I am just curious to know if a family member was still in the house would the firemen go in and try to put out the fire or would they just let the family member burn along with the house?

AMERICANS, ARE FAT AND STUPID.

I Baltimore, an arsonist torched two houses.  One of the owners had no fire
insurance for some unknown reason.  Should your insurance company pay to
rebuild his house anyway, or allow him to pay the years insurance retroactively
and then rebuild?

If a fee is charged and you fail to pay, why should the rest of the community
pay that fee for you any more than you pay the insurance company to rebuild
his house when he failed to pony up the required fee?

In a similar vein, a water main break caused flooding.  Those folks who elected
not to pay a fee of approximately $25 per year for sewer backup insurance were
not covered by their insurance.  Would you have your insurance company pick
up the 30K that they are out if they only paid the $25 after the flood?  If so,
why purchase insurance at all?  Just let big daddy in the sky pay the bills.  After
all local, state, and federal coffers are flush with cash.  And if they run short,
they can pay overtime to the printers or hire private contractors to help print
more money.

Like why worry about who pays the bills, as long as it is not me. Sort of like
NIMBY.  Build all the wind farms you want, but not in Long Island Sound where
is might interfere with my million dollar yacht.  Way to go, keep voting the rich
to office thinking that they care about the poor and middle class.

Universal fire protection is far more important and a
far more immediate need than universal health care. 
These decision makers should be fired.  There’s a very
simple solution to this issue.  Pay $75 per year or
$25,000 per service visit.  It’s your call.  These
decision makers responsible for the final decision to
not put out this fire should be charged with attempted
manslaughter.  What if an American citizen had died as
a result of this unattended fire?  This is criminal!

i do think it is horrible that people let the house burn and even told others to do so, but has anyone come across this guy’s payment history?  i mean, ‘forgot’ keeps popping up in the headline or lead-in to the story on every article i read.  not one has mentioned if it was the first time he forgot or if he always forgot.  just curious.  still think it is awful, interested in more of the story, though

What a great title, “In a Tea Party World, Firemen Let Your House Burn Down.” The only problem with this sobbing piece is that DEMOCRATS are in charge.

As much as I despise Republicans, I think I’ll vote Republican across the board to express my disgust with the pussified Democrat organization. You gutless worms make me want to puke.

The Christian bible teaches to be good, and mercyful. To watch a families house burn down killing the grandkids Three dogs, and one cat is not a Christian act. Defending such cruel act is evil of the worst kind.

A society and community that ignores the needs of its own, deserve nothing but contempt.

I can’t buy car insurance AFTER the wreck, either.

As such, defending the Tennessee fire fighters is
easy:
http://www.dailyscoff.com/?p=2685

But the actions of the Professional Fire Fighters of
Wisconsin, who seem hellbent on torching the entire
STATE:
http://gravelle.us/content/wi-fire-fighters-way-
worse-tn-firemen

...are entirely inexcusable…

-jjg

The part that people are missing in this story, isn’t that it was sad that the fire department couldn’t have intervened to save the animals, but the point about what happened is the fire department was supported by the taxes of the town and these people did not pay taxes to the town and claim to have forgotten about the $75 Fire Protection Fee.

The community could decide to levee a tax county wide to support the Fire Department and then everyone would be covered. That is largely why we often do things in a group, as left to individual descretion the temptation to not pay their part is too entrenched in people. So when they legally have to pay the fee as part of their taxes no one is left un-protected.

Our country has had a good record over the years for increasing group protection over many of life’s functions. This is why generally Americans don’t turn on their water taps and get a dose of typhoid with their water. Government regulation does work, except when rich people use their money to buy expemptions. Libertarian and Supposed Conservative politics all lead to the same place, regardless of their intention and that place is slavery, abject poverty for the powerless and a society that more resembles the mafia than a government.

However, back to the burning home. The home owner did not pay the fee for the service. He had no expectation of the service unless he is a human leech. We all know people like that. They don’t pay their fees or their taxes, because it is a privelege for us all to live with them—-or not.

I would say that teabaggers and the others who refuse to pay their fair share of taxes and fees but want to free ride on other people’s taxes and fees should not expect to get government services for free. However I would also say that the fire department should not stand by and let someone’s house burn down.

A simple solution to the problem would be for the fire service to have a standing offer to provide services to non-paying freeriders for costs, plus a sizable freerider call out fee,(say $1,000). With a public offer like this the non-paying freeriders would then be responsible for deciding whether or not to call the fire services and the fire could respond to any fire without worrying about unfairly burdening the people who are willing to pay their fair share of taxes or fees.

This issue has nothing to do with the tea party.  This issue has to do with privatizing all governmental agencies, and our elected representative who support it.  In order to understand this one must first understand what a Quasi Government is, and why most of our elected officials support it.

QUASI GOVERNMENT: 

Report for Congress Order Code RL30533
“Time will tell whether the emergence of the quasi government is to be viewed
as a symptom of decline in our democratic government, or a harbinger of a new,
creative management era where the purported artificial barriers between the
governmental and private sectors are breached as a matter of principle”
(Re: summary Section)

Definition of QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL
1: supported by the government but managed privately <a >

Definition of QUASI-LEGISLATIVE
1: having a partly legislative character by possession of the right to make rules and
  regulations having the force of law <a >
2: essentially legislative in character but not within the legislative power or function
  especially as constitutionally defined <quasi–legislative powers>

Definition of QUASI-JUDICIAL
1: having a partly judicial character by possession of the right to hold hearings on and
  conduct investigations into disputed claims and alleged infractions of rules and
  regulations and to make decisions in the general manner of courts <quasi–judicial
  bodies>
2: essentially judicial in character but not within the judicial power or function especially
  as constitutionally defined <quasi–judicial review>

CRS Report for Congress Order Code RL33777
“….Quasi governmental entities may be viewed as a form of privatization because
they are substitutes for fully governmental agencies. They are private vehicles for
achieving a governmentally declared good.77 Policymakers have been attracted to
quasi governmental entities for a number of reasons, including the popular perception
that the private sector is more efficient than government and budgetary constraints….”
(Re: CRS-17)

Several recent Supreme Court separations of powers decisions have noted that there are three, and only three, distinct branches of government; ‘independent’ agencies, therefore, either are in one of the three branches or they are unconstitutional. See Symposium on Administrative Law, The Uneasy Constitutional Status of Administrative Agencies, 36 AM. U.L. REV. 276 (forthcoming 1987) (discussing, inter alia, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951-52, 953 n.16 (1983); Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982) (plurality opinion); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 118-41 (1976) (per curiam)); see also Note, Incorporation of Executive Agencies into the Executive Branch, 94 YALE L.J. 1766 (1985). Of course, this is not a new concern. See, e.g., 1 K. DAVIS, supra note 2, § 2.7.

The Attorney General has stated:
Agencies have no inherent lawmaking powers. They are not creatures of the Constitution. . . .
. . . .
This means we should abandon the idea that there are such things as ‘quasi- legislative’ or ‘quasi-judicial’ functions that can be properly delegated to independent agencies or bodies. . . .
. . . [F]ederal agencies performing executive functions are themselves properly agents of the executive. They are not ‘quasi’ this, or ‘independent’ that.

Address by Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Federal Bar Association, Detroit, Mich. (Sept. 13, 1985). The Justice Department took a similar position in litigation over the constitutionality of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. See Brief for United States at 44-51, Bowsher v. Synar, 106 S. Ct. 3181 (1986) (No. 85-1377).

?
?
?
?

In posters world of hate and bashing and division I bet you would let a whole Tea Party City Burn.. I bet you would even start the fire, just like you are trying to fan the flames of division posting this topic.. Like you know what the Tea Party wants….

Go back to Haterville as you dont know a rasp from a hole in warf…..

Overall, the Tea Party is against public services.  You see, its members consider public services a socialist concept.  To an extent, they are right.  However, do we as a society really want to do away with public services?  No trash pick up, no infrastructure building, no sewage treatment plants, no police and fire departments either. 

What the Tea Party really wants to have happen is to have organizations such as XE (formerly Blackwater) be the new police.  After all, its members believe that privatization of EVERYTHING is the answer to solving all of our societal problems.

Q:  What does a conservative believe is the best way to extinguish a campfire?

A:  Dump gasoline on it.

Who said the TEA PARTY stands for no public services?  If anything, that’s where the money should be going instead of welfare frauds and public art at landfills you libtards.

i like truthdig, but i really do not understand something.  What does this have to do with the tea party?

Gerard and Big B need to take reading lessons.

If you look at this story, the fire service that did nothing was actually operated by the government of the adjacent City with whom the government of the County had sub-contracted a deal.

Just one more Government fail.

The difference between 3rd world nuclear power USA and 3rd world nuclear power Pakistan - in Pakistan your neighbours would help put out the fire without your asking.
America, you give new meaning to “3rd World” - barbaric selfishness. God help you.