me once say this happened because he was republican, just drawing a parallel to the calls of "democratic" controlled cities. Now, that also is applicable to the other calls about Obama being blamed for everything because he is currently at the helm.
It is almost as if Democrats are utterly unaware that Barrack Hussein O has been the president for more than seven years.

[Ethereal]

That there are different rules depending on who is blamed for things.

What's that got to do with my arguments?

[Matty]

That there are different rules depending on who is blamed for things.


Yes, we know. Your side blamed Bush for everything but Obama cannot be blamed for a damn thing lest you call us racists.

[Safety]

So why do you think it happened?



Yea, but where have I blamed Obama for "everything" bad that happens in America?

I didn't say you did.

[Safety]

Yes, we know. Your side blamed Bush for everything but Obama cannot be blamed for a damn thing lest you call us racists.

Hyperbole.

Your side.... :rofl:

[Safety]

What's that got to do with my arguments?

Puts it into perspective.

[Safety]

It is almost as if Democrats are utterly unaware that Barrack Hussein O has been the president for more than seven years.

Yes he has been president for more than seven years, however, I remember when he was in his first year and the problems from the previous administration resulted in the economy crash, but no blame was allowed to be placed on the previous administration because Obama was at the helm.

Only those with short memories fail to see the double standard here.

[Dr. Who]

Yea, but that decision does not exist in a historical or political vacuum. The decision must be put in its proper context.



And the economic condition of Flint is directly related to its political structure and composition.



Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if some Republicans to include the governor are culpable in this. But I find it hard to believe that they're more culpable than the Democrats who allowed the entire city of Flint to decay over many decades.
I would agree if this was just something adding to the general state of decay, like closing off a bad bridge, rather than repairing it. However, this has directly impacted the health and possible future of many children. When you make people sick, then you have to answer for it.

[Dr. Who]

Localities control their water supply.
Not in this case. The state put in an emergency manager, so the state was in control.

[Dr. Who]

Except I have no partisan allegiance to the Republican party. I routinely bash Republicans for their police statism, war mongering, and hypocrisy. Anyone who has paid attention to my post history knows this is true. It's not my "partisanship" that is the problem here.



Why is it inane to attempt to identify the major causal factors underlying a serious public incident?



If you want to know what "directly resulted in this outcome", then you need to examine the causal chain of events in its entirety, which is what I'm doing.
There is a legal doctrine that goes something like this. You can be a thin-skulled plaintiff, meaning you might have a condition that predisposes you to become more injured that someone else. In the law, this does not help the defendant, because despite that predisposition, the plaintiff was functioning well before your tort and there was no indication that there was any existing deterioration. (Think someone like a hockey player that has had a number of concussions, but can't afford any more without incurring serious brain damage.) Then you have the crumbling-skull plaintiff. This individual would be going down hill no matter what, so the tort may have only slightly accelerated physical issues that were already rapidly progressing. Think someone with ALS. In these cases the defendant is not found to be substantially liable.

Flint and its citizens were the thin-skulled plaintiff. The aging infrastructure predisposed it to problems with water, given the right conditions, but prior to switching the water source, they were not having problems. Unless it can be proven that the citizens of Flint were actually being poisoned when they were purchasing water from Detroit, then the decision to change water sources and to further not implement protocols to add anti-corrosives to the water will be found to be an act of gross negligence that caused physical harm.

[Ethereal]

I didn't say you did.

But this is my thread. So why bring those things up? It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

[Ethereal]

Puts it into perspective.

It has nothing to do with me or my arguments, so how does it put them "into perspective"?

[Ethereal]

I would agree if this was just something adding to the general state of decay, like closing off a bad bridge, rather than repairing it. However, this has directly impacted the health and possible future of many children. When you make people sick, then you have to answer for it.

I agree. But if we want to know what caused this, then we have to view the causal chain of events in its entirety. There is a history here and it just so happens to involve the Democrats who ran Flint into the ground, just like they ran Detroit into the ground.

[Ethereal]

There is a legal doctrine that goes something like this. You can be a thin-skulled plaintiff, meaning you might have a condition that predisposes you to become more injured that someone else. In the law, this does not help the defendant, because despite that predisposition, the plaintiff was functioning well before your tort and there was no indication that there was any existing deterioration. (Think someone like a hockey player that has had a number of concussions, but can't afford any more without incurring serious brain damage.) Then you have the crumbling-skull plaintiff. This individual would be going down hill no matter what, so the tort may have only slightly accelerated physical issues that were already rapidly progressing. Think someone with ALS. In these cases the defendant is not found to be substantially liable.

Flint and its citizens were the thin-skulled plaintiff. The aging infrastructure predisposed it to problems with water, given the right conditions, but prior to switching the water source, they were not having problems. Unless it can be proven that the citizens of Flint were actually being poisoned when they were purchasing water from Detroit, then the decision to change water sources and to further not implement protocols to add anti-corrosives to the water will be found to be an act of gross negligence that caused physical harm.

Again, I'm not suggesting that the Republican governor is immune from blame. I'm simply objecting to the silly DNC propaganda that attempts to put all the blame on him. The decision to put Flint under emergency management and to modify its water supply was the consequence of decades of incompetence and mismanagement by the local Democrats. They don't get to slime their way out of this by blaming it all on their political opponents. They have to take some responsibility for how horribly that city has been governed.

[Ethereal]

Not in this case. The state put in an emergency manager, so the state was in control.

You act like that decision was unrelated to Flint's status as an urban toilet.

[Ethereal]

Why was it "too expensive"? That's meaningless rhetoric. It implies that Flint had other priorities for spending. One of those major priorities is to fund pensions for retired city workers. This is a common problem with progressive municipalities that offer fat salaries, golden pensions, and short work careers to city employees. It garners votes for the politicians who will not be around when the bills come due.

This basically sums it up.

The local Democrats prioritize their corrupt patronage system over fiscal responsibility and it results in cities eventually going bankrupt and being forced into a situation where they have to choose between a proven water supply and funding a bloated pension system.

And because the Democrat party is based almost exclusively on corruption and graft, they will choose funding pensions over essential services every time. And that is how their cities end up in a state of such advanced decay where roads and bridges crumble, schools fail to educate, prison populations explode, and water supplies are mismanaged.

[Dr. Who]

You act like that decision was unrelated to Flint's status as an urban toilet.
The state assumed the responsibility for the fate of Flint. Irrespective of how incompetent or even corrupt the prior governance, if it didn't result in the population becoming ill, the people of Flint now have a cause of action against the State.

[Ethereal]

The state assumed the responsibility for the fate of Flint. Irrespective of how incompetent or even corrupt the prior governance, if it didn't result in the population becoming ill, the people of Flint now have a cause of action against the State.

I'm not arguing that the state doesn't have any culpability. But it's illogical to view this incident in a historical vacuum. In order to understand how we arrived at this point, it's imperative that we examine the historical context in which it occurred.

[Ethereal]

Why did Flint need an emergency manager in the first place? If there hadn't been an emergency, would this have ever happened? Legitimate questions that need answering.

[Dr. Who]

This basically sums it up.

The local Democrats prioritize their corrupt patronage system over fiscal responsibility and it results in cities eventually going bankrupt and being forced into a situation where they have to choose between a proven water supply and funding a bloated pension system.

And because the Democrat party is based almost exclusively on corruption and graft, they will choose funding pensions over essential services every time. And that is how their cities end up in a state of such advanced decay where roads and bridges crumble, schools fail to educate, prison populations explode, and water supplies are mismanaged.
I understand what you are saying, but the people were not specifically making those choices, nor were they asked to choose between Detroit water and Flint water. That decision was made for them. As to pension funds etc. They were put in place when that part of Michigan was an economic power-house and people were led to believe that they could depend on those pensions. For many reasons industry left, some of which could be blamed on local government and some of which can be blamed on off-shoring which involves both involves taxation and shareholder greed.

[MisterVeritis]

I understand what you are saying, but the people were not specifically making those choices, nor were they asked to choose between Detroit water and Flint water. That decision was made for them. As to pension funds etc. They were put in place when that part of Michigan was an economic power-house and people were led to believe that they could depend on those pensions. For many reasons industry left, some of which could be blamed on local government and some of which can be blamed on off-shoring which involves both involves taxation and shareholder greed.
Free market capitalism allows you to make choices for you while I make choices for me.

Government always takes our right to choose away from us. The unholy union between unions and democrats allowed the unions to fleece the taxpayers then and now. The smart taxpayers moved away.

[Dr. Who]

Free market capitalism allows you to make choices for you while I make choices for me.

Government always takes our right to choose away from us. The unholy union between unions and democrats allowed the unions to fleece the taxpayers then and now. The smart taxpayers moved away.
If there was anything resembling free market capitalism today, I would agree with you. However, the free market is not free at all. It is being manipulated behind the scenes by collusion between elected officials and electoral financial benefactors so market actors like Monsanto can depend on legislation to give them unfair advantage over their competitors.

[MisterVeritis]

If there was anything resembling free market capitalism today, I would agree with you. However, the free market is not free at all. It is being manipulated behind the scenes by collusion between elected officials and electoral financial benefactors so market actors like Monsanto can depend on legislation to give them unfair advantage over their competitors.
Restoring the Constitution's limits on the Federal government will significantly increase free market opportunities. Ceding additional controls over our lives through regulatory meddling will diminish the liberties we have left.

Crony capitalism is not capitalism.