Firefighting Fee

[hugo]

The original purpose of government is protect individuals from external and internal aggressors, not from accidents. There is no inalienable right to fire services.

[jokersarewild]

Yeah, trying to force fire protection on somebody who doesn't want it is un-American.

 

Times, show me the law that says they can make Cranick pay later. The TN law, not CA. Pretty sure if there was a law stating they could, they would've put the fire out. You act as if dispatch/the FD are corrupt, bad people. No matter how much you say "I NEVER SAID THAT", your comments imply otherwise.

[jokersarewild]

 

Look, I didn't make you act like a child and insert words into my mouth kid, all I did was point out what you did, that is not crying, but it is giving you fair warning that if you want to be taken seriously, you have to stay on topic and stop trying to play childish games.

 

Waah.

 

 

There you go again kid, where did I ever say the firefighters were "bad people"? You spend most of your replies commenting on things I never said so why do you bother to post?

 

Yes they were dispatched, to the next door neighbors house to prevent the fire from spreading. They were there and they watched the home burn down. Not because they were evil people but because the powerd that be decided they felt their firefighters needed to be more concerned about a name on a list than helping people.

 

They were dispatched two hours later to the neighbors house. Not much of Cranick's shitty little double-wide after that.

 

Try reading the stories before you comment, eh?

 

 

Again you continue to miss the point, I am talking about how things can change for the future, this home is already gone and nothing can change that but we can learn from this example and try to improve things for the future.

 

Making firefighters watch homes burn down simply seems wrong to me, so I am trying to offer how things can change while you seem to not care about trying to improve things and you are more closed off to new ideas than most people I know.

 

They didn't "watch it burn down". It was pretty much gone by the time they got there. They just made sure it didn't spread.

 

Amazing how you seem to believe the story as told by the liberal media, instead of using common sense and just a wee bit of research.

 

 

You just can't seem to get past the wrong assertion hugo has offered kid.

 

Do people sign a contract before lifeflight takes them to the hospital? There is no requirement for emergency services to have that kind of contract and do you know why? Well do you kid? Because under emergency situations it is assumed by the law that any reasonable person would want themselves flown to the hospital to save their live and any reasonable person would want ther home fire put out. The reasonable person standard has always been honored in the courts.

 

Firefighters don't have jurisdiction there. If they went on this call outside of where they were allowed to fight fires, and they got injured, would insurance cover them? Would they be liable for any damages caused to the house by their spraying of water? Answers: (1) No. (2) Yes. They can't fight the fire.

 

 

All states have similar laws kid, stop acting stupid, I showed you the CA law because I know you live there and if that liberal utopia is charging people to fight fires, you can bet everyone is.

 

CA is still not TN. Show me the TN law and stop making assumptions, old man.

 

Also, the CAL FIRE pdf says they can be charged if it's neglect. Cool. In this case, it was. But had this been because of faulty wiring, or some other issue, the same thing would've happened. He wasn't under the city's area they cover because of pre-negotiated contracts. But either way, CAL FIRE policy/CA law isn't TN.

 

 

Now what are you ranting about kid? The property being private or owned by a government has nothing to do with this, you seem to waste a lot of time typing about things that have nothing to do with this conversation.

 

Except it does. They had no responsibility to put it out. He doesn't live in the city, old man. They only work for the city and those county residents they specifically contract out to.

 

I do see you again talked about money though, first you say people should not get services for free, then you say the fire department did not need more money, make up your mind kid.

 

I never said they didn't need any more money. I said they had no reason to charge Cranick because they didn't HAVE to come out there. If he set half the county on fire, they probably would've been called to help, as would the surrounding cities. Then they would probably charge him.

 

My point is firefighters should always be allowed to fight fires, so how do we get to that point that they don't have to be seen as the bad guys for watching a family home burn down? If you don't like my ideas, offer some of your own, or are you happy to see situations like this?

 

Already offered a solution, old man. Make ALL OF THEM sign a contract to (A) Opt-in for 75, (B ) Opt-in for a higher fee later if needed, or (C ) Opt-out completely.

 

Also, they didn't just watch the guy's house burn down. Why do you take the story at face value?

 

 

And as I said above all States have these laws, and this discussion is not restricted to any one state, this could happen in any state so the point is can we let firefighters stay firefighters or are they just another money making venture by the Government?

 

They aren't a "money making venture". The county residents voted for the "Pay to Spray" fee so their property taxes would be lower.

 

Again, show me these laws. Looked for them, couldn't find them myself.

 

 

And true....

 

You don't know this.

 

 

Properly funded? Where do you get that word play from? SS is completely funded, for a few more years, and the Government can certainly increase taxes to increase the funding for SS and keep it funded forever, just keep taking more money from the workers to pay to the non-workers, if funding is your only concern then what is the difference between giving someone foodstamps or giving someone firefighting services? The firefighting will cost about a thousand times less than the foodstamps.

 

Properly funded wouldn't mean 1 person supported 4-5 people's SS. That's what it's currently working out to because the old people keep living.

 

Also, apples to oranges, old man.

 

 

There you go again getting all worked up and upset over something I did not say.

 

Why do you constantly put words into my mouth then you use those false words to go on a rant complaining about what I did not say? You need to grow up.

 

How many times do I have to say I don't want people to get free firefighting services before you will have the ability to understand this fact? Everything I have been taling about is how there can be two seperate fees, one for insurance "just in case" and the other much higher fee for "as needed services"? Is this concept really that difficult for you to understand?

 

No. I understand it perfectly. But saying "there should be" doesn't mean there is. Currently, if they put all of the fires out, nobody would pay because they can't charge after the fact. Or, scratch that. They COULD, but people don't pay them back. The other cities in the county that HAVE done such things, have major issue with people paying them back. So yeah, they're basically doing it for free.

 

 

Go to your mother and ask her if her home burned down what kinds of things she would hate to lose the most.

 

You might not understand how bad a home fire is but talk to a few people who have had to go through it and you will understand that some of the more profound losses are not things like a television, it is family photos, a couple keepsakes your child gave you when they were 7 years old, a pressed flower you keep in a book or an number of of things that can't be replaced.

 

Being efficient is not why we have firefighters, is is about helping people at a time they are the most vulnerable and need someone to help them save what they can save from a horrible situation.

 

Actually, firefighters have to be efficient. Part of their job.

 

And yes, I understand how horrible a home fire would be. Never had to go through one, so I can't properly comment on what it's like.

 

What I can tell you, is that by the time the firefighters got there, the home was engulfed in flames. Quite possibly it would've taken more water to put out than they had. Or would've been safer to do what they did. Not 100% sure what protocol is on this, but I'm guessing they followed it.

 

 

You completely missed that point.

 

Don;t you understand the concept of heros? Did you grow up that jaded in life you can't see the value of heros in a society?

 

Yes, let's be a hero instead of doing our jobs properly. I understand the value of a hero. What I don't understand is why you consider "being a hero" better than doing what they're supposed to do.

 

 

There you go again, you have no decent reply to my question so you go on a crazy rant trying to put words in my mouth I never said. Hitler? Really? You had to invoke the name of Hitler in your childish rant? People like you actually diminish the reality of the evil of Hitler by trying to compare his level of evil to minor and insignificant things like this Joker. This is not in that arena, stop over reacting and compose yourself.

 

But I will say that putting money first in every possible way can be evil sometimes. People should always pay their way, in the old days people did not have much money but they felt compelled to pay their way so the barter system was used most of the time. Maybe they have a chicken or maybe you need help fixing your roof, there was always a way to let people help each other and to settle their debts in different ways.

 

Today all we care about is money, does that mean we have evoved for the better or the worse?

 

No, I was being sarcastic because your assumption that they would let someone die is asinine and makes them seem evil.

 

I can promise you that's one of the first things the dispatchers ask. They won't let someone die. And if you ask for proof? They're human beings.

 

They didn't "sit by" and watch this guy's house burn. They weren't sent there because nobody was in danger. Then it's just a matter of following policy at that point.

 

 

Not irrelivant, it is very much the same thing. You see property taxes used to pay for all emergency services, irresponsible spending by our elected officials have made them look for new ways to get more and more taxes from each of us because they can't learn how to control their spending. So things like garbage, fire, schools, etc have been given their own fees while still getting the same base taxes from property.

 

You do realize that their property taxes don't pay the city, and this is a city FD right? That's why it's irrelevant. The city FD is not responsible for the county unless they pay for said services.

 

And still it is not enough. These Government officials can never get enough tax funds to pay the bills, no matter how much they increase taxes, they always find a way to spend it all and fall short each and every year. I understand things cost money kid, my bigger point is in my belief, people are paying enough taxes to receive "basic emergency services" through their basic home taxes, in this case the county is taking that tax money and not providing any emergency services at all, to me that is just sad. If you own property and you pay your taxes the least the Governing body should provide is basis emergency services.

 

IMHO.

 

And if the county isn't providing these services, HOW IN THE BLOODY HELL IS THAT THE CITY'S FAULT? The city has said "Hey, we'll put out your fires for a small fee, since you have no FD." The residents got things mailed to them, and a few phone calls as a reminder. If they didn't pay, why is the city at fault there? They've said they don't want the protection through lack of payment, and they got exactly that.

[timesjoke]

Again, almost all of your reply was putting words in my mouth then you ranting like a child over what you falsely put there kid, this is exactly what Wez does and unless you grow up I will not even read what you post most of the time because you have proven you are more interested in taking shots at me than actually discussing the situation. You are acting like a Government excuse machine and diverting attention away from the facts.

 

 

I will say this again, THIS HOME IS GONE, NOTHING WE SAY CAN CHANGE THAT FACT, SO NOW I AM TRYING TO DISCUSS WAYS THIS CAN CHANGE FOR THE FUTURE.

 

 

FUTURE Joker, can you understand this idea?

 

 

Unless you can show how a lifeflight helechopter is different on a legal scale, then that is the best example of how a service based in a different County or State can still charge someone for emergency services legally. You are trapped in the mindset hugo offered that there is no way they could collect on the debts later and that is 100% wrong kid. Emergency services can always be charged later but if they want it to be easier they can pass a law like California has if they don't already have one.

 

 

 

There are a lot of ways things could be changed to allow fire fighters to do their jobs of fighting fires so why are you so desperate to show why it is okay for firefighters to NOT fight fires joker? I am not arguing against the fact that the fire fighters followed their orders, I completely understand that and I reject that idea as evil because it forces fire fighters to let people and animals die because of buracratic Government greed. You are right, the County did not have fire protection, but the residents of that County was still paying taxes so what did they get for their taxes Joker? Are you the kind of Government man hugo is and you believe residents should pay taxes without getting anything in return for those taxes?

 

 

 

What "should" happen is the County should enter into an agreement with the local city to help cover all County residents, but in the absense of that kind of agreement, the city can still get paid for every fire they fight because emergency services are always given protection under the law.

 

 

 

I did read enough of your post to see you blew off my Hero point.

 

Why do you want to eliminate all concepts of heros in society Joker? Fire fighters watching homes burn to the ground because their name is not on a list is nothing to be proud of and certainly is not something a kid could understand Joker.

 

 

 

 

You and hugo keep saying over and over that I want people to get firefighting services for "free" and that is a lie, stop telling that lie. I want fire fighters to fight fires, and buracrats to be buracrats. Those buracrats can pass whatever laws they think will help them collect if they like, but the foundation for emergency services having protections under the law is already there. What is happening here is the buracrats are lazy Joker.

[jokersarewild]

Again, almost all of your reply was putting words in my mouth then you ranting like a child over what you falsely put there kid, this is exactly what Wez does and unless you grow up I will not even read what you post most of the time because you have proven you are more interested in taking shots at me than actually discussing the situation. You are acting like a Government excuse machine and diverting attention away from the facts.

 

Waah.

 

I will say this again, THIS HOME IS GONE, NOTHING WE SAY CAN CHANGE THAT FACT, SO NOW I AM TRYING TO DISCUSS WAYS THIS CAN CHANGE FOR THE FUTURE.

 

 

FUTURE Joker, can you understand this idea?

 

As in, "Back to the..."?

 

Unless you can show how a lifeflight helechopter is different on a legal scale, then that is the best example of how a service based in a different County or State can still charge someone for emergency services legally. You are trapped in the mindset hugo offered that there is no way they could collect on the debts later and that is 100% wrong kid. Emergency services can always be charged later but if they want it to be easier they can pass a law like California has if they don't already have one.

 

How about the fact that the other FDs nearby that serviced other parts of the county without a subscription were having big issues with people not paying? So they were basically doing it for free. And the city can't do a damn thing to collect, really.

 

There are a lot of ways things could be changed to allow fire fighters to do their jobs of fighting fires so why are you so desperate to show why it is okay for firefighters to NOT fight fires joker? I am not arguing against the fact that the fire fighters followed their orders, I completely understand that and I reject that idea as evil because it forces fire fighters to let people and animals die because of buracratic Government greed. You are right, the County did not have fire protection, but the residents of that County was still paying taxes so what did they get for their taxes Joker? Are you the kind of Government man hugo is and you believe residents should pay taxes without getting anything in return for those taxes?

 

I'm saying it's OK to do what they did because that's how the city policy was written up. Obviously it's not the best idea, but it's what's there, and it was followed.

 

Their taxes don't go to the city. If they had a county-wide FD, the taxes would go to fund that. Instead, they pay a subscription fee.

 

What "should" happen is the County should enter into an agreement with the local city to help cover all County residents, but in the absense of that kind of agreement, the city can still get paid for every fire they fight because emergency services are always given protection under the law.

 

No, they can't. Again, the ones that charge after the fact have no way of getting the money back, and often don't.

 

 

 

 

 

I did read enough of your post to see you blew off my Hero point.

 

Why do you want to eliminate all concepts of heros in society Joker? Fire fighters watching homes burn to the ground because their name is not on a list is nothing to be proud of and certainly is not something a kid could understand Joker.

 

I never said that. I don't want to eliminate them. But I'm not going to advocate doing things so children can have heros. That's just ridiculous. The firefighters followed the policy they had in place, whether they had objections to it or not. That's their job. Too bad the kid won't look at firefighters as heros, but life sucks. They can't base their decisions on keeping a bubble intact that'll burst eventually anyway. I still think firefighters are heros, even these guys. They did their job and followed orders.

 

Hell, the Cranicks don't even blame the FD. They blame the guys in charge (i.e. the bureaucrats). Which is rightfully where the blame should lie.

 

You and hugo keep saying over and over that I want people to get firefighting services for "free" and that is a lie, stop telling that lie. I want fire fighters to fight fires, and buracrats to be buracrats. Those buracrats can pass whatever laws they think will help them collect if they like, but the foundation for emergency services having protections under the law is already there. What is happening here is the buracrats are lazy Joker.

 

No, what's happening is that they realize people tend not to pay for things after the fact if they don't have to because they're assholes. And it's happening all over the rest of the county. They see that and go "well, we either get paid, or we don't" and go with getting funding. Makes sense.

[timesjoke]

Waah.

 

So you lie and insert words I never said and claim I did say them and all you can say is "Waah"?

 

Is your only recourse in a debate to lie?

 

 

As in, "Back to the..."?

 

Childish much?

 

Either you have the ability to discuss how things can be improved or not. If all you want to be is a Government excuse machine like hugo, be my guest.

 

 

How about the fact that the other FDs nearby that serviced other parts of the county without a subscription were having big issues with people not paying? So they were basically doing it for free. And the city can't do a damn thing to collect, really.

 

Just because a liberal paper told that lie to give cover to fellow Democrats, that does not make it true, and even if it was true is that because they can’t or because they are too stupid to do the proper process to collect?

 

If they don't pay simply lean the home and to not release a CO on the new home until they pay, it has almost no cost to the City and everyone will pay. It is a simple lean process Joker, if the idiots can't figure that much out they don't deserve to have their jobs.

 

 

I'm saying it's OK to do what they did because that's how the city policy was written up. Obviously it's not the best idea, but it's what's there, and it was followed.

 

A lot of city policies used to force blacks to sit in the back of the buss or stand if a white wanted the seat they had, was it "RIGHT" just because it was a city policy?

 

 

Are you that liberal that you only see "right and wrong" as what the Government tells you to believe?

 

 

 

Their taxes don't go to the city. If they had a county-wide FD, the taxes would go to fund that. Instead, they pay a subscription fee.

 

And? Who said otherwise? The County certainly "could" offer fire protection or enter into an agreement to pay the local city through taxes if they wanted to but I guess they prefer to just take tax money from residents and give nothing in return.

 

 

No, they can't. Again, the ones that charge after the fact have no way of getting the money back, and often don't.

 

Lie, time and time again I prove emergency services always have the legal right to get their money but you still blind yourself to that truth just so you can play government excuse machine. The only way they don't get their money is if they are stupid and don't file the paperwork correctly. Hell they could file a "mechanics lien" against the home if they wanted to, I believe most States still allow cities to file mechanics liens.

 

 

Don't forget I also said they could pass new laws if they felt it was needed as well, I fully believe the city should get paid for their services rendered.

 

 

I never said that.

 

Yes you did and your about to say it again:

 

 

I don't want to eliminate them. But I'm not going to advocate doing things so children can have heroes. That's just ridiculous. The firefighters followed the policy they had in place, whether they had objections to it or not. That's their job. Too bad the kid won't look at firefighters as heroes, but life sucks. They can't base their decisions on keeping a bubble intact that'll burst eventually anyway. I still think firefighters are heroes, even these guys. They did their job and followed orders.

 

But? You just point out you don't want to preserve the idea that the police and fire fighters are heroes and that to you the most important thing is supporting Government policies, even if they hurt people.

 

 

Hell, the Cranicks don't even blame the FD. They blame the guys in charge (i.e. the bureaucrats). Which is rightfully where the blame should lie.

 

And that is all I have said kid, you and hugo tried to lie and say I thought they were evil and bad but I never said that.

 

What I said is fire fighters should stick to fighting fires and let the bureaucrats be the bureaucrats. You never answered my question of what happens when a name is not on the list but they paid anyway. What then Joker? Can the fire fighters and the bureaucrats just say "sorry" and no big deal?

 

 

No, what's happening is that they realize people tend not to pay for things after the fact if they don't have to because they're assholes. And it's happening all over the rest of the county. They see that and go "well, we either get paid, or we don't" and go with getting funding. Makes sense.

Bull, they can always get paid if they get off their behinds and do the work. The problem is not the laws, they will always support the emergency services. The problem is the lazy bureaucrats who are too incompetent to do what they need to do.

[hugo]

The person wanting foreigners receiving benefits from taxes on local citizens is Times. I don't call that conservative.

[timesjoke]

The person wanting foreigners receiving benefits from taxes on local citizens is Times. I don't call that conservative.

What the hell is it with you and the kid telling these lies hugo?

 

Where did I ever say I wanted foreigners to get benefits from taxes? Once again you prove you have no connection to reality with the majority of what you say, and now the kid is following your lead and doing the same thing.

[jokersarewild]

Waah.

 

So you lie and insert words I never said and claim I did say them and all you can say is "Waah"?

 

Is your only recourse in a debate to lie?

 

As in, "Back to the..."?

 

Childish much?

 

Either you have the ability to discuss how things can be improved or not. If all you want to be is a Government excuse machine like hugo, be my guest.

 

How about the fact that the other FDs nearby that serviced other parts of the county without a subscription were having big issues with people not paying? So they were basically doing it for free. And the city can't do a damn thing to collect, really.

 

Just because a liberal paper told that lie to give cover to fellow Democrats, that does not make it true, and even if it was true is that because they can’t or because they are too stupid to do the proper process to collect?

 

If they don't pay simply lean the home and to not release a CO on the new home until they pay, it has almost no cost to the City and everyone will pay. It is a simple lean process Joker, if the idiots can't figure that much out they don't deserve to have their jobs.

 

I'm saying it's OK to do what they did because that's how the city policy was written up. Obviously it's not the best idea, but it's what's there, and it was followed.

 

A lot of city policies used to force blacks to sit in the back of the buss or stand if a white wanted the seat they had, was it "RIGHT" just because it was a city policy?

 

 

Are you that liberal that you only see "right and wrong" as what the Government tells you to believe?

 

 

Their taxes don't go to the city. If they had a county-wide FD, the taxes would go to fund that. Instead, they pay a subscription fee.

 

And? Who said otherwise? The County certainly "could" offer fire protection or enter into an agreement to pay the local city through taxes if they wanted to but I guess they prefer to just take tax money from residents and give nothing in return.

 

No, they can't. Again, the ones that charge after the fact have no way of getting the money back, and often don't.

 

Lie, time and time again I prove emergency services always have the legal right to get their money but you still blind yourself to that truth just so you can play government excuse machine. The only way they don't get their money is if they are stupid and don't file the paperwork correctly. Hell they could file a "mechanics lien" against the home if they wanted to, I believe most States still allow cities to file mechanics liens.

 

 

Don't forget I also said they could pass new laws if they felt it was needed as well, I fully believe the city should get paid for their services rendered.

 

I never said that.

 

Yes you did and your about to say it again:

 

I don't want to eliminate them. But I'm not going to advocate doing things so children can have heroes. That's just ridiculous. The firefighters followed the policy they had in place, whether they had objections to it or not. That's their job. Too bad the kid won't look at firefighters as heroes, but life sucks. They can't base their decisions on keeping a bubble intact that'll burst eventually anyway. I still think firefighters are heroes, even these guys. They did their job and followed orders.

 

But? You just point out you don't want to preserve the idea that the police and fire fighters are heroes and that to you the most important thing is supporting Government policies, even if they hurt people.

 

 

Hell, the Cranicks don't even blame the FD. They blame the guys in charge (i.e. the bureaucrats). Which is rightfully where the blame should lie.

 

And that is all I have said kid, you and hugo tried to lie and say I thought they were evil and bad but I never said that.

 

What I said is fire fighters should stick to fighting fires and let the bureaucrats be the bureaucrats. You never answered my question of what happens when a name is not on the list but they paid anyway. What then Joker? Can the fire fighters and the bureaucrats just say "sorry" and no big deal?

 

No, what's happening is that they realize people tend not to pay for things after the fact if they don't have to because they're assholes. And it's happening all over the rest of the county. They see that and go "well, we either get paid, or we don't" and go with getting funding. Makes sense.

Bull, they can always get paid if they get off their behinds and do the work. The problem is not the laws, they will always support the emergency services. The problem is the lazy bureaucrats who are too incompetent to do what they need to do.

 

Yes. You know it was the liberal media supporting my "they shouldn't have gotten services" opinion. You know how those liberals are the ones who don't think everyone should benefit from social programs and this sort of thing in general.

 

You seriously cannot be that ignorant, Times. Just because something doesn't agree with you doesn't mean it's "progressive" or "liberal".

[jokersarewild]

So you lie and insert words I never said and claim I did say them and all you can say is "Waah"?

 

Is your only recourse in a debate to lie?

 

No, you said that putting money above everything can be evil, and that they did just that. The implication would be that you think they were evil. I'm not making up things, Times, I'm inferring based on your previous posts.

 

For instance, if I say that having an abortion can make you evil, and Jane Doe had an abortion, there's a high chance I think she's evil.

 

 

Childish much?

Either you have the ability to discuss how things can be improved or not. If all you want to be is a Government excuse machine like hugo, be my guest.

 

No, it's not childish. I understand what the "future" is. You were being a condescending ass. Why would I reply with anything else?

Just because a liberal paper told that lie to give cover to fellow Democrats, that does not make it true, and even if it was true is that because they can’t or because they are too stupid to do the proper process to collect?

 

If they don't pay simply lean the home and to not release a CO on the new home until they pay, it has almost no cost to the City and everyone will pay. It is a simple lean process Joker, if the idiots can't figure that much out they don't deserve to have their jobs.

 

http://troy.troytn.c...0Commission.pdf

 

From the above:

The municipal fire departments which utilize a

subscription service are not bound to and do not respond to fires on rural properties which

do not have a subscription for fire service.

 

According to survey information, over 75% of all municipal fire department’s structure calls

are rural. All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas,

but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally

collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal

tax payer.

 

But yeah, you're right, Times. Just those silly Democrats and their lies.

 

Which brings me back to "What the flying f are you talking about?" Why would a Democratic paper be supporting this argument?

 

By the way, the PDF is a presentation to attempt to get the Obion County FD up and running. Apparently, they passed a resolution at some point to have one, but nothing got implemented, so it's unfunded, unmanned, and non-operational. Go figure.

 

 

A lot of city policies used to force blacks to sit in the back of the buss or stand if a white wanted the seat they had, was it "RIGHT" just because it was a city policy?

 

Are you that liberal that you only see "right and wrong" as what the Government tells you to believe?

 

Then they can fight to change it. Change doesn't come from disobeying the law and putting yourself (and possibly others) in danger. Change comes from going "you know what? That situation was crap. We shouldn't have to go through that again." Then you go through the motions.

 

Oh, and let me requote some of my post:

I'm saying it's OK to do what they did because that's how the city policy was written up. Obviously it's not the best idea, but it's what's there, and it was followed.

 

You didn't pay attention to my post, Times. I didn't say it was a good idea, and in fact said it wasn't the best. I never said it was right. I said it was what's there. And they followed their policy. See the previous part about change.

 

[Continued on next page...]

[jokersarewild]

And? Who said otherwise? The County certainly "could" offer fire protection or enter into an agreement to pay the local city through taxes if they wanted to but I guess they prefer to just take tax money from residents and give nothing in return.

Lie, time and time again I prove emergency services always have the legal right to get their money but you still blind yourself to that truth just so you can play government excuse machine. The only way they don't get their money is if they are stupid and don't file the paperwork correctly. Hell they could file a "mechanics lien" against the home if they wanted to, I believe most States still allow cities to file mechanics liens.

 

 

Don't forget I also said they could pass new laws if they felt it was needed as well, I fully believe the city should get paid for their services rendered.

 

Wrong:

The municipal fire departments which utilize a

subscription service are not bound to and do not respond to fires on rural properties which

do not have a subscription for fire service.

 

According to survey information, over 75% of all municipal fire department’s structure calls

are rural. All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas,

but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally

collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal

tax payer.

 

And I call bullshit. You didn't prove a thing. You kept quoting the Life-Flight crap, which has nothing to do with this. Then you posted the CAL FIRE flier as if the neat pictures and the large text was the law. Not even close.

 

 

I never said that.

 

Yes you did and your about to say it again:

 

I don't want to eliminate them. But I'm not going to advocate doing things so children can have heroes. That's just ridiculous. The firefighters followed the policy they had in place, whether they had objections to it or not. That's their job. Too bad the kid won't look at firefighters as heroes, but life sucks. They can't base their decisions on keeping a bubble intact that'll burst eventually anyway. I still think firefighters are heroes, even these guys. They did their job and followed orders.

 

But? You just point out you don't want to preserve the idea that the police and fire fighters are heroes and that to you the most important thing is supporting Government policies, even if they hurt people.

 

No, the important part is doing the job they're supposed to do. If they were told "So, there's a fire, but don't go put it out" by their Chief, and they disobeyed, what would you think should happen? They have the guy there for a reason. He makes the calls. The firefighters follow him because he's their superior. Wanna blame the fire chief? Go for it. But don't blame his people. And even the Chief isn't to blame.

 

Children can have heros. But in Grownup Land, there are a strict set of rules for us to follow. We don't cater to children. Buy them a damn Superman comic.

 

 

Hell, the Cranicks don't even blame the FD. They blame the guys in charge (i.e. the bureaucrats). Which is rightfully where the blame should lie.

 

And that is all I have said kid, you and hugo tried to lie and say I thought they were evil and bad but I never said that.

 

What I said is fire fighters should stick to fighting fires and let the bureaucrats be the bureaucrats. You never answered my question of what happens when a name is not on the list but they paid anyway. What then Joker? Can the fire fighters and the bureaucrats just say "sorry" and no big deal?

 

Then they sue the city for violating the contract. Already said that.

 

 

No, what's happening is that they realize people tend not to pay for things after the fact if they don't have to because they're assholes. And it's happening all over the rest of the county. They see that and go "well, we either get paid, or we don't" and go with getting funding. Makes sense.

Bull, they can always get paid if they get off their behinds and do the work. The problem is not the laws, they will always support the emergency services. The problem is the lazy bureaucrats who are too incompetent to do what they need to do.

 

According to survey information, over 75% of all municipal fire department’s structure calls

are rural. All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas,

but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally

collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal

tax payer.

 

Also, rediscovered this little Gem I thought I'd respond to:

 

If "getting paid" while performing emergency services in a place other than where you live as a firefighter was an issue nobody would place themselves at risk to travel and fight these fires. (Referring to the firefighters to fight wildfires)

 

Hm. My stepdad fights wildfires up in Mt. Lassen here in CA. He has for like 15 years. They get paid to fight fires. They get paid lots of money. Pretty much everything they get paid to fight fires (when they're there for several weeks/months/whatever) is overtime. This year was a shitty year for him because there were only 2 fires he went on, I believe. The guy has been to Hawaii to fight fires. And he got paid to be there to do this, too. I'm not sure you fully understand how the system works there. Just thought I'd let you in on the secret.

[timesjoke]

I saw you try to justify your lie and basically stopped reading. If you are too childish to admit you lied and I never said what you tried to say I said then you will be ignored.

 

 

I did see you try to pass off the County propaganda as fact though, I looked at the link and was surprised you would even bother to post that garbage, you do know that was crated to cover their ass for not responding to fires right? Maybe not, you seem very much brainwashed to believe whatever a Government entitity tells you.......a small clue, they are humans too, capable of lies, what you have to look at is the logic behind the actions. If they perform work on real property at the very least a mechanics lien is legal and based on that lien, nobody can ever rebuild and occupy a new home until that lien is settled.

 

 

 

 

Back to the intent of the discussion, this home is gone, are there ways to let fire fighters fight fires and not making them seem the 'bad guy' to the community? I believe there is, even using the fake numbers Joker offered, they say half the people pay right away, at 50% on a charge of $500, that is still better than the $75 per household they need to pay for services so if everyone followed that trend, the fire department is making a lot more money than they needed. This will give the city an average of $250 a home, not the required $75 a home to cover their costs so it is a big win by the city.

 

The other 50% can still be gotten through the lien/co process if the County wants to do the paperwork but if not, they are still collecting more than enough money to cover their services and offer the County a nice profit.

 

 

 

 

Again, I agree that the firefighters were just following their orders to not fight fires, no matter how many times Joker tells that lie, I have never said the fire fighters are "evil" for following their rules. I have only said I want firefighters to be seen as heros by the community, I want fire fighters to do what they trained to do, protect people and fight fires, not stand around watching things burn down just because a Government buracrat did not put a name on a list of who the firefighters are allowed to help.

[jokersarewild]

To reiterate:

 

So, according to the numbers in the PDF from the 2000 Census, about 35% of the county is "out of town". 4612 households. Now, if each of those paid 75, we're looking at $345900 between all of the cities' FDs that cover the county.

 

In 2006, the county had a total of 148 rural fire calls (excluding the 3 cities that charge subscriptions). Cut the number in half (to represent how many people don't pay), you get 74. Now, charge every one of those people $500, and when they all pay it back, you get: $37000.

 

Now, even if the number of households doesn't increase between '00 and '06, and we assume that the 3 subscription-charging cities service even HALF of the county, the other half is still getting $172950 a year, assuming everyone pays the subscription.

 

That's quite a difference there. Does the math work for you, Times? Or am I wrong?

[hugo]

To reiterate:

 

So, according to the numbers in the PDF from the 2000 Census, about 35% of the county is "out of town". 4612 households. Now, if each of those paid 75, we're looking at $345900 between all of the cities' FDs that cover the county.

 

In 2006, the county had a total of 148 rural fire calls (excluding the 3 cities that charge subscriptions). Cut the number in half (to represent how many people don't pay), you get 74. Now, charge every one of those people $500, and when they all pay it back, you get: $37000.

 

Now, even if the number of households doesn't increase between '00 and '06, and we assume that the 3 subscription-charging cities service even HALF of the county, the other half is still getting $172950 a year, assuming everyone pays the subscription.

 

That's quite a difference there. Does the math work for you, Times? Or am I wrong?

 

Kid 1, Geezer 0

[timesjoke]

To reiterate:

 

So, according to the numbers in the PDF from the 2000 Census, about 35% of the county is "out of town". 4612 households. Now, if each of those paid 75, we're looking at $345900 between all of the cities' FDs that cover the county.

 

In 2006, the county had a total of 148 rural fire calls (excluding the 3 cities that charge subscriptions). Cut the number in half (to represent how many people don't pay), you get 74. Now, charge every one of those people $500, and when they all pay it back, you get: $37000.

 

Now, even if the number of households doesn't increase between '00 and '06, and we assume that the 3 subscription-charging cities service even HALF of the county, the other half is still getting $172950 a year, assuming everyone pays the subscription.

 

That's quite a difference there. Does the math work for you, Times? Or am I wrong?

 

Your first mistake is the source of your information, the pdf is not an independent report, it is an internal document so it is worthless. Offer some information independent of the city and maybe I will spend some time looking at it.

 

 

 

Let's go back to the basics.

 

 

As I already pointed out and you seem unable to understand, all the costs of operating that fire department are already completely covered by the city. They use average fire calls from prior years with a percentage extra (usually 10%) just to be sure they can fully operate all year long. Any "extra" money the city gets from the County residents is all profit, they already have all their costs covered so it does not matter if they get 1 person or 1,000 people to pay, it is all over and above their costs and pure profit.

 

 

What you are talking about is using scare tactics to extort a massive windfall in profit for the city Joker, nice if they can get it that way I suppose, but that again goes against my point that firefighters should not be run like the strong arm element of a mafia.

[jokersarewild]

To reiterate:

 

So, according to the numbers in the PDF from the 2000 Census, about 35% of the county is "out of town". 4612 households. Now, if each of those paid 75, we're looking at $345900 between all of the cities' FDs that cover the county.

 

In 2006, the county had a total of 148 rural fire calls (excluding the 3 cities that charge subscriptions). Cut the number in half (to represent how many people don't pay), you get 74. Now, charge every one of those people $500, and when they all pay it back, you get: $37000.

 

Now, even if the number of households doesn't increase between '00 and '06, and we assume that the 3 subscription-charging cities service even HALF of the county, the other half is still getting $172950 a year, assuming everyone pays the subscription.

 

That's quite a difference there. Does the math work for you, Times? Or am I wrong?

 

Your first mistake is the source of your information, the pdf is not an independent report, it is an internal document so it is worthless. Offer some information independent of the city and maybe I will spend some time looking at it.

 

How did I know you were going to say something like that? Just keep grasping at straws, TJ.

 

And how "independent" do you expect it to get? The census numbers are independent. I could base my argument on those ALONE. $172,950 dollars if everybody pays the $75 fee.

 

Here's some more math for you: In order to get to that number if you charge per call, and only 50% pay, you need 692 calls or so rurally. Even if all of them pay, you still need 346 calls, and that's just to the county. So 7.5% of the unincorporated county households catch on fire during the year, in order to pull down the same amount of money, assuming everyone pays.

 

Remember, as well, that the $172k is assuming that the other stations service half of the county. This isn't so, but the number is still much higher than letting people pay after the fact.

 

Also, you know what that "profit" does, TJ? Helps them buy new equipment, trucks, etc. Personally, I'd rather have a well-equipped firehouse ready at my beck and call, not one that isn't as awesome as it can be.

 

Let's go back to the basics.

 

 

As I already pointed out and you seem unable to understand, all the costs of operating that fire department are already completely covered by the city. They use average fire calls from prior years with a percentage extra (usually 10%) just to be sure they can fully operate all year long. Any "extra" money the city gets from the County residents is all profit, they already have all their costs covered so it does not matter if they get 1 person or 1,000 people to pay, it is all over and above their costs and pure profit.

 

Proof? Why would they go through the trouble of charging if they have all the money they need already? That's a load of crap if I've ever heard one.

 

What you are talking about is using scare tactics to extort a massive windfall in profit for the city Joker, nice if they can get it that way I suppose, but that again goes against my point that firefighters should not be run like the strong arm element of a mafia.

 

Sure, if we assume that somehow all of the operating costs of the FD are magically covered by the city. Show me PROOF they already have all of the money they need. Until then, it's another one of your fairytales.

[timesjoke]

 

How did I know you were going to say something like that? Just keep grasping at straws, TJ.

 

And how "independent" do you expect it to get? The census numbers are independent. I could base my argument on those ALONE. $172,950 dollars if everybody pays the $75 fee.

 

Here's some more math for you: In order to get to that number if you charge per call, and only 50% pay, you need 692 calls or so rurally. Even if all of them pay, you still need 346 calls, and that's just to the county. So 7.5% of the unincorporated county households catch on fire during the year, in order to pull down the same amount of money, assuming everyone pays.

 

Remember, as well, that the $172k is assuming that the other stations service half of the county. This isn't so, but the number is still much higher than letting people pay after the fact.

 

Also, you know what that "profit" does, TJ? Helps them buy new equipment, trucks, etc. Personally, I'd rather have a well-equipped firehouse ready at my beck and call, not one that isn't as awesome as it can be.

 

So are we talking about covering the extra cost of fighting fires outside of the city or how the city can extort the most money possible from County residents without doing anything to get it?

 

Yes, if the point is to make as much money as possible then you are correct, it is better to get $75 from every resident in the County no matter if they ever get fire services or not.

 

 

 

But I was not talking about how the City can make the most money, I was talking about how the city can cover the "COST" of fighting fires.

 

 

Proof? Why would they go through the trouble of charging if they have all the money they need already? That's a load of crap if I've ever heard one.

 

Are you just acting stupid or do you really not understand this very basic point?

 

I already covered how budgets are made yearly kid, not my fault you can't retain lessons already given, you need to pay attention and read everything each time before you reply if you can't keep up with the conversation.

 

 

They already have trucks, firefighters, fire chiefs, dispatch, fire stations....all the things that make up a firefighting service are already there for the city, what they "NEED" is the ability to cover expenses to fight fires outside the City, and I agree this is completely reasonable for them to get. So how much extra does it cost to respond to the fire of a County resident? There is certainly extra gas, the small increase of pay from sitting idol to responding to a actual call must be paid to the firefighters, so you will be looking at around $40 to $50 of actual extra cost to the city for a basic fire call. I am sure the city wants to make a profit from the calls and getting money from many people they will never have to respond to helps considerably to give the City a lot of free money comming in but I also don't see anything wrong with charging around $500.00 to those who did not pay up front.

 

 

Sure, if we assume that somehow all of the operating costs of the FD are magically covered by the city. Show me PROOF they already have all of the money they need. Until then, it's another one of your fairytales.

 

You just don't ever pay attention.

 

The FD already existed, their yearly expenses to operate the FD is already covered by the city budget every year. It is not "MAGIC" it is called a city budget.

 

They have all the money they need for city fire department from the city taxes, what we are talking about is how much more they need to offer services to other people in the County.

[jokersarewild]

all the things that make up a firefighting service are already there for the city, what they "NEED" is the ability to cover expenses to fight fires outside the City, and I agree this is completely reasonable for them to get.

 

As I already pointed out and you seem unable to understand, all the costs of operating that fire department are already completely covered by the city. They use average fire calls from prior years with a percentage extra (usually 10%) just to be sure they can fully operate all year long. Any "extra" money the city gets from the County residents is all profit, they already have all their costs covered so it does not matter if they get 1 person or 1,000 people to pay, it is all over and above their costs and pure profit.

 

They have all the money they need for city fire department from the city taxes, what we are talking about is how much more they need to offer services to other people in the County.

 

Are you winning the debate against yourself? I can't tell.

[timesjoke]

Are you winning the debate against yourself? I can't tell.

Being as you seem not able to understand how a city budget works you can't understand any of this anyway. Maybe after you start payign things like property taxes and get curious how that money is spent you can understand these things.

 

Then again you already admitted you are very lazy and still living at home right? You have a long way to go if so.

[jokersarewild]

Are you winning the debate against yourself? I can't tell.

Being as you seem not able to understand how a city budget works you can't understand any of this anyway. Maybe after you start payign things like property taxes and get curious how that money is spent you can understand these things.

 

Then again you already admitted you are very lazy and still living at home right? You have a long way to go if so.

 

See, you're just flat out making sh t up now. You're being a condescending wee-wee, as usual, and pretending that you've automatically won because I can't possibly understand how something works since I haven't done X action. Also, I like how you ignored the fact that I called you out on your bullshit. Just keep grasping at straws, old man.

 

And no, I moved back into my parents house after having lived elsewhere for about a year and a half because it was not only cheaper, they were getting a bigger house. Seemed economical.

[jokersarewild]

Thinking on it, I decided to go through your recent posts here and tell you how wrong you are, hopefully shutting you up and proving you wrong. I doubt you'll shut up, as you're kind of a blowhard, but I can try, right?

 

they say half the people pay right away, at 50% on a charge of $500, that is still better than the $75 per household they need to pay for services so if everyone followed that trend, the fire department is making a lot more money than they needed

 

Wrong. Already proved how you were wrong mathematically. Also, you're using info from the "propaganda" to support your cause.

 

As I already pointed out and you seem unable to understand, all the costs of operating that fire department are already completely covered by the city. They use average fire calls from prior years with a percentage extra (usually 10%) just to be sure they can fully operate all year long. Any "extra" money the city gets from the County residents is all profit, they already have all their costs covered so it does not matter if they get 1 person or 1,000 people to pay, it is all over and above their costs and pure profit.

 

Yes. The costs of operating WITHIN THE CITY are covered. Not for going outside of the city.

 

all the things that make up a firefighting service are already there for the city, what they "NEED" is the ability to cover expenses to fight fires outside the City, and I agree this is completely reasonable for them to get.

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly. You just don't seem to agree with yourself.

 

They have all the money they need for city fire department from the city taxes, what we are talking about is how much more they need to offer services to other people in the County.

 

But see, according to you, they already have all of the money they need. You said it yourself.

 

even using the fake numbers Joker offered

 

BAHAHA. Yup. The census is a fake load of crap.

 

Someone else had a great point, what if someone was trapped in the burning home? Still just stand there and watch them burn alive?

 

What if the sky exploded? What if the home was made of gingerbread? What if you stopped pretending people are bad because you can make stuff up? Implying they would leave someone to die in a burning building is asinine.

 

During a wild fire firefighters come from all over the place, and even different States to help fight that fire......

 

.....I offered the law in California as an example of how States have and do charge people for starting a fire even accidently (as in this case) that requires the fire department to put that fire out.

 

Actually, you're an uninformed dolt. Also, wrong. CAL FIRE is a state FD. They're required to put fires out on state/federal land, and assist other FDs who require it. Because they're state.

 

On the other hand, your example has nothing to do with this because you proved that you have no clue what you're talking about. City has no obligation to put out a county fire unless said county FD asks for assistance. Which also comes from the PDF. But besides that, no.

 

they will be responding to keep fire from traveling to a covered home even if the original home is not covered so there is no discernable change in cost there either. So where is the higher cost to the city joker?

 

Answer, there is none.

 

If Cranick lived nowhere near anybody else, then they wouldn't have had to respond to a neighbor, thusly making your point moot.

 

Yes, the city should get paid for fighting the fires, I have never said anything other then that

 

But I thought they already had all the money they needed to fight county fires? Why would they need the extra money then? Seems like too much paperwork to go through if it's unnecessary.

 

All states have similar laws kid, stop acting stupid, I showed you the CA law because I know you live there and if that liberal utopia is charging people to fight fires, you can bet everyone is.

 

No, you showed me a flier for a state FD funded by state tax money, not a law. They can charge you because the fire is in the State, and you live in the state and they have the power to make your life a living hell if you don't pay. City can't charge county.

 

The property being private or owned by a government has nothing to do with this

 

And yet you posted a flier for a State FD that has jurisdiction over federal/state property, and only assists elsewhere when asked. Turns out it has everything to do with it. They don't really stop by in the city unless half of LA is ablaze.

 

I do see you again talked about money though, first you say people should not get services for free, then you say the fire department did not need more money, make up your mind kid.

 

No, what I said was:

Basically, he didn't light PUBLIC property on fire, so they had no reason to charge him a dime. He destroyed his own property.

 

Never said they didn't need more. It's that reading comprehension thing we're talking about on the "Go Vote" thread. To quote Samuel L. Jackson, "ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?"

 

-------------------

 

That should about do it.

[timesjoke]

lol, looks like you put a lot of time into that post kid, too bad I didn't waste my time reading any of it once you first admitted you could not take care of yourself and had to go leech off your parents to survive life. Maybe if you were no so lazy you could have worked harder and earned enough money to be an independent person instead of a lazy leech. How long you going to lean on your parents to survive kid? 25? 30? 35? How old is too old to be living at home with mommy and daddy?

 

Understanding something as complex as a City budget requires a little more thought than you are directing at this issue.

 

 

So let me say this simpler this time, maybe you can understand it this time:

 

 

The city already has plenty of money allocated to cover regular expenses for the operation and payroll of the firefighters. What they deserve to get paid for is the "EXTRA" expenses they incur responding to a fire in the County. So what is that cost Joker? Do you know? Can you stop with the personal attacks and tell me in a logical way what extra expenses the fire department will have over and above the basic cost?

 

 

 

 

As I said before, my point was trying to come up with ideas and ways fire fighters could fight fires and not be forced to stand and watch as family homes burn down. You have completely avoided the spirit of the conversation I offered in your need to try and take shots at me like a child. Grow up, if you want to debate things stop trying to make everything about your anger at me and start talking about the actual topic.

[jokersarewild]

lol, looks like you put a lot of time into that post kid, too bad I didn't waste my time reading any of it once you first admitted you could not take care of yourself and had to go leech off your parents to survive life. Maybe if you were no so lazy you could have worked harder and earned enough money to be an independent person instead of a lazy leech. How long you going to lean on your parents to survive kid? 25? 30? 35? How old is too old to be living at home with mommy and daddy?

 

I'm not leeching off of my parents, Times. I pay rent. The money I pay more than covers my expenses, as I'm almost never at home. And I never said I couldn't take care of myself. The place I was living raised rent and it was too high because the job I was working at, at the time, wasn't paying enough. So I pay my parents what my rent was before the increase, and I have a better job now, so I can afford gas, car payments, etc. You do realize I'm only 21, right?

 

 

Understanding something as complex as a City budget requires a little more thought than you are directing at this issue.

So let me say this simpler this time, maybe you can understand it this time:

 

 

The city already has plenty of money allocated to cover regular expenses for the operation and payroll of the firefighters. What they deserve to get paid for is the "EXTRA" expenses they incur responding to a fire in the County. So what is that cost Joker? Do you know? Can you stop with the personal attacks and tell me in a logical way what extra expenses the fire department will have over and above the basic cost?

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CDsQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icgov.org%2Fsite%2FCMSv2%2Ffile%2Ffire%2FAppendixGP-023-02IICFDResponseCharges.pdf&rct=j&q=response%20cost%20fire%20engine&ei=rcPZTKa0B4K-sAOej6HwBw&usg=AFQjCNFKJ8Vir-FbQY3Pr_yK6DdEZJUMHA&sig2=-GrIm_aEN9HtLPnrnttZYw&cad=rja

 

Well, check that out. It's a PDF detailing response cost in Iowa. If the cost is anything near that, well, they're getting a bargain.

 

 

 

As I said before, my point was trying to come up with ideas and ways fire fighters could fight fires and not be forced to stand and watch as family homes burn down. You have completely avoided the spirit of the conversation I offered in your need to try and take shots at me like a child. Grow up, if you want to debate things stop trying to make everything about your anger at me and start talking about the actual topic.

 

No, I say you're wrong, you say I'm childish. That seems to be a running thing here, if you haven't noticed.

 

Also, as far as your point there, Obion County has an FD. It's just non-op, unfunded, and unmanned. If the residents actually got off their asses and did something about this, it wouldn't be an issue. But they keep depending on the cities, which is fine, but when a city specifically tells you that you need to subscribe to have your fire put out, and you don't, you get things like this happening.

[timesjoke]

I'm not leeching off of my parents, Times. I pay rent. The money I pay more than covers my expenses, as I'm almost never at home. And I never said I couldn't take care of myself. The place I was living raised rent and it was too high because the job I was working at, at the time, wasn't paying enough. So I pay my parents what my rent was before the increase, and I have a better job now, so I can afford gas, car payments, etc.

 

In my life I was making my own money with a worm farm at 12, worked farms doing tobacco, watermelons, hay, etc... and saved up enough money that when I turned 16 I paid cash for my first Truck. I joined the Army at 18 and have taken care of myself, sometimes working three jobs, ever sense. So when you say life is too hard for you at 21 and you can't make it without your parents helping you I just don't have much sympathy for you to be honest.

 

You may pay rent but it is less than you would pay on your own so you are still leeching off your parents, then there is laundry and food I am sure mommy helps you with that you would have to pay for if you lived on your own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You do realize I'm only 21, right?

 

I asked you what age is too old to be living with your parents in your opinion Joker....so tell me, what age do you think a adult should be out on their own taking care of themselves? 25? 30? Give me a number Joker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I say you're wrong, you say I'm childish. That seems to be a running thing here, if you haven't noticed.

.

 

I have noticed you are still unwilling to consider the concept of how things could be different for the future. You have spent all of your time trying to justify why it is a good thing for firefighters to stand and watch homes burn. For you the only option is to defend what is currently happening instead of trying to discuss how a compromise can be made to both allow fire fighters to fight fires, and also for the city to get enough money to cover expenses.

 

You seem blissfully content with whatever policy a Government sets and if that means a person is trapped in a burning home and allowed to die because they did not pay $75, then so be it, you just don't care because you trust in Government completely and if the bureaucracy says it is okay, then you say it is okay.

[jokersarewild]

I'm not leeching off of my parents, Times. I pay rent. The money I pay more than covers my expenses, as I'm almost never at home. And I never said I couldn't take care of myself. The place I was living raised rent and it was too high because the job I was working at, at the time, wasn't paying enough. So I pay my parents what my rent was before the increase, and I have a better job now, so I can afford gas, car payments, etc.

 

In my life I was making my own money with a worm farm at 12, worked farms doing tobacco, watermelons, hay, etc... and saved up enough money that when I turned 16 I paid cash for my first Truck. I joined the Army at 18 and have taken care of myself, sometimes working three jobs, ever sense. So when you say life is too hard for you at 21 and you can't make it without your parents helping you I just don't have much sympathy for you to be honest.

 

You may pay rent but it is less than you would pay on your own so you are still leeching off your parents, then there is laundry and food I am sure mommy helps you with that you would have to pay for if you lived on your own.

 

At this point at my current income, I'd have to find a roommate to move out with. I admit that I'm poor.

 

And I'm not saying "life is hard" or "woe is me". I'm simply explaining my situation. We grew up differently, in different areas, different experiences, different lives. I don't want your sympathy, Times.

 

I still don't leech off my parents, Times.

 

You do realize I'm only 21, right?

 

I asked you what age is too old to be living with your parents in your opinion Joker....so tell me, what age do you think a adult should be out on their own taking care of themselves? 25? 30? Give me a number Joker.

 

That's dependent on your situation. In my current situation, I don't want to live here too much longer. But at the moment, I don't have much of a choice. The only guy I trust enough to be a roommate is helping support his family until his G-pa's house is getting built, then he's getting the hell out.

 

No, I say you're wrong, you say I'm childish. That seems to be a running thing here, if you haven't noticed.

.

 

I have noticed you are still unwilling to consider the concept of how things could be different for the future. You have spent all of your time trying to justify why it is a good thing for firefighters to stand and watch homes burn. For you the only option is to defend what is currently happening instead of trying to discuss how a compromise can be made to both allow fire fighters to fight fires, and also for the city to get enough money to cover expenses.

 

You seem blissfully content with whatever policy a Government sets and if that means a person is trapped in a burning home and allowed to die because they did not pay $75, then so be it, you just don't care because you trust in Government completely and if the bureaucracy says it is okay, then you say it is okay.

 

I already said that there is an FD, so if the residents got off of their asses and (A) did a little work, or (B) yelled at the county, they would have an operational FD and this would be a nonissue.

 

If I saw a way for them to get back the after-the-fire charges they attempt to collect, then they could just do that. There are plenty of things that could be done for the future. Hell, I'm sure if the collection rate was higher they wouldn't be as anal about the subscription.

 

Also, you're still demonizing the FD for something that didn't happen, and assuming they don't value human life.