The White House Makes A Stand!

[molson_golden2002]

After all, its money that can be spent in Iraq. Sure, it's not much compared to what we waste on the Iraq adventure, but every bit helps

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070307/ap_on_...congress_sewers

 

The kicker:

 

The White House, in a statement released Tuesday, said the administration strongly opposes the bill, stating that the money approved was "unrealistic in the current fiscal environment."

 

---------

What fiscal environment? The one created by Republican tax cuts and overspending?

[DC Tom]

After all, its money that can be spent in Iraq. Sure, it's not much compared to what we waste on the Iraq adventure, but every bit helps

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070307/ap_on_...congress_sewers

 

The kicker:

 

The White House, in a statement released Tuesday, said the administration strongly opposes the bill, stating that the money approved was "unrealistic in the current fiscal environment."

 

---------

What fiscal environment? The one created by Republican tax cuts and overspending?

 

Now see, THIS is the kind of thing I think the government should be doing. Public health programs and non-exclusive use infrastructure. Want to reduce health care costs? Ensure access to clean drinking water, via utilities where one person's use does not preclude another person's use. Not bull sh-- "universal coverage" programs.

 

So naturally, the administration will veto it. Though in their defense, I'll say that there hasn't been an administration since Eisenhower that had even the faintest comprehension of what public health actually is.

[Orton's Arm]

I noticed the line:

Supporters cited Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the nation's wastewater infrastructure will face a funding shortfall of $300 billion to $400 billion over the next 20 years.

I doubt very much of that money's because people will be taking longer showers or living in rainier places over the next 20 years. And while much of that money is probably needed to replace existing (and deteriorating) infrastructure, a lot of that $300 - $400 billion undoubtedly stems from the need to accommodate the next twenty years' worth of immigrants. Allowing the U.S. to be absorbed into the Third World is a more expensive proposition than most people realize!

[Alaska Darin]

I noticed the line:

 

I doubt very much of that money's because people will be taking longer showers or living in rainier places over the next 20 years. And while much of that money is probably needed to replace existing (and deteriorating) infrastructure, a lot of that $300 - $400 billion undoubtedly stems from the need to accommodate the next twenty years' worth of immigrants. Allowing the U.S. to be absorbed into the Third World is a more expensive proposition than most people realize!

Why not just type "Hi, I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about - but I hate immigrants and need to link virtually every problem back to them."?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Why not just type "Hi, I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about - but I hate immigrants and need to link virtually every problem back to them."?

 

Apparently, we're becoming Argentina?

 

[DC Tom]

I noticed the line:

 

I doubt very much of that money's because people will be taking longer showers or living in rainier places over the next 20 years. And while much of that money is probably needed to replace existing (and deteriorating) infrastructure, a lot of that $300 - $400 billion undoubtedly stems from the need to accommodate the next twenty years' worth of immigrants. Allowing the U.S. to be absorbed into the Third World is a more expensive proposition than most people realize!

 

Infrastructure decays for reasons having NOTHING to do with immigrants, you loon.

[GG]

Infrastructure decays for reasons having NOTHING to do with immigrants, you loon.

 

Well, they are stupider, so their excrement is more potent.

[DC Tom]

Well, they are stupider, so their excrement is more potent.

 

And because they're stupider they have more children, who generate more excrement themselves...

[Orton's Arm]

Infrastructure decays for reasons having NOTHING to do with immigrants, you loon.

Right, and I didn't blame immigrants for infrastructure decay. They are, however, responsible for the bulk of the infrastructure expansion that will be needed over the next 20 years.

[DC Tom]

Right, and I didn't blame immigrants for infrastructure decay. They are, however, responsible for the bulk of the infrastructure expansion that will be needed over the next 20 years.

 

Then you didn't read the article. The $300-400 billion is a funding shortfall, not the cost of building new capacity. Maybe it was a little too subtle for you, the words "deteriorating sewage systems". Which is not the same as adding capacity, because THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!!

 

How do you make the same exact mistake across different knowledge domains? Infants can distinguish between things that are different, for cryin' out loud. But to you, everything is just like everything else except Kelly Holcomb and JP Losman. You're a !@#$ing phenom of retardation.

[Orton's Arm]

Then you didn't read the article. The $300-400 billion is a funding shortfall, not the cost of building new capacity. Maybe it was a little too subtle for you, the words "deteriorating sewage systems". Which is not the same as adding capacity, because THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!!

 

How do you make the same exact mistake across different knowledge domains? Infants can distinguish between things that are different, for cryin' out loud. But to you, everything is just like everything else except Kelly Holcomb and JP Losman. You're a !@#$ing phenom of retardation.

Before screaming at me, you might want to at least try reading the relevant text. A novel concept for you, I know. Here are the exact words from the article:

Supporters cited Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the nation's wastewater infrastructure will face a funding shortfall of $300 billion to $400 billion over the next 20 years.

Nowhere in that sentence or anywhere else in the article does it say that the entire $300 - $400 billion shortfall is due exclusively to "deteriorating sewage systems." Learn to read.

[DC Tom]

Nowhere in that sentence or anywhere else in the article does it say that the entire $300 - $400 billion shortfall is due exclusively to "deteriorating sewage systems." Learn to read.

 

...except the very first sentence, where I said "...federal help for communities faced with deteriorating sewage systems".

[Orton's Arm]

...except the very first sentence, where I said "...federal help for communities faced with deteriorating sewage systems".

Right. The $1.7 billion that just got approved is for communities with deteriorating sewage systems. The $300 - $400 billion shortfall the EPA described represents money that will be needed for the total wastewater infrastructure. See? The two things are different. THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME.

[Ramius]

Well, they are stupider, so their excrement is more potent.

 

And they do take up precious slots at Hamburger U, limiting the opportunities of holcombs arm and his like.

[DC Tom]

Right. The $1.7 billion that just got approved is for communities with deteriorating sewage systems. The $300 - $400 billion shortfall the EPA described represents money that will be needed for the total wastewater infrastructure. See? The two things are different. THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME.

 

Conversely, things that are the same are not different...like total wastewater infrastructure and deteriorating sewage system. Both of which are different from new sewers.

 

Nowhere - nowhere - in the article does it talk about expanding capacity. It talks about upgrading existing capacity. They're DIFFERENT! The only source I've seen ANYWHERE for the idea that the funding shortfall is for new construction is you empty little head. You're making it up. You sure as hell didn't see it in that article.

[GG]

Because all third worldies congregate here:

 

The EPA says there are roughly 772 communities serving some 40 million people with the older and more vulnerable combined sewer systems. Most are located in the Northeast and Great Lakes areas, with some in the Pacific Northwest.

 

What does wiki say about the EPA report that was cited in the Yahoo article?

[KD in CA]

And because they're stupider they have more children, who generate more excrement themselves...

 

And because none of them work, they generally sit around the house eating and pooping all day....

[Orton's Arm]

Conversely, things that are the same are not different...like total wastewater infrastructure and deteriorating sewage system. Both of which are different from new sewers.

 

Nowhere - nowhere - in the article does it talk about expanding capacity. It talks about upgrading existing capacity. They're DIFFERENT! The only source I've seen ANYWHERE for the idea that the funding shortfall is for new construction is you empty little head. You're making it up. You sure as hell didn't see it in that article.

What's creating your confusion is a) general reading comprehension issues, b) the fact that the statement in question was a little out of sync with the rest of the article. Maybe the context of the rest of the article made it seem like the EPA's study was strictly about replacing deteriorating infrastructure. But that's not what the article actually said.

Supporters cited Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the nation's wastewater infrastructure will face a funding shortfall of $300 billion to $400 billion over the next 20 years.

The nation's wastewater infrastructure is what's facing that $300 billion - $400 billion shortfall. Deterioration of existing capacity contributes to that shortfall. So does the need to build new capacity. Get that through your thick skull already.

[GG]

What's creating your confusion is a) general reading comprehension issues, b) the fact that the statement in question was a little out of sync with the rest of the article. Maybe the context of the rest of the article made it seem like the EPA's study was strictly about replacing deteriorating infrastructure. But that's not what the article actually said.

 

The nation's wastewater infrastructure is what's facing that $300 billion - $400 billion shortfall. Deterioration of existing capacity contributes to that shortfall. So does the need to build new capacity. Get that through your thick skull already.

 

Well, care to tell us what the actual EPA study says?

[erynthered]

Well, care to tell us what the actual EPA study says?

 

 

See Spot

See Spot chase the ball

See Spot catch the ball

See Spot run and hide with the ball

Shoot spot with a 30/6