Rick Perry forces firefighters to pay for hose, put members at peril

I can not believe people in here are seriously spouting off about privatizing a basic need such as a fire service. If anything these people who RISK THEIR LIVES DAILY are underpaid, and apparently under appreciated.

Privatizing something that is a community service? Fine lets go ahead and burden the poor further...its not like people at the top are hording all the money and cutting budgets anyway.

So lets go ahead and lax on something that equates to maybe 1% of total US-State/City budgets and let those that cant even afford to buy a car pay 50 bucks a month on fire insurance that will all intents and purposes should be paid for by your tax dollar...you libertarian or tea party people make me hurl.

I never wish bad on people, which is why I am a liberal.

 

I knew something was happening but I just didn't know what it was.

 

Joking or not, this country is privatized enough.
I'd rather put money into government, not into the pockets of greedy fat snobs.

 

No offense, but that would be like investing in an organization that was on course for bankruptcy. It's probably best you leave the investing to people who know what they're doing.

 

Anything that benefits the rich: I am completely against.
Literally ANYTHING. I hate Corporate Monopolitic America.

 

With that attitude, you'd think that you wouldn't think highly of this government. After all, it isn't us that are empowering big corporations with laws and regulations that give them an unfair advantage. I'm all for the self made man, but it isn't fair for government to decide who wins and who loses.

 

That is exactly the job of government.

Generally you would want the people to win and the assholes to lose i.e. People that breathe over those who pollute, safe drivers over drunk drivers, fair players over crooked dealers, hard working people to win livable wage over robber barons, Americans over Al Queada, our children's future over the excesses of today's lifestyle.

Democracy is about the general welfare and the greater good winning and special interests losing ...... until the special interests control the government (and the corporations become the people).

 

Sounds like you came full circle to what I said in the first place. The difference is, I see the challenge being how best to limit the government so that special interests aren't in control, while ensuring that it does what it's supposed to (mitigate when one person's freedom limits another's). I think most people around here are only concerned with empowering the corrupt government already in place.

 

Exactly. People miss this point. If we can just make sure the government has no power, then special interest would have no interest in the government.

For example, if the EPA didn't exist, why would companies try to influence congress in the area of pollution? They wouldn't! They'd just polluting and not bother with the government. If there were no gun control, the NRA wouldn't spend any money on the government either. Because people would be able to own tanks and bombs and all that other good stuff that keeps people safe.

In fact, if our government has absolutely zero power, then special interests would have absolutely zero influence on it. Problem solved!

 

You know that market thingy you totally have a crush on? He doesn't exactly agree with you that the government is very likely to go bankrupt any time soon.

 

You mean the people who caused THIS?

IMO, some things in society should not be 'For-Profit'

This includes health care, the prison system, and yes, fire protection. (Among Others)

Explain this to me please... Why does a hospital need to turn a profit. Dr.'s, nurses etc deserve to be paid at a premium, I understand that. But the hospital?

Why does a pharmaceutical company need to turn a profit. Successful scientist and researches deserve to be paid at premium as well. But why does the pharmaceutical company need to turn a profit beyond what would fund R&D?

 

Meaning what? SOCIALISM!!!!!

 

I'm quoting your post, but this is more or less a response to everyone.

To start, I never said anything about taking away all of the government's power. Just that it should be reduced to mitigating when one person's freedom takes impedes another person's freedom. In this instance, I think that there should be laws that hold people liable for the damages they cause to other people's property. Industry shouldn't be encouraged or permitted by government to damage common-use property, public property, and/or private property (as it is now). Businesses and individuals should be legally liable for the damages, just like a person who causes a traffic accident is liable for damages. And it is completely right and justified for the government to set standards for what behavior is allowed on public property. My problem is that, too often, Congress passes laws that benefit big business at the expense of everybody else under the guise that they're working for the public's welfare.

I'm not advocating that local government, or State government disband the police, or that the federal government should allow individuals or private businesses to buy bombs and/or other military weapons, or that justice be carried out by private parties, as one of you suggested. You can't simply assume that because a person wants to limit the power of the government that they want to strip it of all its power.

The people that read this forum aren't so dense as to miss seeing that your only responses to my argument either ridicule or attack misrepresentations of my views. My political beliefs aren't the typical party line. I'm not just another straw-man to burn.

 

I think people live in a dream world where everything can be perfect. Should a fire department have to pay for its own hoses/equipment? No. Should equipment be replaced for the sake of replacing it? No. I am far from an expert on fire equipment, and the article did not have enough information to speak adequately on why the equipment failed, or how frequently it occurs. If the equipment was passing regular tests, and it happened to fail in the field, that could be attributable to horrible luck or user failure. If it was known that there were possible issues with the equipment in advance, and it wasn't replaced, that is a serious issue.

 

Considering this is equipment that is used in crisis situations where equipment failure can be much more costly than the equipment itself, it may be worthwhile to replace that equipment for the sake of replacing it. Just to stay as far away as possible from it's failure date.

Or at least (and probably more resonably), having enough extra equipment that a fire department can quickly discard a piece of equipment that has failed and open a new one.

Or at the bare minimum have enough cash on hand that when a department doesn't have a hose to fight a fire with and has to send someone down to Home Depot, they don't have to find out who still has enough head-room on his personal credit card.

In other words, even if it's mere rotten luck that the equipment is failing in the field, it's still a sign of an organizational problem if a fire fighter is buying equipment with his own money. If my own company's IT group told me to I had to just use my own computer when my work computer went down, I'd sell all my company stock.

 

Of course not, you poor persecuted thang, you! You just cover yourself in straw when it's discursively expedient.

Go-go-gadget LIBERTARIAN UTOPIA:

[rquoter]The difference is, I see the challenge being how best to limit the government so that special interests aren't in control, while ensuring that it does what it's supposed to (mitigate when one person's freedom limits another's).[/rquoter]

And let's add in a dash of hypocrisy for balance:

[rquoter]I think most people around here are only concerned with empowering the corrupt government already in place.[/rquoter]

Yeah...so let's just dissolve the fire houses and implement a private insurance scheme, whereby complex liability issues can be resolved by our corruption-free judicial system! At least it will give the courts something to do with all that free time they have on their hands these days.

 

I'm wondering if you're even serious. Your post is so full of irony.

 

I don't disagree with you at all.