Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/6/10 04:35 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: CHARITY!

Because charity solves all problems.

In today's economy, if you don't have money, you don't even give a shit about school to begin with.

Oh, I guess that's a great argument against public education. The poor are either too stupid or busy to care about education so I guess they don't need it to lift themselves out of poverty anyway.

hurr durr

At 10/7/10 11:28 AM, poxpower wrote: Here's how much it costs to maintain the fire department: 75$ per household.

Across 1,081 households, that's $81K. Average Income of a full time firefighter: $32K to $56K. Congratulations, you just hired 2 full time firefighters and one part timer at the most, with no consideration of equipment or building maintenance.

At 10/7/10 11:52 AM, Proteas wrote: Across 1,081 households, that's $81K. Average Income of a full time firefighter: $32K to $56K. Congratulations, you just hired 2 full time firefighters and one part timer at the most, with no consideration of equipment or building maintenance.

What are you trying to prove here? If they levied a mandatory tax they would not have enough money, so an optional payment is better?

The problem with privatizing certain elements of our society is that fighting fires should NOT be dictated by money. It should be dictated by the social duty of preventing harm to the property of the community.

At 10/7/10 11:48 AM, chairmankem wrote:

At 10/6/10 04:35 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: In today's economy, if you don't have money, you don't even give a shit about school to begin with.

Oh, I guess that's a great argument against public education. The poor are either too stupid or busy to care about education so I guess they don't need it to lift themselves out of poverty anyway.

exactly what i was thinking, wasting your time in your youth is your fault.

At 10/7/10 12:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: What are you trying to prove here? If they levied a mandatory tax they would not have enough money, so an optional payment is better?

No, I'm trying to put the point across that this is a little town out in the farthest corner of Bum Fuck Egypt and they don't have the money for a full time fire department regardless of what kind of tax you levy against the people there, ergo... the reason why they don't have one now.

The problem with privatizing certain elements of our society is that fighting fires should NOT be dictated by money. It should be dictated by the social duty of preventing harm to the property of the community.

And in reality, if you don't pay the money to put gas in your car, it's not going to magically take you to work anyway simply because you have to work and have bills to pay.

And by the way? I have been there. Not South Fullton, but Obion County. I passed through the county seat of Union City in 2001 on my way to vacation at Blue Bank Resort just on Reelfoot Lake, stopping by Dixie Gunworks on the way. It's every bit of Mayberry podunk you would imagine, and South Fulton is supposed to be smaller than that too boot.

At 10/7/10 11:52 AM, Proteas wrote:

Across 1,081 households, that's $81K. Average Income of a full time firefighter: $32K to $56K. Congratulations, you just hired 2 full time firefighters and one part timer at the most, with no consideration of equipment or building maintenance.

So why do they cover them for only 75$?
??
???

If you want firefighters, it will cost you 75$ a year.

??

According to you, that's impossible??

??

question mark question mark

At 10/7/10 02:41 PM, poxpower wrote: According to you, that's impossible??

Apparently its a neighboring town that does it. What should happen is that that community should gather a tax and pay the other town to cover them. Other municipalities that are too small on their own to afford police often do the same thing...

While the additional information is enlightening to the situation, it doesn't obviate the need for something better in that particular part of the USA.

I was going to post this in General dammit.

At 10/7/10 06:02 PM, Danavers wrote: I was going to post this in General dammit.

If you had posted it there, it would have been trolled further into oblivion that it is right now.

At 10/7/10 02:41 PM, poxpower wrote: So why do they cover them for only 75$?

Why does a fire department from a neighboring town arbitrarily charge residents $75 a pop to cover them for fire protection? Hell if I know, pox, why do you seem to think they ought to do it for free out of the goodness of their own hearts?

At 10/8/10 11:51 AM, Proteas wrote: Hell if I know, pox, why do you seem to think they ought to do it for free out of the goodness of their own hearts?

Because prevrenting property damage is more important that how much profit someone can make.

At 10/8/10 01:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/8/10 11:51 AM, Proteas wrote: Hell if I know, pox, why do you seem to think they ought to do it for free out of the goodness of their own hearts?

Because prevrenting property damage is more important that how much profit someone can make.

and having your property saved for free isn't a profit?

At 10/8/10 01:58 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 10/8/10 01:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/8/10 11:51 AM, Proteas wrote: Hell if I know, pox, why do you seem to think they ought to do it for free out of the goodness of their own hearts?

Because prevrenting property damage is more important that how much profit someone can make.

and having your property saved for free isn't a profit?

I guess.

Kinda like how having your life saved by the police for free is a profit. If I go to the US on a vacation and I get mugged, a police officer will help me despite that I don't pay taxes in the US at all.

At 10/8/10 01:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Because prevrenting property damage is more important that how much profit someone can make.

How are they going to operate the equipment if they don't have the money to maintain it?

How do you intend for them to gas up the trucks to get there if there is no money to pay for the fuel? How do you intend for them to maintain the equipment and train the people to operate it? How do you intend for these people LIVE doing this full time?

I am not looking at this from a free market perspective, I am looking at this from the perspective of somebody who clearly does not have his head up his ass and realizes that this is a small town in an even smaller county in an isolated area that clearly cannot afford it's own full time fire department such that it has to outsource it's needs to another county, thereby stretching somebody else's manpower and resources than much thinner.

At 10/8/10 02:16 PM, Proteas wrote: I am not looking at this from a free market perspective, I am looking at this from the perspective of somebody who clearly does not have his head up his ass and realizes that this is a small town in an even smaller county in an isolated area that clearly cannot afford it's own full time fire department such that it has to outsource it's needs to another county, thereby stretching somebody else's manpower and resources than much thinner.

So what would be wrong with the county that can't afford it collecting an outsource tax of $75 and sending that to the other county? At that point they are at least contributing to the service and no one gets burned out of homeownership?

At 10/8/10 02:19 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: So what would be wrong with the county that can't afford it collecting an outsource tax of $75 and sending that to the other county?

Not a damn thing.

At 10/8/10 02:16 PM, Proteas wrote: How are they going to operate the equipment if they don't have the money to maintain it?

Very true, that's why taxes are levied. That way the government, which has a duty to the people (at least on paper), handles the social responsibility.

How do you intend for them to gas up the trucks to get there if there is no money to pay for the fuel? How do you intend for them to maintain the equipment and train the people to operate it? How do you intend for these people LIVE doing this full time?

I am in no way saying that the fire department should not be funded, I am trying to point out why it should never be privatized.

I am not looking at this from a free market perspective, I am looking at this from the perspective of somebody who clearly does not have his head up his ass and realizes that this is a small town in an even smaller county in an isolated area that clearly cannot afford it's own full time fire department such that it has to outsource it's needs to another county, thereby stretching somebody else's manpower and resources than much thinner.

That's true, and that's how it should work. If onecounty cannot afford it, it should be made into a larger district. The deal with this is why wasn't the guy required to pay the money through taxes? What good does that do anyone? It isn't like the firefighters did not respond in order to save money. They responded and they only money saving meassure they took were to not use water, probably saving them 2 to 3 dollars worth of water. The privatized manner through which the fire department runs hurts EVERYONE. The FD gets less money,and their duty as a fire department to at least respond to every fire thus erases the money they would otherwise save by blacking out this guy's property. Even worse, if this guy was an enclave of unpaid property amongst paid property they would have to sit there and watch the fire burn at the payer's expense to make sure his unpaid fire doesn't become a paid fire. Not only is that costing people money for a fire on an unpaid property, it is diverting an already small department from other fires or problems they could actually be helping.

At 10/8/10 02:14 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/8/10 01:58 PM, satanbrain wrote: and having your property saved for free isn't a profit?

I guess.

Kinda like how having your life saved by the police for free is a profit. If I go to the US on a vacation and I get mugged, a police officer will help me despite that I don't pay taxes in the US at all.

that is because it is the country's interest to arrest criminals that mug the citizens of the country.

At 10/8/10 04:08 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 10/8/10 02:14 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/8/10 01:58 PM, satanbrain wrote: and having your property saved for free isn't a profit?

I guess.

Kinda like how having your life saved by the police for free is a profit. If I go to the US on a vacation and I get mugged, a police officer will help me despite that I don't pay taxes in the US at all.

that is because it is the country's interest to arrest criminals that mug the citizens of the country.

I think it would be in the firemen's best interest to not let a fire grow. I mean, the whole danger with fires aren't just that they burn somebodies house down, but because they spread. There are been city wide fired in the past, attesting to that.

At 10/8/10 05:11 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/8/10 04:08 PM, satanbrain wrote:
that is because it is the country's interest to arrest criminals that mug the citizens of the country.

I think it would be in the firemen's best interest to not let a fire grow. I mean, the whole danger with fires aren't just that they burn somebodies house down, but because they spread. There are been city wide fired in the past, attesting to that.

But if the house's owners take control of the fire before it spreads, the firemen won't do anything.

At 10/9/10 12:46 AM, satanbrain wrote: But if the house's owners take control of the fire before it spreads, the firemen won't do anything.

Sure, but the economy requires that we be so specialized in our field that we don't possess the skills needed to properly fight fires. Hence the existence professional firefighters.

At 10/9/10 12:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/9/10 12:46 AM, satanbrain wrote: But if the house's owners take control of the fire before it spreads, the firemen won't do anything.

Sure, but the economy requires that we be so specialized in our field that we don't possess the skills needed to properly fight fires. Hence the existence professional firefighters.

So the firemen could extinguish the fire that close to the neighbors' houses and let the rest of it fade without saving the house.

Cue everyone reading up on the Roman elite: Marcus Licinius Crassus

The rest of Crassus' wealth was acquired more conventionally, through traffic in slaves, the working of silver mines, and judicious purchases of land and houses, especially those of proscribed citizens. Most notorious was his acquisition of burning houses: when Crassus received word that a house was on fire, he would arrive and purchase the doomed property along with surrounding buildings for a modest sum, and then employ his army of 500 clients to put the fire out before much damage had been done. Crassus' clients employed the Roman method of firefighting-destroying the burning building to curtail the spread of the flames.

Privatized Fire Departments have a colorful history.

I like how Pox blames the free market when it was caused by Government workers.

lol, still as bit of the dumbass as ever.

At 10/7/10 10:02 AM, poxpower wrote: Well that's why you don't want a totally private firefighting system.
Poor people will be hit hardest by fire insurance and so will opt to not pay which will then result in situations like this where firefighters will not put out the fires for poor people.
That's basically what you'll get for a system.

Let's point out.

This is not even a remotely private system. This is the public government system.

Using a governmental action to attack the private system is stupid. End of story. Done.

Those small-town simple firefighters must not have any thinking outside the box.

At 10/7/10 12:19 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 10/7/10 11:48 AM, chairmankem wrote: Oh, I guess that's a great argument against public education. The poor are either too stupid or busy to care about education so I guess they don't need it to lift themselves out of poverty anyway.

exactly what i was thinking, wasting your time in your youth is your fault.

That was sarcasm.

learn2english

At 10/9/10 01:27 AM, satanbrain wrote: So the firemen could extinguish the fire that close to the neighbors' houses and let the rest of it fade without saving the house.

That makes absolutely no goddamn sense.

If they can put out surrounding fires they can certainly put out the fire at the guy's house for the same effort, if not less. It makes no sense for them at all to willingly allow ANY property to be destroyed. It is a public detriment whether it spreads or not, or whether or not the economic cost is strictly limited to one particular group or individual.

At 10/9/10 02:15 AM, Memorize wrote: I like how Pox blames the free market when it was caused by Government workers.

Poxy already addressed that/. The state workers are running under a freemarket style system.

lol, still as bit of the dumbass as ever.

So says the person who argued something moot because they were too smart to read.

At 10/9/10 04:47 AM, chairmankem wrote: If they can put out surrounding fires they can certainly put out the fire at the guy's house for the same effort, if not less.

less effort but more resources.

It makes no sense for them at all to willingly allow ANY property to be destroyed. It is a public detriment whether it spreads or not, or whether or not the economic cost is strictly limited to one particular group or individual.

they are paid to stop fires, not to stop detriments.