"A young man said, “I think the concern is that because we’re a Hispanic community we’re not going to have the same help.” His parents had brought him to Michigan from Mexico, at the age of ten. More than a decade later, in 2012, he’d become a beneficiary of Obama’s program for undocumented immigrants who had come to the country as children; it protected him from deportation, if only temporarily. Now, he said, besides the hazardous water, he feared immigration raids. “They already have all my information,” he explained. “I don’t have any criminal record. . . . I don’t have any tickets, no drinking and driving.” But he was concerned about his children, who, after they saw Trump on TV talking about mass deportations, asked him, “What’s going to happen to us?”
Really, it protected him from deportation? How wonderful. I guess it didn't protect the other 2.5 million people who were deported which, by the way, is the largest number of deportations under any president. The other part of that paragraph is probably correct - things definitely aren't going to get any better under Trump, but you can blame that on the Democrats and their dishonest approach with governing. They'd rather invest in white-washing their legacy than make an honest attempt at fulfilling their "progressive" platform promises. And I suspect this is the reason behind much of this article as well.
Here are some number showing ONLY interior removals: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uplo...
But yes border removals also jumped as well.. Maybe there is already a wall there? Here is a breakdown of deportations by three categories (border, interior and unknown) https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uplo...
Certainly much of this is due to better tracking (dimishing of the unknown category), tighter enforcement, and more efficiency, but none of those arguments dispute the trend of higher deportations under Obama simply because it doesn't fit the overall narrative of Obama as a "compassionate" president.
They are only paid to care about it or even be aware of it if it suits the needs of their designated group of oligarchs.
Coulter citation:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140...
Also yes I agree, safe potable water in the worlds richest country should not be an issue in 2017.
I also think that natural monopolies should be heavily state governed if not state owned.
Crony capitalism is like a flesh eating disease. It encourages everyone to look solely after their own individual interests. Then once a portion of society is exploited and impoverished by the greedier part of society to the point of becoming a burden on them, the rich want to "cut them off" or let them rot away. The cycle then repeats, until very few are left at the top extremely wealthy and powerful, but with no middle class left to exploit.
Not sure what the solution is or that there is any single solution, wealth inequality seems to beget greater wealth inequality.
Other countries do infrastructure better and have water that is demonstrably better than in a lot of places in the US.
It makes it hard to do a direct comparison since other countries don't have to do as much.
Perhaps the issue here isn't accountability but ability to do the change properly.
You can accuse me of "reading too much into it" or "being overly selective in order to reinforce my worldview", but I'm not the one who decided to publish an article titled "CAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE HELP IN FLINT?"
You're making this a class-war thing, but it's not like politicians care about any other kind of citizens either. They sure as shit don't give a fuck about ordinary middle-income or ordinary high-income citizens either, not unless they've arranged themselves into politically powerful groups.
The owners invest in any means that will reassert the legitimacy of their dominance. That includes purchasing political influence sometimes by paying directly into the political apparatus and other times by manipulating the workers into giving consent to the policies they prefer.