Many places that are so keen to throw off the federal yoke likely couldn't even pay for their roads, let alone police, schools, hospitals, etc...
I have heard of more than a few municipalities converting paved roads to the gravel and oil roads because they can't pay for the upkeep of the asphalt.
There is always the option of states' rights. Let the red states do whatever they want, but cut off the communist federal subsidy they rely upon so heavily. Many places that are so keen to throw off the federal yoke likely couldn't even pay for their roads, let alone police, schools, hospitals, etc...
The problem is that government is so fractured. There are more than 80,000 levels of it in the U.S. when you take into account federal, state, county, parish, city, tax districts, JEDDs, school districts, health districts, ambulance districts, emergency management agencies, FAA, fire districts, rural water boards, townships, planning commissions, zoning boards, appeals boards, municipal courts, appellate courts, EPA, sheriff's jurisdictions, highway patrols, prison districts, the FDA, the USDA, the FCC, and so on and so on.
So who cuts off whom? They are all parasitic in a trickle-down way. I wrote a news story recently where money from the a federal subcommittee on health trickled to Ohio, which in turn appropriated it to the Department of Natural Resources, which presented it to a township, which gave it to a parks commission. And that's just a short rivulet.
The money's all intertwined in how it's gathered and to whom it goes before being distributed. Andrew forwarded me an article recently that basically said the actual U.S. tax rate, when all tax levels are factored in, is actually around 40 percent of gross income. What these idiot flat taxers and tea partiers don't get is that they live in a fiscal ecosystem, and they're part of it regardless of how they feel the money should be spent. The fly doesn't get to decide whether the snake eats the mouse. It can barely keep from being eaten by the spider.
And I'm tired, so fuck you if you think I'm rambling. I know I'm rambling. It's been a 12-hour work day.
There is always the option of states' rights. Let the red states do whatever they want, but cut off the communist federal subsidy they rely upon so heavily. Many places that are so keen to throw off the federal yoke likely couldn't even pay for their roads, let alone police, schools, hospitals, etc...
The kids in those states deserve better, even if their parents and grandparents are too pigfucking ignorant to know it. Letting entire generations of middle Americans grow up without proper schools, health care, and basic safety is far to steep a price to pay to make a political point.
Current Republican Nominee, Palpatine Look-Alike, and generally corrupt douche-bag Carl Palidino threatens a reporter when the reporter asks for evidance of Palidino's charges that Cuomo is an adulterer. And Faux News reported it too. It was that bad. Extra super fail is in the comments from Faux News viewers. All of them.
Unrelated: Time for some new words: Gleck: Noun; A person who demonstrates Gleckish traits. usage: "That guy is such a Gleck." Gleckish: Adjective; prone to spastic hypocrisy mixed with hysterical militant paranoia. usage: "Stop being so Gleckish, your stupid is burning me." Glecking: Verb; using demagoguery/fear-mongering/race-baiting/lying in any combination or all at once, and/or creating unsubstantiated rumors about someone. Or raping and murdering a young girl in 1990. usage: "Becky was totally Glecking about Sally and Tom the other day." or "Tom totally Glecked Sally in 1990."
That guy comes off as a douche and it's obvious they are copying the New Left media interviews of the Tea Party rallies. Unfortunately it comes across as mean due to editing and the previously mentioned douche.
@Jason: Reminds me of that story I heard about a journalist who was compiling an article on all the people sub-contracted by the military who, when he asked the military leadership about it, was told they would love to see it, as they have no idea who they employ.
*facepalm* I love how Paladino says that the editor is 'one of the bad guys' and how he's 'one of the establishment'. THE GUY WORKS FOR A BIASED PROPAGANDA CORPORATION THAT BACKS YOU.
Why is it that everyone who's conservative wants to return the country to the 1800's? Was life really so much better back then compared to now?
I also read elsewhere that apparently the county board voted to NOT institute a county wide firefighting force because they didn't want to raise taxes.
Isn't paying 75/year to a governmental agency (I believe Fire Departments count) a tax?
Isn't paying 75/year to a governmental agency (I believe Fire Departments count) a tax?
No, because taxes are compulsory and this is voluntary. I would have paid for it like it was a tax. Personally I think the currently anti-tax agenda is ludicrous.
Even if their intent is to have a voluntary fire protection fee, it's very poorly implemented. There is absolutely no reason not to allow up-front payment of some appropriate sum, e.g. $1000, as an alternative to yearly payments of $75.
Even if their intent is to have a voluntary fire protection fee, it's very poorly implemented. There is absolutely no reason not to allow up-front payment of some appropriate sum, e.g. $1000, as an alternative to yearly payments of $75.
No, cause then people would whine about it being extortion. They handled this almost perfectly for what they wanted to accomplish. Taxes are there for the benefit of everyone, if they don't wanna pay, then they don't get the services.
No, cause then people would whine about it being extortion. They handled this almost perfectly for what they wanted to accomplish. Taxes are there for the benefit of everyone, if they don't wanna pay, then they don't get the services.
The problem for this specific situation is that it's fundamentally dangerous to have such a service optional. Letting a house burn out of control can create the possibility of starting other houses/building on fire if they are within close proximity, as well as the danger of starting wild fires. From a cost benefit analysis, it's better for the tax payer to spend a little bit of money to make sure that such fires are stopped in a prudent fashion rather than risk a large scale fire which will end up costing the government much more in bills and repair costs.
No, cause then people would whine about it being extortion. They handled this almost perfectly for what they wanted to accomplish. Taxes are there for the benefit of everyone, if they don't wanna pay, then they don't get the services.
The problem for this specific situation is that it's fundamentally dangerous to have such a service optional. Letting a house burn out of control can create the possibility of starting other houses/building on fire if they are within close proximity, as well as the danger of starting wild fires. From a cost benefit analysis, it's better for the tax payer to spend a little bit of money to make sure that such fires are stopped in a prudent fashion rather than risk a large scale fire which will end up costing the government much more in bills and repair costs.
The problem for this specific situation is that it's fundamentally dangerous to have such a service optional. Letting a house burn out of control can create the possibility of starting other houses/building on fire if they are within close proximity, as well as the danger of starting wild fires. From a cost benefit analysis, it's better for the tax payer to spend a little bit of money to make sure that such fires are stopped in a prudent fashion rather than risk a large scale fire which will end up costing the government much more in bills and repair costs.
I never said I endorsed this plan, I think it's rather dangerous as well.
Letting a house burn out of control can create the possibility of starting other houses/building on fire if they are within close proximity, as well as the danger of starting wild fires.
But they didn't let it burn uncontrolled. They were there, and they watched it. Had any of the people who had paid for the service been put in danger of losing property, they could have stepped in immediately.
I am a huge fan of this kind of controlled exclusion. As long as they can keep the fire from spreading, more power to 'em. Maybe the people who whine about having to pay for services will stop being such whiny bitches when they find out just what they are getting in return for that money. Living in this country is a fucking SWEET deal for most of us.
Now, if the family had a kid trapped inside or a life was in danger, then I think that's a different story. Saving a life is a very different obligation than property protection. I do not know if the firefighters would be legally obligated to rescue someone inside if the trapped person had not paid for the service, because there might not be a duty to rescue in that case, but I think it's a higher calling than the law. If you don't rescue a kid because his parents didn't pay the protection fee, fuck you.
But they didn't let it burn uncontrolled. They were there, and they watched it. Had any of the people who had paid for the service been put in danger of losing property, they could have stepped in immediately
The problem with this is what if no one in the neighborhood had paid their dues as it were?
Would they have not even bothered to show up at all? "Well no one in the area has paid their subscription fee so just sit tight guys.". Meanwhile a whole neighborhood burns to the ground? How would they know then that there was anyone trapped inside?
What if his house were right next to a dry forest? They could be standing idly by and the all-of-the-sudden everything catches on fire and, again, a whole neighborhood goes up in smoke?
Things like this can get out of control faster than even a fire fighter standing there with his hands in his pockets can react to.
There is a reason why we USED to have private firefighting companies. There is a reason why all firefighting duties are now public institutions. There are good reasons why we have building codes. There is a reason why the government had to step in and mandate these things. Because people out for themselves failed to protect the public good. People have died because of this stuff in the past. Why risk it in the future?
I do not know if the firefighters would be legally obligated to rescue someone inside if the trapped person had not paid for the service, because there might not be a duty to rescue in that case, but I think it's a higher calling than the law.
Many many volunteer fire departments have started implementing a "let it burn" policy, precisely because this is tricky legal territory.
I think the situation definitely depends on the municipality as well. If you're in a relatively dense suburban area or any true urban area, a paid fire department should be the requirement, since the odds are good that they'll have to take action every time to prevent damage to other homes.
Comments
So who cuts off whom? They are all parasitic in a trickle-down way. I wrote a news story recently where money from the a federal subcommittee on health trickled to Ohio, which in turn appropriated it to the Department of Natural Resources, which presented it to a township, which gave it to a parks commission. And that's just a short rivulet.
The money's all intertwined in how it's gathered and to whom it goes before being distributed. Andrew forwarded me an article recently that basically said the actual U.S. tax rate, when all tax levels are factored in, is actually around 40 percent of gross income. What these idiot flat taxers and tea partiers don't get is that they live in a fiscal ecosystem, and they're part of it regardless of how they feel the money should be spent. The fly doesn't get to decide whether the snake eats the mouse. It can barely keep from being eaten by the spider.
And I'm tired, so fuck you if you think I'm rambling. I know I'm rambling. It's been a 12-hour work day.
THE STUPID IT BURNS!!!!!
And Faux News reported it too. It was that bad.
Extra super fail is in the comments from Faux News viewers. All of them.
Unrelated:
Time for some new words:
Gleck: Noun; A person who demonstrates Gleckish traits.
usage: "That guy is such a Gleck."
Gleckish: Adjective; prone to spastic hypocrisy mixed with hysterical militant paranoia.
usage: "Stop being so Gleckish, your stupid is burning me."
Glecking: Verb; using demagoguery/fear-mongering/race-baiting/lying in any combination or all at once, and/or creating unsubstantiated rumors about someone. Or raping and murdering a young girl in 1990.
usage: "Becky was totally Glecking about Sally and Tom the other day." or "Tom totally Glecked Sally in 1990."
I love how Paladino says that the editor is 'one of the bad guys' and how he's 'one of the establishment'. THE GUY WORKS FOR A BIASED PROPAGANDA CORPORATION THAT BACKS YOU.
Firefighters watch a man's house burn down
This is a nice near repeat of history.
Why is it that everyone who's conservative wants to return the country to the 1800's? Was life really so much better back then compared to now?
I also read elsewhere that apparently the county board voted to NOT institute a county wide firefighting force because they didn't want to raise taxes.
Isn't paying 75/year to a governmental agency (I believe Fire Departments count) a tax?
There is absolutely no reason not to allow up-front payment of some appropriate sum, e.g. $1000, as an alternative to yearly payments of $75.
Literally.
I am a huge fan of this kind of controlled exclusion. As long as they can keep the fire from spreading, more power to 'em. Maybe the people who whine about having to pay for services will stop being such whiny bitches when they find out just what they are getting in return for that money. Living in this country is a fucking SWEET deal for most of us.
Now, if the family had a kid trapped inside or a life was in danger, then I think that's a different story. Saving a life is a very different obligation than property protection. I do not know if the firefighters would be legally obligated to rescue someone inside if the trapped person had not paid for the service, because there might not be a duty to rescue in that case, but I think it's a higher calling than the law. If you don't rescue a kid because his parents didn't pay the protection fee, fuck you.
Would they have not even bothered to show up at all? "Well no one in the area has paid their subscription fee so just sit tight guys.". Meanwhile a whole neighborhood burns to the ground? How would they know then that there was anyone trapped inside?
What if his house were right next to a dry forest? They could be standing idly by and the all-of-the-sudden everything catches on fire and, again, a whole neighborhood goes up in smoke?
Things like this can get out of control faster than even a fire fighter standing there with his hands in his pockets can react to.
There is a reason why we USED to have private firefighting companies. There is a reason why all firefighting duties are now public institutions. There are good reasons why we have building codes. There is a reason why the government had to step in and mandate these things. Because people out for themselves failed to protect the public good. People have died because of this stuff in the past. Why risk it in the future?
I think the situation definitely depends on the municipality as well. If you're in a relatively dense suburban area or any true urban area, a paid fire department should be the requirement, since the odds are good that they'll have to take action every time to prevent damage to other homes.