I think OP's intuition is understandable. Search Results match·ing ˈmaCHiNG/ adjective adjective: matching 1. corresponding in pattern, color, or design; complementary. "a blue jacket and matching skirt" **2. equal in number or amount; equivalent. "the college will provide matching funds to complete the project"**
It does not need to be 1:1 to be corresponding in pattern.
I'm aware, but the second definition I think is also valid, and perhaps one that many people are more colloquially familiar with. After all, a match (singular) is a 1:1.
The city manager was only appointed after Flint became effectively a failed city, and the state took over management. In the US, cities manage their own municipal services including water supplies. The state only intervenes when the city runs out of money to provide basic services to their inhabitants -- and this happens very rarely. If Flint had had a functioning government, the state appointees would have had nothi…
Relocated like cattle to another pasture? I can't for the life of me understand this philosophy that financial economy under-girds life.
Uh... how about, give them money to relocate so the children in the failing schools can grow up somewhere that doesn't have the highest crime rate in the country, can drink water that isn't poisoned, and get a job that still exists?
They are real people who are fucked because they were born in a dying city which relied on a dying industry. They aren't plaything for your anti-financial philosophy.
Anyone feel like this is a political move to say "hey, we're good people, keep us around and make sure your congress(wo)man knows hears about it" Not a bad thing by any means, but heaven forbid it took them this long.
This was put into effect under Obama, it seems, by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, an act introduced and sponsored by a Texan Republican.
fwiw I don't really see anything inflammatory in the parent's statement, or any indication that they feel the current administration is any more/less equipped than previous ones to deal with the water crisis.
The parent comment’s implication is that the administration does not have any plan for dealing with the problem. It was phrased in a sarcastic/jokey way, which doesn’t always read clearly on the internet.
I wonder how you came to that conclusion.
(I am not implying you did not come to that conclusion.)
Yeah, that it was a financial decision is an institutional and regulatory failure. It shouldn't have even been on the table to switch without properly treating the different source water.
Everything is a financial decision at the end of the day. You can't just wish away the laws of economics. Let's say that regulations dictated that they had to spend this money and they didn't have it. Add enough of such regulations and a shrinking tax base and eventually you have an insolvent city. What do you propose we do then? Near as I can tell, it's reasonable to have such regulations so people don't get hurt by…
Then I would have clarified that sentence, by saying matching funds UP TO $20 million. If my employer says they are matching my 401k contribution, I'd expect that is 1:1, not a hidden, oh we really only meant 20%. I'm just being pedantic.
You'd be assuming poorly, then. The most common 401k(k) matching is actually 50%.
Yeah, that it was a financial decision is an institutional and regulatory failure. It shouldn't have even been on the table to switch without properly treating the different source water.
Everything is a financial decision at the end of the day. You can't just wish away the laws of economics. Let's say that regulations dictated that they had to spend this money and they didn't have it. Add enough of such regulations and a shrinking tax base and eventually you have an insolvent city. What do you propose we do then? Near as I can tell, it's reasonable to have such regulations so people don't get hurt by…
Saving $140/day at the risk of $100M damage to infrastructure is not good financial sense. It's the financial sense exercised by the kind of person who expects someone else to pay for the mess, i.e. a government official. A private corporation which was exposed to the liability would have likely chosen to raise the price of water to pay for the corrosion inhibitor, but someone whose job is to manipulate the balance sheet for political gain has a different utility function. We handle this with rules.
Relocated like cattle to another pasture? I can't for the life of me understand this philosophy that financial economy under-girds life.
So you're proposing we throw good money after bad? The city failed. It it's not financially feasible to fix it so it is self-sustainable at a level of investment that can be paid back in a reasonable amount of time, relocating is a perfectly acceptable proposal. People have every right to stay there if they can afford to do so, but if they are going to ask others for financial help bailing them out, it's not in the l…
I'm proposing we throw good money into basic human necessities instead of investing in weapons, and that our measures of success be linked to human health and wellbeing, not to level of absolute exploitation.
Everything is a financial decision at the end of the day. You can't just wish away the laws of economics. Let's say that regulations dictated that they had to spend this money and they didn't have it. Add enough of such regulations and a shrinking tax base and eventually you have an insolvent city. What do you propose we do then? Near as I can tell, it's reasonable to have such regulations so people don't get hurt by…
Saving $140/day at the risk of $100M damage to infrastructure is not good financial sense. It's the financial sense exercised by the kind of person who expects someone else to pay for the mess, i.e. a government official. A private corporation which was exposed to the liability would have likely chosen to raise the price of water to pay for the corrosion inhibitor, but someone whose job is to manipulate the balance s…
You're acting like this was forced on them from budget cuts. The city manager was warned about exactly this happening and still went ahead and did it because it was the city manager is appointed by their corrupt Republican governor [1]. The city manager should not have been able to make those decisions without a much more thorough vetting process. 1: http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2016/02/flint_wate...
The city manager was only appointed after Flint became effectively a failed city, and the state took over management. In the US, cities manage their own municipal services including water supplies. The state only intervenes when the city runs out of money to provide basic services to their inhabitants -- and this happens very rarely. If Flint had had a functioning government, the state appointees would have had nothi…
bpodgursky, your post contains facts presented accurately and without exaggeration.
They are inconvenient facts though and thus your post is downvoted. It is not politically correct to state facts or acknowledge reality here.