DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 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 - $400 billion shortfall. Deterioration of existing capacity contributes to that shortfall. So does the need to build new capacity. Get that through your thick skull already. I don't have any confusion. The article doesn't say that. In fact, the EPA study you're quoting specifically says: Significantly, this estimates [sic] does not account for any growth in demand from new systems. What that means is that, significantly, the estimate does not account for any growth in demand from new systems. Now, I know that's probably unclear to you, so let me explain it to you further: the estimate does not account for any growth in demand from new systems. Which means that, when it comes to growth in demand from new systems, the estimate does not account for them. Thus the estimate, with respect to new systems and growth in demand, does not account for such. Or, to put it another way, not accounted for in the estimate is the growth in demand from new systems. And conspicuiously absent from that is any statement to the effect of: "The estimate includes growth in demand from new systems". Do you understand any of this, or are you still deluded into believing that "This estimate does not account for any growth in demand from new systems" means "this estimate does account for any growth and demand from new systems"? My GOD you're a !@#$ing retard. You didn't even read the damn study, and you're using it to support your misunderstanding of the article based on it. Once again, you're simply pulling sh-- out of your ass and assuming the rest of the world will sniff it and smell roses. But no matter how well you sculpt it into a rose, it's still sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I don't have any confusion. The article doesn't say that. In fact, the EPA study you're quoting specifically says:What that means is that, significantly, the estimate does not account for any growth in demand from new systems. Now, I know that's probably unclear to you, so let me explain it to you further: the estimate does not account for any growth in demand from new systems. Which means that, when it comes to growth in demand from new systems, the estimate does not account for them. Thus the estimate, with respect to new systems and growth in demand, does not account for such. Or, to put it another way, not accounted for in the estimate is the growth in demand from new systems. And conspicuiously absent from that is any statement to the effect of: "The estimate includes growth in demand from new systems". Do you understand any of this, or are you still deluded into believing that "This estimate does not account for any growth in demand from new systems" means "this estimate does account for any growth and demand from new systems"? My GOD you're a !@#$ing retard. You didn't even read the damn study, and you're using it to support your misunderstanding of the article based on it. Once again, you're simply pulling sh-- out of your ass and assuming the rest of the world will sniff it and smell roses. But no matter how well you sculpt it into a rose, it's still sh--. You'll notice the study you found came from The American Society of Civil Engineers. The American Society of Civil Engineers is not the Environmental Protection Agency. See? Things that are different are not the same. Next time try looking for the EPA's study of infrastructure needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 You'll notice the study you found came from The American Society of Civil Engineers. The American Society of Civil Engineers is not the Environmental Protection Agency. See? Things that are different are not the same. Next time try looking for the EPA's study of infrastructure needs. Did you even read what The American Society of Civil Engineers study said and what it sourced (hint, the Yahoo story misrepresented the EPA as the source) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 You'll notice the study you found came from The American Society of Civil Engineers. The American Society of Civil Engineers is not the Environmental Protection Agency. See? Things that are different are not the same. Next time try looking for the EPA's study of infrastructure needs. You're right. Yahoo provided the wrong link, and I failed to notice. The actual EPA report says: The 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS) provides data to estimate the total capital investment need over 20 years. The CWNS identifies a total capital investment need of $156.9 billion. [...]A few factors may lead the CWNS to underreport needs at wastewater facilities over the next twenty years. First, the CWNS mainly identifies capital investment needs related to compliance, not needs related to service levels. and The clean water capital investment need is estimated in the following manner. 1. The CWNS identifies a total capital investment need of $156.9 billion for 20 years. 2. CWNS-identified needs for activities related to nonpoint source (e.g., agriculture, silviculture, urban runoff, estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater) (Category VII—$12.9 billion) are eliminated from the analysis. 3. The CWNS also identifies infrastructure needs for infiltration/inflow correction and sewer replacement/rehabilitation (Category III). These needs ($11.6 billion) are replaced in this analysis by modeled estimates ($92.1 billion) developed by EPA to better estimate the costs associated with correcting existing SSO problems in existing wastewater collection systems and bringing them into compliance with existing regulations. [details on CWNS estimates and hydrologic model deleted, out of respect for HA's inability to grasp concepts more complex than "Put the cheese on top of the meat patty"] 4. This analysis then adjusts for underreported replacement needs. The development of this underreported replacement needs estimate is somewhat complex. [lots of math having to do with depreciation of existing assets deleted, out of respect for HA's complete inability to understand it.] Now, I know that was even less clear to you than the ACE study the EPA used as a basis, but I'll try to explain it at a preschool level for you: the EPA used an estimate of capital expenditure that did not consider increases in service levels but only maintenance cost related to environmental compliance of the existing system. They then adjusted it in a way that did not consider increases in service levels but only manitenance cost of the existing system. Thereby resulting in an estimate that does not include increases in service levels. Therefore, THE STUDY DOES NOT CONSIDER NEW CAPACITY. Once again, you didn't read the study, misquoted it to cover up your earlier misunderstanding of the article, and will continue to insist you're right because...well, because there's something seriously !@#$ing wrong with you. Most people couldn't be as dumb as you without putting actual effort into it...do you enjoy being wrong all the time or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Did you even read what The American Society of Civil Engineers study said and what it sourced (hint, the Yahoo story misrepresented the EPA as the source) Doesn't matter. The EPA says largely the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 You're right. Yahoo provided the wrong link, and I failed to notice. The actual EPA report says:and Now, I know that was even less clear to you than the ACE study the EPA used as a basis, but I'll try to explain it at a preschool level for you: the EPA used an estimate of capital expenditure that did not consider increases in service levels but only maintenance cost related to environmental compliance of the existing system. They then adjusted it in a way that did not consider increases in service levels but only manitenance cost of the existing system. Thereby resulting in an estimate that does not include increases in service levels. Therefore, THE STUDY DOES NOT CONSIDER NEW CAPACITY. Once again, you didn't read the study, misquoted it to cover up your earlier misunderstanding of the article, and will continue to insist you're right because...well, because there's something seriously !@#$ing wrong with you. Most people couldn't be as dumb as you without putting actual effort into it...do you enjoy being wrong all the time or something? Still wrong. The study you found "identifies a total capital investment need of $156.9 billion for 20 years." The article described a funding shortfall of $300 billion to $400 billion over the next 20 years. $156.9 billion is not the same as $300 billion - $400 billion. See? Things that are different are not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Still wrong. The study you found "identifies a total capital investment need of $156.9 billion for 20 years." The article described the need for $300 billion to $400 billion over the next 20 years. $156.9 billion is not the same as $300 billion - $400 billion. See? Things that are different are not the same. Yeah. Because the rest isn't capital investment, it's operations and maintenance. New capacity IS capital investment. So is infrastructure replacement. The capital investment estimate does not include estimates for new capacity because THE EPA DID NOT DO ANY ESTIMATES FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT. The O&M estimate does not include estimates for new capacity because O&M DOES NOT INCLUDE CAPITAL INVESTMENT. You've got to be playing me. No one is this dumb accidentally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Yeah. Because the rest isn't capital investment, it's operations and maintenance. New capacity IS capital investment. So is infrastructure replacement. The capital investment estimate does not include estimates for new capacity because THE EPA DID NOT DO ANY ESTIMATES FOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT. The O&M estimate does not include estimates for new capacity because O&M DOES NOT INCLUDE CAPITAL INVESTMENT. You've got to be playing me. No one is this dumb accidentally. Show me something in the study you found which arrives at a total funding shortfall of $300 - $400 billion. Then maybe I'll believe you somehow managed to stumble across the right study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Show me something in the study you found which arrives at a total funding shortfall of $300 - $400 billion. Then maybe I'll believe you somehow managed to stumble across the right study. Aaaaugh! Why am I wasting my time with you???? What I did, is look up the co-sponsor of the bill in the Yahoo article. From there, I went to govtrack.us, and looked up his sponsorship record to find the bill itself. Then I read the text of the bill, from which I got the name of the EPA study. Then I went to the EPA web site and looked up the study (which was actually the hardest part, the EPA's site sucks). Then I verified that the study I got from the EPA was the same one quoted in the bill, because unlike you I try to avoid making the same mistake twice. And THAT is how I know it's the right study. Personally, I think that's a far better method of ensuring I've read the correct study than your ridiculous method of comparing dollar values, no matter what Mayor McCheese taught you in school. But I know you're not going to accept that, the study says The resulting O&M gap for clean water over the next twenty years is between $72 billion and $229 billion with a point estimate of $148 billion Now, I know you can't do the math, so have an adult add the O&M and capital investment together for you, and the total of $239-375 billion. Which still isn't close enough to convince you that it's the right report, never mind that I actually looked it up IN THE FRIGGIN' LEGISLATION. But I'm pretty sure now I've convinced everyone but you...and since you insist on being wilfully incorrect on everything, trying to convince you is a waste of my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Aaaaugh! Why am I wasting my time with you???? What I did, is look up the co-sponsor of the bill in the Yahoo article. From there, I went to govtrack.us, and looked up his sponsorship record to find the bill itself. Then I read the text of the bill, from which I got the name of the EPA study. Then I went to the EPA web site and looked up the study (which was actually the hardest part, the EPA's site sucks). Then I verified that the study I got from the EPA was the same one quoted in the bill, because unlike you I try to avoid making the same mistake twice. And THAT is how I know it's the right study. Personally, I think that's a far better method of ensuring I've read the correct study than your ridiculous method of comparing dollar values, no matter what Mayor McCheese taught you in school. But I know you're not going to accept that, the study says Now, I know you can't do the math, so have an adult add the O&M and capital investment together for you, and the total of $239-375 billion. Which still isn't close enough to convince you that it's the right report, never mind that I actually looked it up IN THE FRIGGIN' LEGISLATION. But I'm pretty sure now I've convinced everyone but you...and since you insist on being wilfully incorrect on everything, trying to convince you is a waste of my time. You did quite a bit of work to prove yourself right. I'll give you that. To be honest, I don't care about this particular argument nearly as much as you do. But before I let this go, I'll point out, once again, that the article itself 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 study you found didn't include funding shortfalls caused by the need to increase capacity. That's fine, but that exclusion wasn't specified in Yahoo's article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 The study you found didn't include funding shortfalls caused by the need to increase capacity. That's fine, but that exclusion wasn't specified in Yahoo's article. Because a funding shortfall isn't a capital investment. The exclusion was specified in the article when they called it a "funding shortfall". You just can't read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 You did quite a bit of work to prove yourself right. I'll give you that. To be honest, I don't care about this particular argument nearly as much as you do. But before I let this go, I'll point out, once again, that the article itself said, The study you found didn't include funding shortfalls caused by the need to increase capacity. That's fine, but that exclusion wasn't specified in Yahoo's article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Ain't he fun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Because a funding shortfall isn't a capital investment. The exclusion was specified in the article when they called it a "funding shortfall". You just can't read. This evening, the sun set, and DC Tom was wrong. What else is new? 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 phrase "funding shortfall" is shorthand for the difference between projected funds and needed funds. Which begs the question, needed for what? Is it the money needed to replace decaying infrastructure, as you say? Or are the funds also needed to build new infrastructure for the Third World colonists? Yahoo's article doesn't answer that question. For you to state that the article does answer this question just makes you look stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Ain't he fun? My wife's watching the Foxworthy show in the other room, and in some strange way it seems that I am as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 This evening, the sun set, and DC Tom was wrong. What else is new? The phrase "funding shortfall" is shorthand for the difference between projected funds and needed funds. Which begs the question, needed for what? Is it the money needed to replace decaying infrastructure, as you say? Or are the funds also needed to build new infrastructure for the Third World colonists? Yahoo's article doesn't answer that question. For you to state that the article does answer this question just makes you look stupid. No, because a shortfall in capital expenditures isn't a funding shorfall...because capital expenditures are funded through debt obligations (muni bonds). You can't predict a future funding shortfall for a future capital expense that you're funding by future borrowing, because your borrowing is determined (i.e. the muni bond deal will be structured) by the amount of the capital expense. (In other words, if you're building a $40M waste treatment plant, you're floating a $40M bond offering. You don't have AND CAN'T PREDICT a funding shortfall for a capital expense financed by debt, because YOU BORROW THE AMOUNT OF THE EXPENSE.) "Funding" is operations and maintenance. Again, you're just too much of an idiot to know the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 No, because a shortfall in capital expenditures isn't a funding shorfall...because capital expenditures are funded through debt obligations (muni bonds). You can't predict a future funding shortfall for a future capital expense that you're funding by future borrowing, because your borrowing is determined (i.e. the muni bond deal will be structured) by the amount of the capital expense. (In other words, if you're building a $40M waste treatment plant, you're floating a $40M bond offering. You don't have AND CAN'T PREDICT a funding shortfall for a capital expense financed by debt, because YOU BORROW THE AMOUNT OF THE EXPENSE.) "Funding" is operations and maintenance. Yes, because interest obligations on those muni bonds you're talking about don't require any funding at all. Borrowing money is just as good as earning money, right? So there can't be any funding shortfalls associated with any of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Yes, because interest obligations on those muni bonds you're talking about don't require any funding at all. Borrowing money is just as good as earning money, right? So there can't be any funding shortfalls associated with any of that. Capital projects, especially those with long expected service lives, are one of the few things government SHOULD borrow money to pay for. If a new treatment plant, or an upgrade to an existing plant, has an expected service life of, say, 20 years, that is the correct time period over which to pay for it. I'm not certain where you were trying to go with this post. It appears that you are implying that the principal that is borrowed doesn't require repayment but the interest does. I am certain that isn't what you meant, but that is how it reads. I don't quite agree with CTM about capital projects not requiring "funding" as most government infrastructure projects will not generate sufficient revenues to offset the full cost of the project, so they will require "funding" to some extent to pay off the bonds, and it does appear that the shortfall discussed in the article does include capital projects in the total. But to state that interest is what needs to be funded, especially on municipal projects such as these where the interest rate will equal the discount rate, is silly. And, getting back to the original point of this portion of the discussion, the Yahoo article and the ASCE paper both very clearly state that they are not factoring in any costs for system expansions. Apparently the EPA paper (which I did not read) also clearly states that. Picking out one sentence in the middle of a news article, where the initial sentence states that the legislation addresses "deteriorating sewer systems" and further down in the article it mentions that 850 gigagallons of overflow are due to combined sewer systems (read stormwater runoff) and 3-10 gigagallons of overflow are due to sanitary systems (i.e. at most 1% of the problem is due to insufficient treatment capacity for toilet flushing), to claim that immigrants are responsible for "a lot" of that spending is not intellectually rigorous, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I don't quite agree with CTM about capital projects not requiring "funding" as most government infrastructure projects will not generate sufficient revenues to offset the full cost of the project, so they will require "funding" to some extent to pay off the bonds, and it does appear that the shortfall discussed in the article does include capital projects in the total. But to state that interest is what needs to be funded, especially on municipal projects such as these where the interest rate will equal the discount rate, is silly. Actually, that's not what I was trying to say. Capital projects of course require funding...but since they're funded through debt offerings linked directly to the project, talking about a projected funding shortfall is ludicrous. You plan on floating enough bonds to fund the project...if you're projecting a funding shortfall, you're basically saying "We don't plan on floating enough of a bond offering to cover what we're building." Who the hell, outside the DC government when they're building a baseball staduim, plans on not completely funding a project? That was my point: "funding" covers capital projects. "Funding shortfall" does not. Unless you're an idiot. Like Holcomb's Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Actually, that's not what I was trying to say. Capital projects of course require funding...but since they're funded through debt offerings linked directly to the project, talking about a projected funding shortfall is ludicrous. You plan on floating enough bonds to fund the project...if you're projecting a funding shortfall, you're basically saying "We don't plan on floating enough of a bond offering to cover what we're building." Who the hell, outside the DC government when they're building a baseball staduim, plans on not completely funding a project? That was my point: "funding" covers capital projects. "Funding shortfall" does not. Unless you're an idiot. Like Holcomb's Arm. Sorry 'bout that. I was reading more into your original post than was actually there. (Note to self, stop posting well past midnight after consuming a few pops.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts