The proposed rule, aimed at reducing exposure to a potent neurotoxin, would require water systems nationwide to replace lead pipes that carry tap water to homes, schools and offices

  • orclev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because you’re not thinking like a kleptocrat Republican. The government is only allowed to spend money when it can be used to increase the bank account of someone rich, and never under any circumstances if it benefits poor people (unless someone rich receives a significantly greater benefit).

    Republicans will fight this tooth and nail because the rich receive no direct or immediate benefit from this. Also they’ll denounce any suggestion of rich areas subsidizing poor areas as the dreaded socialism which they’ll argue is the same thing as communism which is the same thing as fascism. No that doesn’t make any sense at all, but that’s never stopped them before.

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The government is only allowed to spend money when it can be used to increase the bank account of someone rich, and never under any circumstances if it benefits poor people (unless someone rich receives a significantly greater benefit).

      So, the EPA’s (and other people who want lead pipes removed, their) communication strategy should be convincing Republicans that the removal of leads pipes directly causes their wealth to increase.

      That shouldn’t be that hard. Make it a business analogy, their favorite.

      Like, in the same way business make capital investments to increase production, take advantage of economies of scale, and pay lower taxes, so too does making a capital investment in the removal of lead pipes, which lead to increased production, a happier workforce, and more trainable employees.

      Or some soul-sucking shit like that.