Liberal Elitists mocking people from the rural heartland

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jrWEdeGGvw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Typical tasteless liberal elitists. Mocking people from the rural South who have sufered misfortune, in a faux rural accent to top it all off.*

Glenn Beck and his weaselly little sidekick Pat Gray are real class acts. It's pretty funny, also, that they don't seem to understand that NOT putting out a given fire is quite dangerous as fires spread (as that fire did).






*FOR THE HUMOUR IMPAIRED: Glenn Beck & Pat Gray are ultraconservatives. My use of "liberal elitist" is ironic.

That is often true, especially in crowed areas. But was this particular burning house near to another house?

ruveyn

Depends on what your position is.

The FD was 100% correct to NOT put out the fire. Idiot knew he had to pay every year to be covered by city services being offered. That he want's public sympathy to see the town/FD as the bad guy because he CHOSE to not pay the fee is the typical ignorance of people who expect something for nothing.

They couldn't make an exception. They couldn't let him pay the $75 then and there. If they did, as Beck pointed out, then everyone would refuse to pay the fee until they needed the help.

Do some basic math about running a business (and municipal services are a business in that they need money to provide services) and you'd know that a lot of times the community benefits because everyone pays a small amount into a fund that serves those who need it each year. Opting out of that contribution means you waive your right to the benefit.

All a fire department has regarding duty to the uncovered homeowner is to ensure the fire does not spread...which is what they did.

I agree they play the "hick accent" a bit too far.

The correct position in running a business would be to have a higher fee for one time call (like 2K$ for instance)

But, NO, the guy said he was ready to pay whatever they asked, they had 2h before the fire hit the house, but NO

It was a punishement You don't pay, you have to watch your house, your belongings, your lifetime memories and your 3 pets BURN!

There is nothing to defend here

I thought might of been able to do that too but problem with that is it would very hard to collect if the home owner decided not to pay. The firefighterw did the right thing. If people have a problem with it, they should change the law or ordinance or whatever. Maybe they should simply pay the measly $75 fee otherwise they're just accepting the risk. This fire started because he was burning "debris" backyard, he was clearly negligent.

Yes and that other house caught on fire and that's when the fire dept showed up. AFTER the other house caught on fire and a good 20 or 30% of it was aflame.

I think the right thing to do is what nearly every other municipality does: require people to pay for these services in the form of mandatory tax. There are some things that are just too important to be left to user discretion and this is one of them. People should not be allowed to opt out of paying for the fire department any more than they are allowed to opt out of paying for national defense, civil engineering projects or public schools.

Why not put out the damn fire then sue him for the costs? The house was actually worth something before it burned to the ground.

The only thing this incident proves is that money turns people into ass holes. The homeowner was an ass for not paying the $75 and the fire department was an ass for letting $75 prevent them from doing the right thing.

Yea. I sometimes side with the libertarians, but I seriously question the wisdom of allowing people to "opt-out" of emergency services like fire protection. The only case I can see is if someone owns a log cabin way the heck out in the wilderness, something literally so far out of civilization that it would be unlikely that a fire truck would even be able reach it.

Also, if the $75 fee was lumped in with all the other taxes it would be much harder to "forget" to pay it. However, it seems like this guy pretty much admitted that he chose to avoid the payment. Initially he said he "forgot" but then he changed his mind and admitted that he was purposely avoiding it.

The problem is they wouldn't have a case to sue him over since $75 fee was not technically a mandatory tax. My guess is that the some municipality will make it mandatory just to avoid this kind of conflict and negative publicity in the future.

Maybe the folks will pay the dang fee now that they know the fire department means business. I'm willing to bet they've collected a few since this has happened.

Then what was their standing in refusing the service? It was still a fit of pique over $75 by both parties.

There should have been a provision in the law whereby the homeowner could sign an IOU for the entire cost of putting out the fire. That way he would have his house and still not get a "free ride" for failing to pay the fee. The free is just like an insurance premium. If one does not buy the insurance then he has to cover the casualty claim out of his own pocket.

ruveyn

Jacoby, you do know that fires spread, right? And that one man who DID pay the fee got some of his property burned thanks to the fire department's spitefulness.

I'm not even sure if it'd be rational to allow people in the wilderness to go without fire insurance, forest fires can start that way.

The problem is that the homeowner offered to pay ANYTHING to have the fire put out.

Right, and the firefighters refusing the offer was very likely economically inefficient. A two tiered pricing strategy would be perfectly effective. Just charge a protection cost, and a significantly higher immediate service price.

Was it the fire department's spitefulness or the other home owners negligence? Honestly, the home owner who didn't pay and actually started the fire deserves what he gets as a testament to his stupidity. If the insurance company doesn't cover his house I wouldn't be surprised.