I already pointed out the fact that the profit motive (which is central to capitalism) is very hard to align with objectives such as clean water, clean air, etc. Did you really not recognize that? I'd also point out that finding an area of weakness in capitalism is NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY a promotion of any other economic system. At the most, it simply points out that a pure system is unlikely to solve all problems.
So, being that you are defending your point of view, that capitalism does not work, at least in this instance, what do you suggest? Comminism, some form of socialist government control? Then, tie that in with the socialist fed which let this go for so long and haven't been able to do much about it. Please. Maybe you'll want to address this, since that's what we have now?
Interesting question. I don't know what happened there, but I'll point out that there are people who have been charged and will be in court to explain themselves. The federal level can be stifled by reduction in funding for monitoring, reduction in rights to prosecute offenses, and limitation to an advisory role. My understanding is that all these factors affected federal level participation in the Flint case. You're missing something incredibly important here. It's true that congress is culpable, too. But, this administration came to power in part by promising that environmental regulation would not be prosecuted and that regulation would be lobbied against, watered down and/or ignored as an executive branch direction. The executive branch of our government has major ability to do that. So, we got Scott Pruitt and others to carry out the assault on our environment from the executive branch.
I suggest we take effective action to address the specific issue rather than pretending that moving to some other grand economic scheme is some sort of alternative. Our system is an amalgam. It is not now and never has been pure anything. The idea that some pure system would solve all our problems is total nonsense. Capitalism is great. But, once in a while we find a problem where it is difficult to harness capitalism to produce an outcome that is acceptable. It is NOT acceptable to allow a serious problem to go unsolved merely because capitalism provides no adequate solution.
Not exactly. He wanted to stop usurpation of the powers of the states. He was attempting to return to the Constitution. As I said previously, the states have those powers, or should.
If the feds have all the power, who is going to protect you? According to you, the feds, namely the president, is trying to stop that. Maybe Congress needs to do their job and address these things like they are supposed to do? Then after you say you want to leave economic schemes out of it, you post this below. Leave me alone.
No, that's a gross misrepresentation. I'm all for capitalism. But, when I asked you could give no way of employing capitalism to solve this particular problem - that is, align a profit motive with clean water (or air, or whatever). Yes, Congress SHOULD stand up for the regulations they've passed. I certainly agree with you on that one.
i wasn't the one to go there. I was charged with liking communISM!! So, I asked for a way to align a profit motive with the objective of this thread, thus perhaps avoiding so much government intervention. But, all I got was crap like you "ism" phobia.
We are fermenting the earth. As with yeast in the alcohol fermentation process, our waste will eventually kill us. The only remedy is to reduce the population.
The feds went along with the Flint coverup. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/flint-lead-water-epa_us_569522a8e4b086bc1cd5373c It was those individual parties you said couldn't figure out the problem....that figured out the problem.
I think it's a little more complex than that. I agree with you that people have to have eyes wide open about their environment. But, the population could not fix the problem until they suffered the consequences, found someone who would help them figure out the science and then convinced the government that the problem was real based on scientific evidence. Only the government could supply water from a different source. I agree the "individual parties" were the ones who got this done. But, I do NOT agree that is a successful process. I see that as a monumental breakdown - a failure that resulted in children's brains pickled in lead leaving life long consequences. The people could not switch to an alternative water supply on their own nor did they have the resources to evaluate what they were going to be given by the governor and the rest. We've spent a lot of political effort in two major fronts: - blasting science as irrelevancy populated by those who can't hold a real job and/or who have some sort of intolerable political agenda. It's noted in your cite that it is becoming hard to cause movement by presenting solid science!! - inadequately supporting agencies such as the CDC and EPA both in lower funding and in removing the power to take action. We give them political leadership that is not interested in the science, and that directly leads to decay in the ability to carry out science. Why would a strong scientist be interested in working for an agency led by political leadership that is ready to edit the science for political reasons??? When we do that, we support the Flint method of problem solving, where parents watch their kids have their brains pickled, and spend years trying to figure out why their dreams of a productive future and a full life are evaporating. And, my point is that is NOT good enough.
That's right. People need to have personal responsibility and self reliance because the bottom line is, the government only cares when it's forced to care. The entire timeline and how it was handled shows that it was DOZENS of government officials that failed, just like in Broward County with regards to the school shooter. This is why I recommended that everyone should go ahead and buy a specific water filtration system that is effective against things like lead as well as pharmaceuticals. My argument is you should go ahead and assume the government isn't going to keep the water safe any more than they're going to keep anyone from kicking down your door and killing you. I'm not sure what you mean by "blasting" science in this case, as it was the EPA itself that blasted the true condition of the water. The amount of funding a government agency gets does not equate to competency. The EPA during Flint was absolutely flush with funds under Obama and had more support than ever. No, it will never be good enough. That's why you have to take steps to ensure the water you're drinking is good enough.
It's not acceptable to require every home, every building, to filter all their water and then let corporations and water systems deliver lethal water.
No it's not, but they'll do it anyway. This is why I recommend people take responsibility for their own safety when the government inevitably fails.
Fine. Those with the money to do so can buy filters and hope their workplace purchases water for its employees. But, we also need to be working to make our government successful. The damage we caused in Flint is something that we will be paying for through future decades of lower productivity and human incapacity. Simply saying they should have bought a filter is just not good enough - either from an economic or humanitarian point of view.
In bold above I disagree; those who depend on governments at any level to solve 'their' problems will forever be left wanting. Government on some things will eventually work on issues but with 'what' time table and 'what' level of success? Meanwhile, each person who is faced with adversity must take actions to mitigate whatever it is that is effecting their lives. If drinking toxic water is no longer acceptable then another solution must be in place and this is done by the individuals effected in parallel with whatever government might or might not do. Personal actions ARE required...
Again, you missed the point that we can't afford to simply allow the government to fail at some tasks such as this. I'm fine with you buying a filter. I'm saying that the cost of delivering bad water is going to be carried by you and me. And, with problems such as brain damage it isn't going to be cheap.
I didn't miss any point? I live every day with the ills of government. We have pot holes that if hit at the posted speed will jerk the undercarriage off the car...and this remains in place for weeks and months...so it becomes MY job to slow my speed or maneuver the holes. Regarding your toxic water why don't voters take control? What type of voters will allow toxic water for years? I stand by my statement that those who wait for government to solve our problems will be left wanting...
Wanting & Waiting Lol, at one point, a trench was so big, I bribed a work crew on another job to come repair it. Well worth the expense !!!
It's ironic that so many voters loved the recent tax policy changes, all of which remove more cash from government, then in parallel complain that government is not solving all their problems. Then when government says they need more cash the voters vote them out of office. The problem here is not the toxic water, or the government, but IMO it's the voters who have failed...
