The Flint poisoned water situation.

[SV Fan]

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.

I agree with you that it seems stupid that the people complaining the most about the EPA in this case are people who want to take as much power away from the EPA. As I pointed out above the EPA starting giving warnings to the State Government(Michigan Department of Environmental Quality) as early as June but were basically ignored. I am guessing they were basically following protocol(ie they have it in their rules they just can't run out to the media when they feel like it)

 

[summerteeth]

Well the failure I see in your logic is the "smaller government is a magic solution to almost anything"

Considering I never said that, you are arguing against a straw man.

 

[summerteeth]

Well you can guess all you want, but you know if you read about it you'll find that they could have done much more but just didn't do it. I don't know why you can't admit to the EPA failing when it clearly did. Mother Jones summed it up pretty well

In other words, they (The EPA) screwed up—like just about every government agency involved in this public health disaster.

 

[The Overlord]

Considering I never said that, you are arguing against a straw man.

I think you were putting word in mouth then, because you were applying a strawman to my arguments, IMO:

"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."

Where did I say that? If you seem to be trying to apply a reflexive "government is always the solution" style straw man on to my arguments, which I have said repeatedly is not my stance.

I was arguing that the if the EPA is not doing its job, that's not really big government or over regulation, if I was following your straw man argument, I would be arguing that there should be several more agencies like the EPA and they should have no real oversight. Frankly I'm arguing for more effective government then bigger government here. I also think you are ignoring the vested interests that may have hampered the EPA in this case, which SV Fan brought up.

If you think I was putting words in your mouth, then okay, my mistake. But then please do me the curtsey of not trying to put words in my mouth. I think we can try to be respectable, even if we disagree.

Well you can guess all you want, but you know if you read about it you'll find that they could have done much more but just didn't do it. I don't know why you can't admit to the EPA failing when it clearly did. Mother Jones summed it up pretty well

But that doesn't address the question, why did the EPA fail? If the EPA failed because, as SV Fan pointed out, they tried to warn the State government of this problem and the State government did nothing, who is to blame? If the State government insisted on making the EPA toothless, then is it any wonder they failed? They cannot succeed under those conditions. If you tie the hands of these government agencies, then yes, they are going to do a bad job, they are going to fail if you set them up to fail.

Just saying the EPA failed because they were incompetent, is too easy an explanation and doesn't promote much in the way of deeper digging, it ignores the possibility of vested interests hampering the EPA's ability to do its job. I still wonder if this response would have been as slow if this had happened in a wealthier city.

 

[summerteeth]

I think you were putting word in mouth then, because you were applying a strawman to my arguments, IMO:

"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."

Where did I say that? If you seem to be trying to apply a reflexive "government is always the solution" style straw man on to my arguments, which I have said repeatedly is not my stance.

I was arguing that the if the EPA is not doing its job, that's not really big government or over regulation, if I was following your straw man argument, I would be arguing that there should be several more agencies like the EPA and they should have no real oversight. Frankly I'm arguing for more effective government then bigger government here. I also think you are ignoring the vested interests that may have hampered the EPA in this case, which SFVan brought up.

If you think I was putting words in your mouth, then please do me the curtsey of not trying to put words in my mouth. I think we can try to be respectable, even if we disagree.



But that doesn't address the question, why did the EPA fail? If the EPA failed because, as SFVan pointed out, they tried to warn the State government of this problem and the State government did nothing, who is to blame? If the State government insisted on making the EPA toothless, then is it any wonder they failed? They cannot succeed under those conditions. If tie the hands of these government agencies, then yes, they are going to do a bad job.

Just saying the EPA failed because they were incompetent, is too easy an explanation and doesn't promote much in the way of deeper digging, it ignores the possibility of vested interests hampering the EPA's ability to do its job. I still wonder if this response would have been as slow if this had happened in a wealthier city.

Hedmen quickly and repeatedly pressed state officials to take action. But she did not go public with the findings or take action herself, instead seeking a legal opinion on the matter that was not finished until November, according to the Detroit News.

This sounds like incompetence and beureaucratic red tape to me. When all they had to do was say hey people of Flint there is lead in the water and your state officials aren't listening to us.

I mean you say I put words in your mouth, but your whole argument is the EPA failed because it isn't big enough or doesn't have the power it needs i.e. saying they were made toothless. Instead of acknowledging that big government failed.

 

[The Overlord]

This sounds like incompetence and beureaucratic red tape to me. When all they had to do was say hey people of Flint there is lead in the water and your state officials aren't listening to us.

I mean you say I put words in your mouth, but your whole argument is the EPA failed because it isn't big enough or doesn't have the power it needs i.e. saying they were made toothless. Instead of acknowledging that big government failed.

How is saying a government agency should actually do its job a call for big government, if they don't have the tools to do their job (which is what SV Fan seemed to suggest by stating the State government ignored them) what purpose do they serve? It seems like you are guessing about this simply being a matter of government incompetence and red tape, rather something you can prove beyond reasonable doubt, I think there is more going on here.

How is not setting them up to fail? Saying a toothless agency should have the teeth to do their job, seems more like making government more effective, rather then bigger, because if the state government is just going to ignore what they say, then purpose do they serve? If they serve no purpose, okay, then who should protect the state's environment? If you are going to argue the EPA should have done its job, then you are making the same argument I am making. I think blaming this on mere incompetence is far too easy and doesn't do enough digging, I feel like examining were there any vested interests that prevented the EPA from doing its job is worth looking at and would this problem of slow government action have been present if this problem was affecting a wealthier community? What's your solution to this problem? No offense, but it seems like Republican governments constantly undermine these government agencies and then when this happens, conservatives use this as proof government ineffectiveness, but who's fault was it these agencies were ineffective in the first place then?

And why did the state officials not listen, did they determine that it was too much work and effort to clean up the rivers, it was cheaper and easier to do nothing? Again if a government less then it should and that is causing problems, is that really a problem of big government? If government is not actually doing its job, is that really a problem of big government, vs. ineffective government that is not honoring its obligations.

Again I think doing me the simple curtsey of not trying to apply straw man arguments to me is fair and I will en devour to do the same, because I think you are applying a straw man to my arguments and oversimplifying some of my arguments.

 

[summerteeth]

How is saying a government agency should actually do its job a call for big government, if they don't have the tools to do their job (which is what SV Fan seemed to suggest by stating the State government ) what purpose do they serve? How is not setting them up to fail? Saying a toothless agency should have the teeth to do their job, seems more like making government more effective, rather then bigger, because if the state government is just going to ignore what they say, then purpose do they serve. If they serve no purpose, okay, then who should protect the state's environment? If you are going to argue the EPA should have done its job, then you are making the same argument I am making. I think blaming this on mere incompetence is far too easy and doesn't do enough digging, I feel like examining were there any vested interests that prevented the EPA from doing its job is worth examining and would this problem of slow government action have been present if this problem was affecting a wealthier community? What's your solution to this problem? No offense, but it seems like Republican governments constantly undermine these government agencies and then when this happens, conservatives use this as proof government ineffectiveness, but who's fault was it these agencies were ineffective in the first place then?

And why did the state officials not listen, did they determine that it was too much work and effort to clean up the rivers, it was cheaper and easier to do nothing? Again if a government less then it should and that is causing problems, is that really a problem of big government? If government is not actually doing its job, is that really a problem of big government, vs. ineffective government that is not honoring its obligations.

Again I think doing me the simple curtsey of not trying to apply straw man arguments to me is fair and I will en devour to do the same, because I think you are applying a straw man to my arguments and oversimplifying some of my arguments.

I'm not applying a straw man to you, nor am I oversimplifying your arguments. State officials are obviously at fault as well, but the EPA was utterly incompetent in deciding to wait months for a law review instead of alerting the media and the people of the situation when they knew the state wasn't doing anything about it.

If the EPA doesn't actually do anything, isn't that a problem with under regulation rather then over regulation?

 

[The Overlord]

I'm not applying a straw man to you, nor am I oversimplifying your arguments.

I disagree, I feel like I am arguing for more effective government agencies and I think you are trying to apply this "big government is always good at any costs" style straw man to my arguments, which I said several times is not my position.

Again if the EPA didn't actually do its job, how is that a problem of big government? I hear conservatives say the government that governs best governs least, so clearly the EPA has taken that to heart, by not doing their job.

But to be serious, I am arguing that certain state officials were following conservative style "small government at all costs" style ideology and that is what undermined the EPA, not simple government incompetence. It seems like Republican governments often undermine these agencies and then conservatives complain they weren't doing their jobs. That looks to be the problem here.

 

[summerteeth]

I disagree, I feel like I am arguing for more effective government agencies and I think you are trying to apply this "big government is always good at any costs style straw man to my arguments, which I said several times is not my position.

Again if the EPA didn't actually do its job, how is that a problem of big government? I hear conservatives say the government that governs best governs least, so clearly the EPA has taken that to heart, by not doing their job.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there is a tendency from the left to not criticize big government and when it does fail they blame its failure on it not being big enough or not having enough money to fund it.

 

[The Overlord]

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there is a tendency from the left to not criticize big government and when it does fail they blame its failure on it not being big enough or not having enough money to fund it.

But again, if the EPA was not doing its actual job, is that really a problem of big government? I don't think so personally, if government agency cannot or will not do its basic functions, then what is its purpose and if it has no purpose, who should then handle its responsibilities? I am disagreeing with your use the term "big government", I think that is a loaded ideological term and I don't think it applies in this case, IMO.

Well I feel that some people on the right do take this small government is always right to an extreme and whenever this ideology fails, they find some way to blame it on "big government", which doesn't allow for real critical thinking or self reflection. At least I just see government as a tool, many on the right see it as some supreme ideological enemy that is always wrong (except for the military). I feel I am being far more pragmatic then that. Sure not all right wingers take it that far, but enough do that I think its problematic.

 

[summerteeth]

But again, if the EPA was not doing its actual job, is that really a problem of big government? I don't think so personally, if government agency cannot or will not do its basic functions, then what is its purpose and if it has no purpose, who should then handle its responsibilities?

Well I feel that some people on the right do take this small government is always right to an extreme and whenever this ideology fails, they find some way to blame it on "big government", which doesn't allow for real critical thinking or self reflection. At least I just see government as a tool, many on the right see it as some supreme ideological enemy that is always wrong (except for the military). I feel I am being far more pragmatic then that. Sure not all right wingers take it that far, but enough do that I think its problematic.

EPA is big government as it is a federal agency. Since it failed to do its job then it is a failure of big government. Especially given in the manner in which it failed getting caught in bureaucracy and being slow to act is rather typical of big government. Not saying that there wasn't a failure of local and state agencies which is apparent.

 

[The Overlord]

EPA is big government as it is a federal agency. Since it failed to do its job then it is a failure of big government. Not saying that there wasn't a failure of local and state agencies which is apparent.

Except when many right wingers use term "big government" they seem to apply it to government agencies taking too powers or responsibilities. Frankly if a government agency is not doing its basic functions, then I disagree its a problem of big government, because its about a government agency divesting itself of responsibilities, rather then taking too many, which is the opposite of what many conservatives argue is the problem. I feel like the way you are applying the term just refers to any government screw up, which seems to broaden the initial meaning of this rather loaded political term and renders it rather moot, because it doesn't examine why these agencies fail in doing their job, IMO. A government agency failing to do its basic job is a different problem then a government agency that takes on too many powers and responsibilities, trying to cover both these problems under "big government" seems problematic.

 

[summerteeth]

Except when many right wingers use term "big government" they seem to apply it to government agencies taking too powers or responsibilities. Frankly if a government agency is not doing its basic functions, then I disagree its a problem of big government, because its about a government agency divesting itself of responsibilities, rather then taking too many, which is the opposite of what many conservatives argue is the problem. I feel like the way you are applying the term just refers to any government screw up, which seems to broaden the initial meaning of this rather loaded political term and renders it rather moot, because it doesn't examine why these agencies fail in doing their job, IMO. A government agency failing to do its basic job is a different problem then a government agency that takes on too many powers and responsibilities, trying to cover both these problems under "big government" seems problematic.

No, I think there is a misunderstanding of how conservatives view big government and why they speak of it negatively. A big reason why conservatives feel this way is because they do not think it is effective or efficient. That's a huge part of it. So when they fail, when they fail to live up to their responsibilities that's a byproduct of how bureaucratic government agencies function.

 

[The Overlord]

No, I think there is a misunderstanding of how conservatives view big government and why they speak of it negatively. A big reason why conservatives feel this way is because they do not think it is effective or efficient. That's a huge part of it. So when they fail, when they fail to live up to their responsibilities that's a byproduct of how bureaucratic government agencies function.

But in this case it seems like the EPA was set up for failure by the fact the state government ignored it's suggestions. What should the EPA have done , treat the water without the state government's permission? Republicans would be complaining that is big government. Frankly it seems like often republicans try to make this idea that government is ineffective by actively trying to undermine it and then complain that these agencies are not effective. Thus it becomes a self for filling procrephy. I mean what you suggest here besides having the EPA actually do its job?

 

[Taarna]

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?

The finger should be pointed at the bozo's who run the city as those in charge surely knew how bad their water was. The city also has a water department.

These guys should get a subpoena to appear in court. I'm 99% sure they knew, and those who they report to also new. Meanwhile the residents of the city were poisoned.

 

[SV Fan]

The finger should be pointed at the bozo's who run the city.

This happened under the Republican Governor's appointed Emergency Manger's watch. The situation could have been easily avoided if he just listened to the recommendations to treat the water properly(for $100 a day)

 

[herakles]

I honestly think this goes far beyond Democrats vs Republicans or Big Gov vs Small Gov. Someone screwed up and screwed up for years. The people of Flint have been screwed over and harmed! Someone needs to be held accountable period!

 

[summerteeth]

But in this case it seems like the EPA was set up for failure by the fact the state government ignored it's suggestions. What should the EPA have done , treat the water without the state government's permission? Republicans would be complaining that is big government. Frankly it seems like often republicans try to make this idea that government is ineffective by actively trying to undermine it and then complain that these agencies are not effective. Thus it becomes a self for filling procrephy. I mean what you suggest here besides having the EPA actually do its job?

I mean, I already stated what they could have done. The fact that you keep arguing is proving my point for me.

 

[Taarna]

This happened under the Republican Governor's appointed Emergency Manger's watch. The situation could have been easily avoided if he just listened to the recommendations to treat the water properly(for $100 a day)

I agree there, however, the city itself could have paid the $100 a day.

https://www.cityofflint.com/city-council/councilmembers/

https://www.cityofflint.com/mayors-bio/

 

[The Overlord]

I mean, I already stated what they could have done. The fact that you keep arguing is proving my point for me.

Could they have done something that would be easier then the Emergency Manger treating the water for 100 dollars a day? Did the Emergency Manger decided that the 100 dollars was big government and decide not to do? You seem to have ignored that and indeed the state government's role in this whole affair. If conservatives believe that state governments are better then federal bureaucracies and believe in personal responsibility, shouldn't they demand better standards and even more accountability from Republican state governments then they would from feudal bureaucracies they view as corrupt and incompetent? Again the EPA warned the state government about this problem and they did nothing, so is your only criticism for the EPA and not the state government?

Here is the problem, the American conservative "big government is bad ideology" is not the sort of reasonable fiscal conservative ideology you would see in other western countries, instead its contradictory, self justifying non sense. When Republicans cut or undermine some government agency, other Republicans use that as proof of "big government inefficacy" and ignore the problems the other Republicans caused in the first place. Jeeze at least let a government agency succeed or fail on their own merits. If government agency has too many powers or responsibilities, that's big government, but if you take away almost all their powers and responsibilities away and they do not do their job effectively any more, that is ineffective government and thus "big government" and if anyone says those agencies should have the resources to actually do their jobs, that is somehow calling for more big government. This would be the same in the private sector, if a corporation slashes the budget of one's its departments or somehow undermines it, its likely going to do a worse job, not a better one, why would you expect differently from the public sector? You can't have it both ways.

Again this is the problem I see in this situation, the Republican state government decided they have less government by changing Flint's water source and not treating the water, save a little money there and they ended costing themselves way more money, despite the EPA's warnings. Short term small government ends up in long term costs, isn't the state government the most culpable party in this mess?

 

[summerteeth]

Could they have done something that would be easier then the Emergency Manger treating the water for 100 dollars a day? Did the Emergency Manger decided that the 100 dollars was big government and decide not to do? You seem to have ignored that and indeed the state government's role in this whole affair. If conservatives believe that state governments are better then federal bureaucracies and believe in personal responsibility, shouldn't they demand better standards and even more accountability from Republican state governments then they would from feudal bureaucracies they view as corrupt and incompetent? Again the EPA warned the state government about this problem and they did nothing, so is your only criticism for the EPA and not the state government?

Here is the problem, the American conservative "big government is bad ideology" is not the sort of reasonable fiscal conservative ideology you would see in other western countries, instead its contradictory, self justifying non sense. When Republicans cut or undermine some government agency, other Republicans use that as proof of "big government inefficacy" and ignore the problems the other Republicans caused in the first place. Jeeze at least let a government agency succeed or fail on their own merits. If government agency has too many powers or responsibilities, that's big government, but if you take away almost all their powers and responsibilities away and they do not do their job effectively any more, that is ineffective government and thus "big government" and if anyone says those agencies should have the resources to actually do their jobs, that is somehow calling for more big government. This would be the same in the private sector, if a corporation slashes the budget of one's its departments or somehow undermines it, its likely going to do a worse job, not a better one, why would you expect differently from the public sector? You can't have it both ways.

Again this is the problem I see in this situation, the Republican state government decided they have less government by changing Flint's water source and not treating the water, save a little money there and they ended costing themselves way more money, despite the EPA's warnings. Short term small government ends up in long term costs, isn't the state government the most culpable party in this mess?

I didn't ignore anything. I already said the local and state government were at fault as well, but just because they messed up doesn't mean the EPA is off the hook here. It was a failure at all levels. Again, I said what the EPA could have done after the state government refused to do their job.

The city council of Flint (Democrats) voted to make the switch where Snyder comes into play is when he knew about the lead in the water and his appointee not treating the water and the appointee responding to the EPA's reports. Yes, the state failed to do its job and that's why we have regulatory agencies like the EPA. Again, note I never said we should get rid of the EPA. The point I'm making is that you are arguing with me because I blasted the EPA even though they deserve criticism. There is a failure on the left to be able to look critically at big government. It's often seen as this great good that can fix so many problems. When in reality it is usually too slow to react (as seen here) bureaucratic (as seen here), at times corrupt, and incompetent (as seen here) and inefficient/wasteful (as seen here). This is why conservatives are hesitant to expand the role of the federal government in our lives.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

How is small government rhetoric going to make something like the EPA more effective/efficient?

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

How is small government rhetoric going to make something like the EPA more effective/efficient?

Advocates of small government would like the EPA to be removed completely as they feel that agency represents everything that is wrong with a bureaucratic government gone amok.

This is another example of the EPA doing nothing to prevent environmental hazards. What's the point of having the EPA if stuff like this still happens?

Small government rhetoric would say the EPA should be shut down and if you want to get really wide right of center, these industries should be privatized so the market (aka Society) can determine how clean one's water is. Of course that will likely lead to the more well off buying in home filters and other measures while leaving the poor to drink rust.

Another problem with going that far right with water is the fact that it's difficult to source water from multiple vendors. There's only so many pipes. Still, having the many levels of accountability put in place now, from local to state to federal, has done nothing from preventing a disaster like this.

So to come full circle, small government rhetoric would say that this happened with all of the bureaucratic red tape in the world. It's clearly a waste of money and should be cut.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If you want to see what deregulation does to the air and water look no further than Chinese cities.

We need a more efficient EPA which doesn't mean we eradicate the entire agency as some small government advocates would suggest.

 

[SV Fan]

I would love to hear the politicians who think we should get rid of the EPA view on allowing private citizens to sue the hell out of companies who pollute because if you don't have regulations that would be the alternative to keeping an eye on companies and in the end it probably would cost the companies more then the regulations and "fines" we hand out now