Water SupplyFollow

Before I go into a tangent about Me and My Arrow, what was your point?

Romans had it right, public fountains and baths, doesn't get any better than that.

yeah, I've followed. You said somewhere above that access to drinking water is NOT a right.
But in your idea of OK apparently is potentially 1000s of people lined up at a public facility to get the necessities of life. Охуенно!!

Like I said. That's absurd and barbaric.
I guess it's just an ideological difference in opinion.

I really don't think the fed has any right to give people lessons in how to live their lives. If people are retarded at finances then it may be considered a disability like if someone couldn't see or walk... but that isn't really my issue here.
If certain people were doing their jobs properly instead of using politics as a power grab then we wouldn't have to worry about people bilking the system, would we? In case you were unaware there are plenty of systems in place that are SUPPOSED to ensure that people that can't work or really cannot get their head above water get help and people that are bilking the system get found out...
But the entire system is so stinkingly festered and corrupted that nothing works as it should.
Instead we KEEP people poor with systems that say if you make more than $300 a month than you get no assistance.. This is true because it is the case of my mother. She is not of sound mind to hold any substantial work... and any work that she could ever get to get her off the government tit would mean that she would be unable to pay any bills and would be out on the street. She is truly trapped. If this is the case for a white woman in Maryland then I would imagine that this situation is even worse in places like Detroit.



Then why do water bills exist? It's not "free". Plain and simple.
Yes.. we can drink out of gutters and toilets.. Right. Not a third world country.


No not stuff, Slippery Slope.. Water. Yes. Water should be free access regardless of the pipes, processing, and filtration. Free. No bill. Take it out of taxes just like for roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. It should be that way for health care to. Let the government do its ******* job and sort out the fiscal details and stop bothering the unwashed masses with it.


Because it's the 21st century. Again, access to water isn't a damn "privilege". It's a right.
If you live in a city then access to water is inevitably going to be limited. So because of this unfortunate fact of life you are OK with the exploitation of that fact with your hands in the pockets of the people that have the ****** fate to live in such a place.
What's the problem? Reasonable rates?? So if people were gasping for air like in Total Recall (the good one) you'd be like "but we gave them reasonable rates!!"

Roads and bridges aren't consumables. What if I want to take my water, put it in bottles and sell it?

What if I like to change the water out in my olympic-sized swimming pool daily?

Because of my god-given right to free water piped to my home and back out again, can I just let the dirty chemical laden daily pool water go down the drain at no additional cost to myself?

What if I want to take my water and sprinkle it on my hundreds of acres of farm crops or sell it to BP for frakking?

Water is not limitless, nor equally accessible. It's not only a resource, it's a commodity. Distribution costs are dependent on quantity, quality and distance...not to mention disposal. It has to be regulated, monitored and doled out justly.

Should peoples water be cut off because they can't pay the bill? No of course not, but is allowing all US peoples free and unhindered access to all the water they want, sanitized and piped to the location of their choice, really the answer? Public works fees for water and sewer are not the problem. The problem is poverty.

You didn't follow then because I never said that. I said that having water pumped into the taps of your home is not a right. I have spent quite a bit of time and effort making the distinction between delivery of water to people's homes versus basic "access to water", yet you've apparently chosen to ignore it.



That's not what you said though. You said that Conservatives never have responses for questions like yours, which is not true. We do have responses. You may choose to disagree, but by pretending we don't provide responses at all, you allow yourself to ignore the response (ie: not have to respond to *me*). Which is complete BS. If you disagree, then disagree. But don't pretend that I didn't present a position and an argument in support of that position.




What fed? This is the city of Detroit. They're shutting off people's water because they haven't paid their bills. Why is this even a thing? If you don't pay for a service, you should not receive that service. Kinda straight forward, right? If we continue to provide water service for these people, then why should anyone pay then? And if no one pays, the city will be in even worse financial shape than it already is and wont be able to provide water for *anyone*. Even in public fountains and whatnot. Because part of that cost subsidizes the "free" water that is available for everyone.

At some point, people have to pay their bills, or the whole system collapses. Where do you suppose the dividing line for "free stuff" should be?




Sigh. I've already explained this. Multiple times. The water bill is a charge for the service of having water pumped into your house. If you choose not to pay that bill, then water isn't pumped to your house. It's still available for free in public restrooms, drinking fountains, etc.

What did you think the water bill charged you for? Seriously?



The water that comes out of a public drinking fountain or sink in a public restroom is exactly the same water that comes out of your tap. You're perpetuating this myth as though if you don't have water coming out of the taps in your home, you have no choice but to drink water out of gutters. That's... ridiculous.



It is sorting out the fiscal details. And that means that it needs to charge people for all those miles of water pipes it's maintaining. You do get that nothing is actually "free", right?

You want free water? Then walk to a public fountain and get it. WTF? You want it "free", but don't even want to expend the effort to walk a block or so to get to it? How freaking lazy can you get?




This whole thing is a first world problem though.



WTF!? Have you ever lived in a rural area? Clean drinking water is vastly more available in a city than in the country. Your statement doesn't make any sense at all. If you were talking about some impoverished hicks living in the mountains somewhere, you might have a point to make. But in an urban setting? There's abundant clean water. This is such a contrived issue.

Now, in contrast, here are a couple of considerate people who are much more cooperative and allow for my upvote to register

Is it in yet? I don't feel anything.

That this is ultimately what it boils down to isn't it?

I understand I'm being ultra-utopian in my thinking..(derp!) but, Yes. The dividing line isn't that difficult. Water, Food, Shelter.. to begin with.. I could go on about the right to protect ones self but that is getting off the track. It is clear that there are always going to be social dividing lines. The only way to avoid that is either a population so controlled by drugs, religion, or fear (or some variation).. that social classes and personal wealth are meaningless (except the top of the pyramid).

Pretending like it's such a huge difficulty to make a distinction between privilege and rights is just an excuse to maintain the failed status quo. I'm not suggesting that we feed all of the poor and hungry with gourmet cuisines.. But people don't have to pay bills to get a box of cheese delivered to their houses.

If we have the means to do it then every moment that we are not trying to do it is just a further step into futility.





Where Ever they get their money from, the government pays to build and maintain infrastructure for public use. People certainly don't decide to randomly build highways and bridges wherever they feel like it, do they? Is there a distinction in Taxes between those that drive and do not drive on those roads? I am simply suggesting that certain utilities be payed for the same way. Perhaps there is a good reason that we do not do it that way? I mean, I'm not talking about government repair-men coming to your house like in the movie Brazil. Private companies still get to work and get paid but they get paid via gov. contract and not by billing individual citizens.

Well then gas tax is a step in the right direction. Bravo.
But everybody does drink water.



I'm aware of this and I'm OK with it. I would imagine that people that aren't paying their water bills aren't paying many other taxes either. It's a matter of how you deal with those people. If other tax payers have to foot the bill for poor people that don't pay any taxes then SO BE IT. That is the price of living in a society that provides for it's citizens.

I'm pretty sure this is how places like UK actually have their ACTUAL "free" healthcare.




If you see it, make sure it's the Directors Cut.

Edited, Jul 10th 2014 11:02pm by Kelvyquayo

But not everyone drinks water supplied by the city water works system, or uses the city sewage system to process all that used water.

My water comes from a well in my front yard that I paid to have installed 20 years ago. (Well, more accurately, father paid, I was only 11 or so at the time). And it's been maintained by myself (or, my father, when I was younger) ever since.

Same with my septic tank, concrete, buried in the back yard. Have to get it cleaned out periodically (Not often, probably twice in the 20 years. Due for a cleaning here soon).

It's also worth noting that, in many locales at least, if you are on city water, and you have things like irrigation, you can get a second meter to measure that water usage, which the sewage rate is dropped from, because that water does not end up in the city's sewage treatment. Because, as shown, they are charging for the usage of the system, to keep it operational.



I would imagine they are. There are many more taxes beyond that number people see on their returns once a year.

I'd also imagine any tax implemented to replace charging for using the city water system would have to be implemented on the local level, like an income tax on people residing within the city water/sewage service zone, else a State or Federal level tax would end up lost in the bureaucracy and some cities would be neglected, as per the usual.

Edited, Jul 10th 2014 11:13pm by TirithRR

I imagine that (in the eastern US anyway) it's largely the opposite. Given that a cooperative of various state agencies runs the EZ-Pass system.

In Illinois it's certainly state administered with the notable exception of the Chicago Skyway which was leased to a private firm during a stint where the city had a contest with itself to see what was the shittiest leasing deal it could get for privatizing parts of the city infrastructure.

The EZ-Pass system is nice. A few states (IL included) have their own systems but tie into it as well. I can drive from Chicago to Washington DC and have all the tolls taken out of the one account via the one transponder.

I know very little about the toll roads. Extent of my experience is the few times a year I have to get from I-94 W to I-57 S and pay $1.10 to use I-80 for about 4 miles. I didn't notice any EZ Pass on the exit I was using. Seemed to be a relatively low tech toll booth.

Coworker if mine tried to bypass the toll route one trip and ended up in some shady looking section of Chicago, kind of lost trying to get back to the freeway.