Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

VyrPlan t1_j1zfc0h wrote

>“We are dealing with an old, crumbling system that continues to offer challenge after challenge,”

if only we invested in our own infrastructure like so many other developed nations do

261

AwesomeBrainPowers t1_j1zhncg wrote

This is what “running the government like a business” gets: a preoccupation with minimizing spending, particularly on non-immediate (but necessary and inevitable) expenditures.

169

impulsekash t1_j1zkykv wrote

"running goverment like a business" really means rich people not having to pay taxes.

128

tehmlem t1_j201zy4 wrote

"run the government like a business" You know, where one guy on top reaps a disproportionate amount of the benefits by exploiting the people at the bottom.

44

mcmonties t1_j20510k wrote

Oh, so like a monarchy?

15

tehmlem t1_j20ax8x wrote

No no, a monarch is at least ostensibly accountable to their people. A business can just laugh when people are angry at them.

13

malphonso t1_j21msqt wrote

Yep. Koch Energy may have poisoned rivers repeatedly, lobbied for laws that benefitted them at the expense of workers and citizens, and supported candidates opposed to basic human rights. But, good luck switching to a competitor.

5

TrespasseR_ t1_j1zpvny wrote

Or most businesses, or they cheat claiming far less than what they earn

10

AwesomeBrainPowers t1_j1zvzsm wrote

That's definitely what ends up happening—and it's probably what most politicians who support that slogan actually mean—but there are probably a non-trivial number of people who either only understand that phrase to mean "maximize operational efficiency" (without bothering to really parse what that entails) or genuinely don't understand that government should be a service, not a business.

It's historically laughable and demonstrably false, but I'm sure plenty of people still think that way, somehow.

9

sekirobestiro t1_j20383r wrote

It really means “profits first and all of my contractor buddies get first dibs on all new projects”.

2

putalotoftussinonit t1_j20wabp wrote

“We do not need a $250,000 campus-wide Wi-Fi system just so you can be on Reddit all day!!” “Your organization owns unique linemen vehicles that require routine software and firmware upgrades that can be performed over the air during down time. Your decision will now force the maintenance teams to individually link to each truck, update it, remove it from the bay, park it, and get the next truck. Each upgrade can take three to four hours. I wish you the best of luck in 2018, I quit.”

4

No_Cartographer_3819 t1_j21ntef wrote

A few years back in Ottawa, Canada, a high tech mogul won the mayoralty on the run-it-like-a-business platform. Homelessness? He proposed building tourist kiosks in the places where homeless sleep, such as beneath bridges. Council? He said he could only implement his agenda if all of the 30+ councillors thought like him. Not "agree with me" but "think like me", a purposeful use by an autocrat. He lasted one term, thankfully, losing his second try with only 24% of the vote.

2

docholiday t1_j21tyhp wrote

LOL, the government is hardly "minimizing spending". Both parties have spent money in the last decades like drunk sailors. How about having a government that actually governs properly?

0

sweetpeapickle t1_j20rz6c wrote

I get that for some that's what running a business is like for most businesses. Only for those who own the business, & never step foot in it. Your everyday business....is how small governments should be run. Then there would be actual budgeting for things that occur. Just like how a person may run their own individual life. You know plan for today, the next year, the rest of your life-knowing full well as things "age" they'll need to be replaced. Where I live, they don't think about those things, then oh we need this, this, & that-NOW. And guess who pays for ALL that now? The people who live here. I own , run my business. I've saved for those emergencies, for things that will break down, a lot of it that went back into the business when Covid hit. And it pisses me off, that the village government decided to raise our taxes so the schools-all of them could have things that were not needed immediately. This happened right before Covid. Oh then well the water system needs to be upgraded, increase water/sewer by 83% in 1 year-this was during Covid. Replace water meters, & make people pay for all those estimations that were not quite right(some had to pay 1000's in a couple months). This is a government who did not budget, like a business would. And we're all paying for it. Yes, I get the "big" businesses have those at the top that get millions, if not billions. But that is not a basic business. You probably budget for your home....that is a business model. That is what is needed. People in government who think about the things that will be needed down the road & to plan for it.

−7

Use_this_1 t1_j1zfqhm wrote

That's socialist commie bull shit, we're 'Murkins we don't like clean water, and air and safe roads. GUUUUNZZZZZZZZZ!!!

​

For the sarcastically challenged /s.

35

pegothejerk t1_j1zhpt4 wrote

If only that wasn’t exactly how they’re writing the new Republican friendly textbooks for schools.

10

dookmucus t1_j20bkx8 wrote

The US is doing that “quiet quitting” thing.

7

Zerole00 t1_j20zjq6 wrote

Who needs infrastructure when you can have religion?

6

[deleted] t1_j1zxwbj wrote

But that’s communism or some other bullshit the gop will make up as an excuse

2

bshepp t1_j21342r wrote

Instead how do you feel about spending two decades destroying two countries, try to rebuild them, failing, then leaving?

2

Yobanyyo t1_j24r61k wrote

But but Brett favre needed money for volleyball, and by golly when Brett Favre asks for money. You better find some money for him. Even if it's from the poorest of people, Brett Favre and his daughter need it more.

2

Iohet t1_j22hulo wrote

Against the mission statement of the South

1

Fine_Whereas_6453 t1_j22oksg wrote

But how would we pay for ukraines infrastructure and natos guns and bombs??

0

code_archeologist t1_j1zn41s wrote

It is not just the infrastructure.

In Atlanta, we had multiple water pipes break in our building's parking garage. The design was built to withstand below freezing temperatures for a handful of days.

Not temperatures in the teens for almost a week, it just doesn't get that bitterly cold down here to call for the insulation necessary for that.

66

AdventurousNecessary t1_j1zugbo wrote

The problem is that the pipes break when it freezes and then once it thaws, you get the leaks. I told the people in my office that the best thing to do if your pipes aren't well insulated is to keep some water running a bit. Running water doesn't freeze as quickly as standing water. It at least gives you a fighting chance

23

[deleted] t1_j1zqiu1 wrote

[deleted]

12

sirpoopingpooper t1_j206645 wrote

Exactly... lowest temperatures recorded at ATL in the past decade (in C):

2022 -13

2021 -5

2020 -6

2019 -6

2018 -11

2017 -9

2016 -7

2015 -12

2014 -14

2013 -6

​

2022 wasn't even the lowest temperature in the past decade and the lowest record temperature at ATL was -21 (1985). I get that this cold snap was a bit longer than is typical, but it's not really that far out from "normal" levels cold. When you design for 90% confidence that something won't break, 10% of the time it will. And when we're talking about building design (which tend to be around for decades or more), you're basically guaranteeing failure at some point.

13

lizardtrench t1_j210q30 wrote

The relevant data here would be longest sustained below freezing temps, not absolute. He acknowledged it normally gets below freezing, just not for this long. Which is critical, since water takes quite a while to lose its heat.

(Anecdotally, I have family there that had a pipe burst in their house, which they've been living in for more than 25 years without any issue.)

16

gabby395934 t1_j20qda5 wrote

That's not true, the lowest temp in Atlanta in 2020 was 22°F. The last time we got down to single digits in Atlanta was in 2014. Also those temperatures would only last no more than a day. This was a multi day event ending with snow Monday night.

4

sirpoopingpooper t1_j20xwg8 wrote

>That's not true, the lowest temp in Atlanta in 2020 was 22°F.

...Which is -6C...

​

>This was a multi day event ending with snow Monday night.
>
>I get that this cold snap was a bit longer than is typical

​

Maybe this is more like a 5% event rather than a 10% event...but still for multi-decade construction, this is a design failure...

0

gabby395934 t1_j20zzcm wrote

That's not cold enough to break water pipes, but when the high is in the teens °F for days it is.

3

JanitorKarl t1_j20r0np wrote

It definitely was cold for an extended period of time. That can freeze and break those pipes.

11

Banea-Vaedr t1_j1zoghs wrote

The South was not designed for this weather. What a shock

51

BarfHurricane t1_j209ztj wrote

I live in the South and this cold snap is nothing new. In fact in my area we reach lows like this every single year.

The major difference this year is that our outdated infrastructure and massive population growth simply cannot handle any sort of strain. It’s abysmal how behind this nation is infrastructure wise.

32

Banea-Vaedr t1_j20bt2n wrote

>It’s abysmal how behind this nation is infrastructure wise.

It makes a bit more sense when you consider the US is the only developed nation that is still growing, and doing so pretty quickly, all things considered.

−28

CoalCrackerKid t1_j1znnt6 wrote

We don't need no dadgum infrastructure. That'd just be more tax dollars that can't go towards high school & college football coaches.

43

bdubdub t1_j1zqusd wrote

The solution is clearly more privatization. Everyone needs to purchase and install a large water tank at their home and water will be trucked in weekly. /s

22

ghostalker4742 t1_j20882b wrote

I don't think the /s is needed there. That seems like a very plausible Nestle solution. Lots of people have propane/heating oil delivered to a storage tank, water wouldn't be any different.

And you know they'd market it towards the rugged individual, who now won't have to rely on the socialist water network and only has to pay for what they use. It'll be a lot more expensive in the end, but they'll pat themselves on the back for their forward flawed thinking.

5

code_archeologist t1_j1zqnq4 wrote

It's not so much that the infrastructure down here is decayed (though some is), it is that we don't bury our water and sewer pipes as deep into the ground as is done in the North There is usually no need to.

As a result when the temperatures got down into the single digits, the ground got cold enough to cause the water in those pipes to freeze.

15

CoalCrackerKid t1_j1zr6xy wrote

Per the article, Jackson,Mississippi has been having problems since August.

It's not generally cold in Mississippi in August.

The problem is the infrastructure.

10

code_archeologist t1_j1zrf4d wrote

That's one city, there are numerous other cities without Infrastructure problems who are dealing with broken water mains because of the cold.

5

CoalCrackerKid t1_j1zteta wrote

Stipulated. Jackson, Mississippi is one city.

You're misdirect, however, is pretending that there's only one problem.

Take Asheville, NC if you'd like to drill-into another. Lost water because their treatment facility that starts the whole water supply chain shutdown.

It's a series of systemic infrastructure issues that only time and hard work will address.

(and, for those from Asheville, y'all deserve credit for starting/completing as much of it as you have...your dam work was a lot of damn work. Still more to do, though)

11

rokatoro t1_j1zocw2 wrote

It will stay that way as long as FEMA is capable of swooping in and fixing everything with more federal money when shit actually hits the fan

0

CoalCrackerKid t1_j1zqklw wrote

We don't need to lessen FEMA's abilities.

We just need to send states more bills.

Say, well heads freeze in TX (again) this year, and the Feds find that no actions were taken from the last several outages (see report from 2011 below). Help them. Then, bill them.

https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/ReportontheSouthwestColdWeatherEventfromFebruary2011Report.pdf

21

rokatoro t1_j1zri3e wrote

Don't get me wrong, I think FEMA serves an important role, I just feel like to many local governments use it as the main form of infrastructure maintenance and not the last line of defense

16

CoalCrackerKid t1_j1ztmdq wrote

Got it...and I feel ya. If only we can stop rebuilding beachfront condos for the rich who watch them wash away every couple of years due to hurricanes.

13

Zerole00 t1_j20zwld wrote

>We just need to send states more bills.

These shit states already take more federal dollars than they give back, what would increasing the discrepancy achieve?

3

CoalCrackerKid t1_j21k93j wrote

I think you misunderstood.

Bill the states that need the service for the services that they consume.

They'd be for that because, of course, distributing the costs to other states would be socialism. I hear that they hate that.

5

jasta85 t1_j1zovfu wrote

I'm in Virginia and had a pipe burst during the Christmas weekend, apparently it happened all across town because plumbers were booked for like a week out. One the plumbers I normally work with said he had to fix several of his own pipes.

15

Mediocre_Ad9803 t1_j23lspl wrote

Had to cut holes through my entire house and run 12 forced fan heaters into the drywall this past weekend. It was a crap show much farther north of you too

1

GateDeep3282 t1_j29uwxu wrote

I'm in Tennessee and had a pipe freeze in the crawl of my 2 year old house. My plumber had 14 calls ahead of me. Fortunately I was able to thaw our with a blow dryer before they broke.

1

celtic1888 t1_j207um8 wrote

The voters keep voting for more of this

7

a_satanic_mechanic t1_j229y3g wrote

they should probably vote again for the same people theyve been voting for for the last 70 or 80 years

1

Quick1711 t1_j201vzd wrote

>The spending bill would provide roughly $45 billion to help support Ukraine's efforts to defend itself against Russia's attack.

Not against the war in Ukraine, but wouldn't this money be better off allocated to something else? Couldn't we have taken it from the defense budget and given it to Ukraine?

These are our tax dollars, correct?

−14

monogreenforthewin t1_j204wn7 wrote

better off for something else? probably. but once money is allocated to particular "pot" for use, the money very rarely gets shifted around to another "pot". budgeting and accounting is very specific for government stuff.

9

dbclass t1_j20en34 wrote

Sure but everytime we try to spend money on anything else people whine about it. No one whines when it goes to defense but anything else and people are screaming socialism.

7

hexbatch t1_j21d13g wrote

Most of the taxes should be going back to the people inside this country, and they are

Ukraine spending is a hundred times less than the money going back to the states. The problem is the money going to the states is not necessarily spent on what it needs to be used on

Much of these pipes breaking is the local citizens paying a corruption tax for supporting decades and decades of mismanaged and stolen money. The entire USA has layers on layers of criminals in government at the federal state and local levels

Red states have more issues because more corruption, but blue states have a lot of problems too

2