Justified, or not?

[tmassey]

the whole fire dept should be fired...i fought fire for over 22 yrs...it was never about money...its about saving lives and property and to risk to others....they should have saved the house and argued about it later....all they did is put SHAME on the fire service.

its shows where their heart is........its in their wallets. i could have never stood there and watch someones home burn to the ground....that dept SUCKS.

[tmassey]

THAT DEPT REALLY PISSES ME OFF....THEY SHOULD WORK FOR THE SANITATION DEPT...THEY ARE ALL SHITS HEAD....edit this if you need.

[tmassey]

i hope the family gets a good lawyer....contract or not...they took an oath.

[tmassey]

would you still feel that way if it was your house....i bet not.....firefighters take oaths ...it not about money i don't care if you pay for service or not....argue that with the insurance company....so if they is an accident and people are trapped...do you break out the contracts and see who is cover to be extricated...HELL NO. you do your job and fight about it later...send them a bill.....i guess you are ok to let people die for a few bucks...you if believe that then you're an ass too.

FIREMEN SAVES LIVES...ALL LIVES....NOT JUST THE ONES THAT PAY A FEE.

[Disclaimer]

Lets continue to explore the merits of capitalism... I'm going to take off my, what I call "normal", hat and put on my "free market system fixes all problems" hat.... and go.

Um... in extreme weather conditions(read: ice storm' date=' blizzard) I've had the gas company cut my heat due to lack of payment. I informed them that I had a young child in the apartment and that heat needed to be there. They sent someone out, put the heat back on and I made payments as best I could until I was back in the black. No government interventions were required. Not sure how cut heat requires you to pay my bill??[/quote']

Your payments aren't good enough, should've not fallen behind and spent all your wages on whatever else you had -- I have to pay the fair market price (plus additional fees to compensate for your lack of payment) for gas, why shouldn't you? It wasn't my decision to have your child. If it wasn't for you and people of the like, everyone's gas prices would be lower.

Whoa, I thought my hat fell off because I started to feel some compassion and acting like less of a "capitalist>everything" dick... let me re-adjust. FREE MARKET!

Ok.. I'll take the hat off, capitalism is a cruel mistress -- but the exact same people you're railing against, you WERE one at one point in time -- so I don't understand that??

It's not charity if I'm forced to pay it. Besides, welfare is fine on a state level. Federal welfare, that has no end in site and encourages baby making by increasing benefits, is not the answer to anything.

Why make a difference between state and federal welfare? Lets get rid of it all and rely SOLELY on charity and see how far that gets us. If you disagree with state welfare and are able to move to a different state, then why can't you move out of the country if you disagree with any federal welfare subsidy too? It's going to be funny when the US crumbles like the USSR because you'll end up with a system that forces all the poor and "underprivileged" into states that have generous welfare programs and the rich into other states - de facto segregation. If you have a bunch poor people sucking on the welfare system, how is that state going to attract rich people to fund it? So you're going to end up with states that can't financially support themselves to the point where they're sucking on the Federal teat (which you're against), and why not just cut them off Federally too? Once that happens, they fall into an economic abyss that no one wants to support -- where do those people flock to? Other states, and we still end up having to pay for them one way or another because they'll just go around using services they can't pay for and stiffing people on the bills. Which will land them in jail... and someone has to pay for jail too... where's the loop stop?

Arguing the merits of taxation to fund a fire brigade is retarded. Funding a Federal Fire Brigade would, likewise, be just as retarded.

No one is talking about that... I'm just asking if any taxes or gov't fees (local, state, or otherwise) are acceptable for funding a fire dept versus just privatizing the entire thing. If they privatize it, would you want to get into the firefighting business? Pretty large investment in equipment and manpower without a good idea on how profitable the workload will be.

Agreed, but I must add the "unless someone is inside" clause. I know I'm a cold-hearted Republican, but you don't let folks burn to death over $75. Now, if they owe you a couple grand... well, that's a bit different.

Still disagree, people know the risk of non-payment - I think I heard they lost 3 or 4 pets in the fire. If you start having stipulations, then I'd just tell the fire dept a person is inside and have them put out the fire. There will be a lot of "balloon boys" happening if that's the case.

[Disclaimer]

Eh.. technically' date=' it's about the wallets of the city the FD belongs to. They aren't funded to support the house that burnt. They give the option to pay a once a year fee to cover you if you need help, but the man that lost his home payed nothing to get any service. No taxes, no fees, nothing... it's not firefighter money we're talking about. It's taxpayer money... from another city. I see nothing wrong with what took place.[/quote']

Again, hypocritical to think that way when you just posted you had your gas turned back on when you couldn't pay... go live in a homeless shelter if you can't afford heat.

[chevysoldier]

would you still feel that way if it was your house....i bet not.....firefighters take oaths ...it not about money i don't care if you pay for service or not....argue that with the insurance company....so if they is an accident and people are trapped...do you break out the contracts and see who is cover to be extricated...HELL NO. you do your job and fight about it later...send them a bill.....i guess you are ok to let people die for a few bucks...you if believe that then you're an ass too.

FIREMEN SAVES LIVES...ALL LIVES....NOT JUST THE ONES THAT PAY A FEE.

But no one was inside the house. That was already pointed out. I think everyone said that if there was someone inside, of course they should be saved. But there were no lives to be saved. I guess we should not pay auto insurance until you have an accident. Then fight to have them repair your car?

[ReconRat]

For the most part any home owner will pay for fire protection one way or the other. Either in a fee based assessment or a tax structure. And there will always be extremes where fire service is unavailable. If anything, the tax structure is the welfare/charity.

If I lived on a mountain top maybe 100 miles from a fire station, I'd be on my own. But if I was smart, I'd spent the 75 bucks anyway and build a small water tower in case of fire.

And I have no idea why anyone would actually believe that they wouldn't lose a job, suddenly have no income, have a fire or other calamity. Such is life, and should be expected. Lack of such planning, is a personal choice. Enjoy your life as you choose to live it.

[tmassey]

Who makes the call that the house is clear?....you still don't see my point...being a fireman is not about money...let me say that again." its not about the money"....if you call your self a fireman and you let a structure burn to the ground and you did nothing.....then you're an asshole..plain and simple....many of my 22 yrs i didn't get paid...i did it because i wanted to..paid or not. I can't believe this even happened...i also volunteered and join the army....not for the pay..when i was getting shot to protect this country i didn't ask which americans paid their fees, so i know who to protect. Who are you or any politician to say which lives i can save ?

God makes that call....not us!

Edited October 6, 2010 by tmassey

[Disclaimer]

Maybe you should find a gas company that fits your model? If you can't find one' date=' maybe you could start one? [/quote']

That's the funny thing w/ utilities... they're pretty much regulated monopolies -- capitalism doesn't work when you have vast and expensive infrastructure, or it becomes and unnecessary redundancy. But the bottom line still is... you pay to receive service or you don't and don't get service, it can't get more simple than that -- yet there's all these rules about why you can't turn off gas/electricity on the poor, or children, or... etc, which is charity I'm forced to pay for if I want service as well -- not much different than welfare really.

The only difference is, I understand it's an important and necessary function of the system.

Capitalism is greater than any other system this world has seen. Capitalism in "natural law". It's the natural way of doing things. Socialism doesn't just happen like capitalism does.

True' date=' and I agree capitalism has it's merits -- but is best used for "wants" and not "needs". Social systems are still better served for "needs" like firefighting, infrastructure, and health care.

I don't follow? I rail against someone that works out a private arrangement with a company? I don't think I've ever done that, to be honest. However, someone that doesn't/can't pay their bills and request the government pay for it is different. It may sound the same, but it is quite different. Two private entities vs. one private citizen and everyone's mandated taxes.

Like I said, the anology is still the same. Part of MY bill is increased for my gas/electric/etc. because you didn't pay your part. The utility just doesn't eat those losses -- they're spread amongst those who do pay.

For the record' date=' I'd be more than happy to let charity take care of it. It would be fun to watch.[/quote'] I agree. And I think a FedGov system would quickly be reinstated after the chaos that would ensue. I just really don't want to go through the pains of undertaking that exercise only to say "I told you so"

When did I say it should be privatized? Local government = less bad.

So -- that's your concession that gov't is a necessary evil in this case, but the more local the better? Ok.

[Disclaimer]

No' date=' the big difference is this:

Justin doesn't like the way Company A runs their business. Justin opts to go to Company B. Company A loses enough money that they begin to evaluate their business model and change to suit the market.

--or--

Justin doesn't like the way the government runs its business. Justin wants to shop for alternatives, but there aren't any. Justin opts to not pay for services he isn't receiving. Justin goes to jail. [/quote']

I understand you point, but it still doesn't work for utilities. Businesses (including utilities) will project their losses and adjust their selling price to increase revenue to offset those loses. Macy's charges more for a shirt (in part) because of the losses they incur from theft each year. The electric companies do the same thing -- I dunno how you can say straight-faced that the price of my electricity or gas doesn't have an inflated component to it that accounts for the losses from non-payment in order to maintain the targeted margin. It does, in almost everything.

Moving to another country is always an option if I don't like the services I'm receiving this one.

We're almost in agreement here' date=' with the exception of health care. Health care will not improve with government involvement. Education is that answer. People are conditioned to believe that they need insurance to pay for health care. If we didn't have insurance, we wouldn't have outrageous health care bills. However, we will never get rid of insurance... someone in Washington is making way too much money because of it. [/quote']

I suppose we'll continue to agree to disagree there. I will say that education is absolutely the answer - that I 100% agree on, but I'm not naive or idealistic enough anymore to think people aren't lazy or just plain dumbasses -- you can't fix stupid. I'd love to charge them for their idiocy since they refuse to be part of the solution, but you can't squeeze blood from a turnip, and often they're 'turnips' with little to show for themselves.

I'm just still opposed to the idea that someone other than my actual doctor or heath care providers are profiting off my health issues. Profit motive and health care do not belong in the same sentence.

Really? Still hellbent on a FedGov system? Why not a local one? I figured you to be a stickler for efficiency and ease of use. The bigger the system' date=' the bigger the room for fuck-ups. [/quote']

Ok, the FedGov may've been a little overreaching, but generally some gov't approach where I had a say every few years on who administers the charity (aka my tax dollars) is preferable over a system without public accountability.

Government is a hostile' date=' occupying force. While I find the attributes of anarchy to be exhilarating, rules and laws are the way to go. I'm just amused at how many of you want to keep stacking laws on the rest of us. Regardless, the smaller the government, the easier it is to wrangle in if it gets out of hand. Big government just spends, without restraint.[/quote']

I don't like the idea of "stacking laws" it just sounds bad, but I think the laws should evolve with the people and the times. I guess I don't see gov't as a hostile force, but I haven't had a lot of run-ins with it where I've been grossly abused by it. I have been abused by a lot of private corps with little to no recourse though. I won't debate that smaller is better, because it is in the case of power/delegation... but people really need to wrap their heads around the scope of what they want the gov't to handle vs. what the private sector can efficiently and economically provide. Scope creep is bad, but usually comes about from good intentions to find a better solution for the larger system -- overall optimization vs. optimizing individual parts.

Sometimes you'll find that if a system is comprised of A + B + C + D, the system isn't necessarily going to optimal if each part is optimized, especially if there are some dependencies that go unaccounted for.

[Disclaimer]

That's a false choice from a practicality standpoint.

You could go back to boarding horses and traveling in buggies too if you disagree with taxes for roads and on gasoline. Are you going to do that? No. So, yes there are almost infinite options out there, but no "real" choice.

You have the same option to go cut wood to heat your house if you can't pay to have natural gas delivered to it. The onus is on YOU to pay, not for me to opt-out because I have to worry about you not paying your bills.

No one would ever buy anything if that were the case since people default on credit cards, cars, etc all the time.

[dorifto240]

We are looking at MSNBC, which is pretty unreliable. It could be that fire was already to a point where it was safer to let it burn out. If he's that far out of town, and it was dry, that's a distinct possibility.

If they didn't want to put out the fire because he forgot to pay, wouldn't it have been better for them to have taken their time to get to the property? Or to have gotten lost? Or never to have responded?

Odds are, this is MSNBC trying to generate a scandal.

[Steve Butters]

If they didn't want to put out the fire because he forgot to pay, wouldn't it have been better for them to have taken their time to get to the property? Or to have gotten lost? Or never to have responded?

no..it says in the article they had to show up to contain the fire, they were fighting it on the property line to the neighbors house, who did actually pay the fee

[Disclaimer]

Look who showed up to an intelligent debate unarmed.

[chevysoldier]

Fox's article:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/06/woman-doesnt-blame-firefighters-let-home-burn/

Edit: there are countless other sites with the exact same article.

[Casper]

Justin, when we meet up again for the IMS shindig, I'm going to kick you in the nuts then buy you a beer. Just giving you a fair warning. It's going to happen. Not a threat of violence or anything, because I'm going to buy you a beer afterwards. I know 99% of the time you're just making these posts to get a rise out of people. There's no way you're really this stupid. But you definitely deserve a nut kick and a beer. See you soon buddy!

[Disclaimer]

You won't even remember who I am... I've met you thrice now and you still have no clue who I am because I look like a Republican. They all look the same ya know?

[Casper]

You won't even remember who I am... I've met you thrice now and you still have no clue who I am because I look like a Republican. They all look the same ya know?

Oh I remember..........

I spy a finger in a sheep's ass.

[Casper]

No reply?

[Disclaimer]

If the sheep would've paid the $75 protection fee, that wouldn't have happened. Fonzie would've stopped it.

Edited October 7, 2010 by JRMMiii

[Casper]

The sheep practically begged me to do it. I'm a giver.

Did taxes pay for the sheep?

Did taxes pay for you to finger it?

Did taxes pay for that gay, way too tight, shirt you were wearing?

[Fonzie]

If the sheep would've paid the $75 protection fee, that wouldn't have happened. Fonzie would've stopped it.

I have no issues with what happens between two consenting lovers

Did taxes pay for the sheep?

Nope... DTC paid for that sheep

Did taxes pay for you to finger it?

Matter of fact... Nobody paid for that... But somebody still owes us

Did taxes pay for that gay, way too tight, shirt you were wearing?

I got nuthin'

[MidgetTodd]

Did taxes pay for the sheep?

Did taxes pay for you to finger it?

Did taxes pay for that gay, way too tight, shirt you were wearing?

I think the friendly ghost wins this one.

[Disclaimer]

Did taxes pay for the sheep?

Did taxes pay for you to finger it?

Did taxes pay for that gay, way too tight, shirt you were wearing?

Sales Tax

As far as my fashion choices -- I guess it's fair to say you

I don't spend my time watching "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to understand what I should and shouldn't wear.

If it doesn't have a hole or grease stain on it, I wear it until it does. That shirt is probably 6 or 7 years old and I will continue to wear it until I burst out of it like an overweight Hulk. When that time comes and it needs replaced, I will come to you for future fashion advice since I spend my time NOT worrying about clothes.