|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 2, 2016 12:26:13 GMT -5
How about that Cruz victory sermon - er- speech? And that was just for taking Iowa, which the others had basically conceded to him last year. My God, if the man ever wins the nomination, you'll have to bring an MRE and a cot. Sadly, reality doesn't have a "mute" button. Thankfully my TV does. And a channel guide to find something (anything) else. I think I just keep watching because I can't really believe what I'm seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Feb 2, 2016 18:03:49 GMT -5
Voting for Trump will still be voting against their interests, just in a slightly different way. Without a doubt. I didn't mean to imply otherwise, rather that it seems to me the party will have to seriously recalibrate their approach if they wish to pacify the base. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 4, 2016 15:25:16 GMT -5
This killed me, I had no idea that these people were still paying their water bills. That's nuts, and what's worse is that the governor is only offering a 30% price reduction and "some" credit back from past bills. I wouldn't pay those bills if I were living there, that's all I can say.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Feb 4, 2016 16:05:46 GMT -5
This killed me, I had no idea that these people were still paying their water bills. That's nuts, and what's worse is that the governor is only offering a 30% price reduction and "some" credit back from past bills. I wouldn't pay those bills if I were living there, that's all I can say. I don't know if you've seen, but other articles have said that their water bills are also quite high, around $160 a month. Not making them pay for water they can't drink is the first and most minor thing they should do for these residents. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 4, 2016 16:07:46 GMT -5
This killed me, I had no idea that these people were still paying their water bills. That's nuts, and what's worse is that the governor is only offering a 30% price reduction and "some" credit back from past bills. I wouldn't pay those bills if I were living there, that's all I can say. I don't know if you've seen, but other articles have said that their water bills are also quite high, around $160 a month. Not making them pay for water they can't drink is the first and most minor thing they should do for these residents. Yeah, I just read that in following up on this story. It just baffles me. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 18:48:06 GMT -5
FLint will likely be a ghost town if I understand the water situation correctly. I know it's a huge city, but they've destroyed all the water infrastructure, and the city was in shambles even before that. I think it would be cheaper and faster for the government to just undertake a huge relocation program. Something like post Katrina New Orleans, but larger and more long term.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 19:05:52 GMT -5
FLint will likely be a ghost town if I understand the water situation correctly. I know it's a huge city, but they've destroyed all the water infrastructure, and the city was in shambles even before that. I think it would be cheaper and faster for the government to just undertake a huge relocation program. Something like post Katrina New Orleans, but larger and more long term. the Republicans in Congress today blocked ANY aid to Flint. (they feel the local government should handle it and not the Federal one. . oh, and they blame the EPA, not the Governor of Michigan). SCUM. . all of them (and it's a Republican Governor who appointed a Republican City Manager, who caused the crisis in the first place) |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 4, 2016 19:07:57 GMT -5
FLint will likely be a ghost town if I understand the water situation correctly. I know it's a huge city, but they've destroyed all the water infrastructure, and the city was in shambles even before that. I think it would be cheaper and faster for the government to just undertake a huge relocation program. Something like post Katrina New Orleans, but larger and more long term. the Republicans in Congress today blocked ANY aid to Flint. (they feel the local government should handle it and not the Federal one. . oh, and they blame the EPA, not the Governor of Michigan). SCUM. . all of them (and it's a Republican Governor who appointed a Republican City Manager, who caused the crisis in the first place) That's seriously messed up. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 19:12:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 5, 2016 8:51:47 GMT -5
FLint will likely be a ghost town if I understand the water situation correctly. I know it's a huge city, but they've destroyed all the water infrastructure, and the city was in shambles even before that. I think it would be cheaper and faster for the government to just undertake a huge relocation program. Something like post Katrina New Orleans, but larger and more long term. the Republicans in Congress today blocked ANY aid to Flint. (they feel the local government should handle it and not the Federal one. . oh, and they blame the EPA, not the Governor of Michigan). SCUM. . all of them (and it's a Republican Governor who appointed a Republican City Manager, who caused the crisis in the first place) This isn't entirely true. The Republicans weren't happy that the Democrats tried to tack on the Flint aid package to the bipartisan energy bill that was coming up for vote. They felt the Flint aid should be discussed and voted on based on its own merits, not used as a political football by the Democrats in a "if you don't add it to the energy bill, we won't vote for said bill" manner. Mind you, I fully support aid going to Flint to solve this problem, and it needs to get there as soon as they figure out exactly what the entire scope of infrastructure needs are (rather than sending over an inadequate amount upfront), but the Democrats are the ones playing politics with this one, not the Republicans. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 11:46:54 GMT -5
the Republicans in Congress today blocked ANY aid to Flint. (they feel the local government should handle it and not the Federal one. . oh, and they blame the EPA, not the Governor of Michigan). SCUM. . all of them (and it's a Republican Governor who appointed a Republican City Manager, who caused the crisis in the first place) This isn't entirely true. The Republicans weren't happy that the Democrats tried to tack on the Flint aid package to the bipartisan energy bill that was coming up for vote. They felt the Flint aid should be discussed and voted on based on its own merits, not used as a political football by the Democrats in a "if you don't add it to the energy bill, we won't vote for said bill" manner. Mind you, I fully support aid going to Flint to solve this problem, and it needs to get there as soon as they figure out exactly what the entire scope of infrastructure needs are (rather than sending over an inadequate amount upfront), but the Democrats are the ones playing politics with this one, not the Republicans. adding it to the energy bill WAS Bipartisan -- it was asked to be added by both Democrats, and the handful of Moderate Republicans. the Right Wing/Tea party/Nutjob Republicans (ie: the majority in the Congress these days) are who refused to do so. so yeah, the Republicans blocked the immediate need for aid. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 5, 2016 14:27:33 GMT -5
This isn't entirely true. The Republicans weren't happy that the Democrats tried to tack on the Flint aid package to the bipartisan energy bill that was coming up for vote. They felt the Flint aid should be discussed and voted on based on its own merits, not used as a political football by the Democrats in a "if you don't add it to the energy bill, we won't vote for said bill" manner. Mind you, I fully support aid going to Flint to solve this problem, and it needs to get there as soon as they figure out exactly what the entire scope of infrastructure needs are (rather than sending over an inadequate amount upfront), but the Democrats are the ones playing politics with this one, not the Republicans. adding it to the energy bill WAS Bipartisan -- it was asked to be added by both Democrats, and the handful of Moderate Republicans. the Right Wing/Tea party/Nutjob Republicans (ie: the majority in the Congress these days) are who refused to do so. so yeah, the Republicans blocked the immediate need for aid. No, they blocked approving $600MM to be sent to Flint right now. As Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) put it, it was premature to "write a multi-million dollar blank check" for Flint before state officials had fully assessed the needs. The money the Democrats were proposing wasn't for "immediate need'. It was $400MM to replace and fix lead-contaminated pipes, and another $200MM to monitor lead exposure in Flint over 10 years. Neither of those projects is going to start tomorrow, primarily because it will take time to identify which properties have lead pipes (not all homes do in Flint), purchase pipe (I work in an industry that buys a lot of pipe, and lead times on that material can be long, unless you want to buy imported out of China), and line up contractors to do the work. Again, something needs to be done and quickly. However, assigning a dollar figure to the problem before they know the full extent of the problem is not responsible. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 15:05:42 GMT -5
^ so you agree something has to be done, immediately. But also agree to not do ANYTHING (ie: give any Federal Funding to actually do anything) until a plan is put in place.
I'm sorry, it's morally reprehensible what the Republican Government has done to the People of Flint, Michigan (or did you miss the reports where the STATE Goverment workers got bottled water supplied to the govt. building all while telling the residents thier water was safe to drink and bathe in.
"the Full extend of the problem" is that Lead Poisoning does not get better. .the damage is done, and they need to act IMMEDIATELY to prevent things from getting worse.
but they just continue to compound the ass-holery.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Feb 5, 2016 15:39:53 GMT -5
^ so you agree something has to be done, immediately. But also agree to not do ANYTHING (ie: give any Federal Funding to actually do anything) until a plan is put in place. I'm sorry, it's morally reprehensible what the Republican Government has done to the People of Flint, Michigan (or did you miss the reports where the STATE Goverment workers got bottled water supplied to the govt. building all while telling the residents thier water was safe to drink and bathe in. "the Full extend of the problem" is that Lead Poisoning does not get better. .the damage is done, and they need to act IMMEDIATELY to prevent things from getting worse. but they just continue to compound the ass-holery. Out of fairness, I have to note that State offices were not the only ones who got special water considerations. The GM plant in Flint started complaining that they couldn't use Flint water to wash their car parts because it was corroding them. So they got a special connection to the original water supply at a state cost of $440,000 to wash car parts while citizens were told to drink their tap water. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 5, 2016 17:04:08 GMT -5
@ bert...
I agree that something needs to be done "quickly", not "immediately" and not without some sort of plan in place to ensure millions of US tax dollars aren't wasted.
Look, I'm not arguing that the Republican-led state government in Michigan didn't screw this up. I'm not arguing that this isn't a tragedy of the highest scale and that it isn't incredibly sad that the most-vulnerable section of Flint's population, namely their children, are going to suffer long-term effects of this. I'm not arguing that the folks responsible for this debacle should not face the full repercussions allowed under the law.
I'm arguing that the proposed aid packaged should not have been attached to the energy bill, and that Congress should not start sending money to Flint until they fully understand what it is going to take to fix the problem.
|
|
