Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irish Times Tea Party Article
Options
Comments
-
More paranoid conspiracy theory.
The Auto industry is being (I believe) re-privatised and at a PROFIT to the tax payer. So the Obama administration helped the auto industry in a time of crisis, saved countless jobs, forced them to rethink their strategy, re-privatised them and recooped the money invested by the tax payer.
Wall Street - Right so unchecked financial shenanigans by greedy bankers caused one of the greatest financial crisis the modern western world has seen. Yet the same people who wanted the banker's heads on a plate, and who complain loudest about the wall street bail out accuse obama of taking control of the banks because he wants to put in place REGULATION that stops their unchecked greed from destroying the lives of innocent people again?
Health care - So trying to make sure that Health Insurers don't rip people off as they have been doing for a long time and that 30 million people don't go wihtout basic health care in the most powerful country in the world is too much government control?
Your paranoia of government takeover is nowhere near the actual reality. You're slipping way down the rabbit hole there Alice. Stop watching Glenn Beck and allow your brain to heal a little.
I don't know why I bother on this website. Your type is so dismissive and it's ironic that you label me as a conspiracy theorist.
Auto Bailout - The govt has no right to use tax payer money to fund a private industry. It allows inefficient, inept and unprofitable companies to continue trading when they should be bankrupt. They may be "profitable" now but at what cost? And what about their future profitability? And no, he hasn't recouped all the tax payer money.
Wall Street - the problems on wall street emanate from the cosy relationship between the govt, fed reserve and big banks. govt policies manipulate the market and create perverse incentives for the market participants. The profits are privatised and the losses are socialised. No wonder big banks won't change their behaviour - they have no incentive to. Govt regulation is only going to create more perverse incentives.
Health Care - nobody doubts that the health care system was broken but BHO has swung the pendulum too far the other way. Any govt involvement in the market is going to create perverse incentives as I mentioned above. Look at all the regulations that prevented the market from operating freely in the first place, e.g. the way competition between insurers is banned across state lines; or the massive insurance premiums doctors have to pay because of the legal industry and their similarily cosy relationship with govt.
Look at anything the govt runs. Look at how it always fails or costs too much or infringes on people's liberty.
Seriously STFU with your Beck and Palin pigeon-holing. Who do you think you are? I think you have no idea about what you're talking about.0 -
So you say, while you be ironically dismissive?I don't know why I bother on this website. Your type is so dismissive and it's ironic that you label me as a conspiracy theorist.
Actually they must have the right, or the Attorney General and/or the Supreme Court would have put a stop to it right quick. Though I happen to agree with you, both Bush and Obama enacted policies that went against Capitalist principles. Unfortunately, this probably had everything to do with competing economic superpowers.Auto Bailout - The govt has no right to use tax payer money to fund a private industry. It allows inefficient, inept and unprofitable companies to continue trading when they should be bankrupt. They may be "profitable" now but at what cost? And what about their future profitability? And no, he hasn't recouped all the tax payer money.
This I don't follow. So we should de-regulate the banks so they can continue in their deceptive credit-lending practices? We should de-regulate Wall Street? Dissolve the SEC? I would ask you to think through this point, because I don't see it at all.Wall Street - the problems on wall street emanate from the cosy relationship between the govt, fed reserve and big banks. govt policies manipulate the market and create perverse incentives for the market participants. The profits are privatised and the losses are socialised. No wonder big banks won't change their behaviour - they have no incentive to. Govt regulation is only going to create more perverse incentives.
You're mentioning a lot of Special Washington Relationships without a lot of supporting evidence. You're also citing problems with healthcare that are being amended.Health Care - nobody doubts that the health care system was broken but BHO has swung the pendulum too far the other way. Any govt involvement in the market is going to create perverse incentives as I mentioned above. Look at all the regulations that prevented the market from operating freely in the first place, e.g. the way competition between insurers is banned across state lines; or the massive insurance premiums doctors have to pay because of the legal industry and their similarily cosy relationship with govt.
Yeah those ****ing postmen patrolling outside my house 6 times a week... Or that Medicare or Social Security that NOBODY (not even you) seem willing to shut down. They all love to moan about them, but if I asked you if it was time to shut them down, nobody would shut down Medicare, and nobody would put postal workers out of work like that. Nobody wants to wind down 2 foreign wars either. Its all a sham.Look at anything the govt runs. Look at how it always fails or costs too much or infringes on people's liberty.0 -
Memnoch, veritable, could you try to be more polite?
moderately,
Scofflaw0 -
Fair enough.0
-
I spent some months in the States recently and I have first hand experience of the tea party. the image that is created of them in the media here is not an accurate reflection. obviously nothing i say here is going to change your preformed opinion.
I'm from the US, and the European media is not half as scathing as they should be. But given the problems in the eurozone, they have enough on their plate right now.it's about small govt, personal and fiscal responsibility and civil liberty.
There where were you when Bush passed:
* The Patriot Act
*The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
*The Government Behemoth that is the Department of Homeland Security
Not to mention that for a movement that claims to want to return to the values of the Constitution, where were you when Bush and Chaney in particular were increasing the power of the Executive branch?How do they disproportionately benefit from SS or Medicare? Surely they are the ones who should get the most from it, seeing as they've paid into it for most of their working lives?
Why does the race of the people matter? The tea party is explicitly in favour of all skin colour. Not like the National Black Caucus, for example, that is restricted to blacks only.
You don't see the irony of a movement that is allegedly based on limited government gleefully cashing in on Social Security and Medicare? Social Security and Medicare entitlements are what contribute to government spending FAR more than discretionary spending, and both programs are ticking time bombs given the demographic changes of the country. If Tea Partiers are really serious about fiscal prudence, then there have to be cuts in Medicare and Social Security entitlements.
I will also add that as a 30-something I find it sickening that there are so many in their 50s and 60s who consistently vote themselves lower taxes - thus underfunding entitlement programs - yet want unlimited benefits. Since these programs are pay-as-you-go, these people are sticking the folks my age with a bill for programs that we will probably never have access to.
Ultimately they paid in at a rate that will come nowhere near covering what they have voted to get out of it. And then they have the nerve to holler about 'big government'. It is the sheer hypocrisy of this position that drives me crazy.Wall Street - the problems on wall street emanate from the cosy relationship between the govt, fed reserve and big banks. govt policies manipulate the market and create perverse incentives for the market participants. The profits are privatised and the losses are socialised. No wonder big banks won't change their behaviour - they have no incentive to. Govt regulation is only going to create more perverse incentives.
Ask yourself this: why does Canada's banking system not have the problems of our banking system. Because their government actually regulates the banks. Regulation does not have to create perverse incentives, but not once in the history of finance has a lack of oversight not led to a major banking crisis.Look at anything the govt runs. Look at how it always fails or costs too much or infringes on people's liberty.
Then why are social security and Medicaid universally popular? The problems with these programs stem precisely from the fact that they are so popular that politicians are afraid to change them so they are in line with actual revenues. Seniors certainly don't feel oppressed by Medicare, even if workers my age may.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm assuming you also think the fact well over 90% of Blacks in America who voted are thought to have voted for Obama as evidence that blacks are racist? I dunno, maybe the underrepresentation of Blacks in most areas of politics are part of why so few Tea Partiers are Black.
90% of black voters voted for Al Gore in 2000.
85% for Clinton.
Polls and analysis have shown that in House, Senate, and State elections over the past 20 years the black electorate has many times voted 90% + for Democratic candidates and the trend has been steadily upwards.
So you might want to dispose of that racist talking point.
It's a tribute to the political awareness of black America that they vote for their own economic interests. And that despite being religious and conservative they haven't fallen for the nonsense "culture wars." It shows a basic understanding of politics that many lack.
What, on the other hand, can be said of impoverished, white, Appalachia that was the only region in the country to swing towards the Republicans in 2008?0 -
southsiderosie wrote: »There where were you when Bush passed:
* The Patriot Act
*The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
*The Government Behemoth that is the Department of Homeland Security
Not to mention that for a movement that claims to want to return to the values of the Constitution, where were you when Bush and Chaney in particular were increasing the power of the Executive branch?
What do you mean: "where was I?". I have already stated in this thread how I oppose the big govt ideology that GWB espoused, and similarily, but to a larger degree, BHO. I opposed this even during the GWB administration. Because people like me didn't get together and organise back then, does not mean that we agreed with GWB's policies.
As I said in an earlier post, these people have paid their own money into these programs for years. They are entitled to get something in return. I don't see the irony. However, these programs are unsustainable in the long term. Most of the tea party people are intelligent and they advocate a phasing out of these programs.You don't see the irony of a movement that is allegedly based on limited government gleefully cashing in on Social Security and Medicare? Social Security and Medicare entitlements are what contribute to government spending FAR more than discretionary spending, and both programs are ticking time bombs given the demographic changes of the country. If Tea Partiers are really serious about fiscal prudence, then there have to be cuts in Medicare and Social Security entitlements.I will also add that as a 30-something I find it sickening that there are so many in their 50s and 60s who consistently vote themselves lower taxes - thus underfunding entitlement programs - yet want unlimited benefits. Since these programs are pay-as-you-go, these people are sticking the folks my age with a bill for programs that we will probably never have access to.
I think you are wrong when they say they want unlimited benefits. I have never heard or read of a tea party member saying this. But these liberal social programs should never exist in the first place. They are created with mainly good intentions but they have almost exclusively failed miserably and society is by far worse off as a net result.Ask yourself this: why does Canada's banking system not have the problems of our banking system. Because their government actually regulates the banks. Regulation does not have to create perverse incentives, but not once in the history of finance has a lack of oversight not led to a major banking crisis.
The difference between the Canadian banking system and the US system is simple: direct governmental manipulation in the market and political relationships with big banks. Congress mandated that banks lend to low-income people who were normally refused credit. Congress said that this was discrimination so banks were forced to lend to people who were unlikely to pay back the full amount. When the housing market crashed, these people all started to default and the rest is history.
Also look at Fannie May and Freddie Mac. This is a govt run financial institution that creates severe distortions in the market.
Big banks and big govt work together to create favourable regulations. Goldman Sachs was one of BHO's biggest donors for example. When the banks fail, they get bailed out and don't have to suffer the consequences. They never learn as a result.0 -
What do you mean: "where was I?". I have already stated in this thread how I oppose the big govt ideology that GWB espoused, and similarily, but to a larger degree, BHO. I opposed this even during the GWB administration. Because people like me didn't get together and organise back then, does not mean that we agreed with GWB's policies.
Must be easy, to retrospectively oppose the big government ideology that Bush presided over.0 -
-
Great argument. :rolleyes:
Do you know what, it is. For all your talk of not supporting Bush's policies the fact is that you, and those who actively support the teabaggers did not make a peep about any of the former administrations policies, not a single opposing voice. Anyone who dared question the likes of homeland security were portrayed as unpatriotic anti-Americans.0 -
Advertisement
-
Do you know what, it is. For all your talk of not supporting Bush's policies the fact is that you, and those who actively support the teabaggers did not make a peep about any of the former administrations policies, not a single opposing voice. Anyone who dared question the likes of homeland security were portrayed as unpatriotic anti-Americans.
First off, why do you think BHO won so easily in 2008? Why do you think the Dems got such a majority in 2006? The US was fed up with GWB and his big govt policies. BHO marketed himself as somebody who would be completely different, someone who would bring "change". BHO is a master deceiver and the people only realised this shortly after he became pres. The people organised and formed the tea party before BHO made the country bankrupt.
Secondly, I see you are conveniently ignoring my arguments put forth in previous posts. All you seem to be able to come up with is the hypocracy of the tea party. How lame. Come on, try harder.
Thirdly, reported for use of the tea bagger term. Typical tactic of having nothing worthwhile to say.0 -
First off, why do you think BHO won so easily in 2008? Why do you think the Dems got such a majority in 2006?
This still does not explain why, if the likes of yourself thought that Bush was doing such a piss-poor job that you, or those who thought like you made no effort to go out and protest, or even voice your opinion.
If you argue that the electorate voted the Repubs out because of their poor job, then surely by the same logic you can wait to the next election and make your protest against Obama?0 -
This still does not explain why, if the likes of yourself thought that Bush was doing such a piss-poor job that you, or those who thought like you made no effort to go out and protest, or even voice your opinion.
You're making my point. BHO was elected on the back of the anti-Bush sentiment. There was no need to organise because BHO painted himself as the opposite of GWB and the people believed BHO when he made promises to them. The people's opinion was voiced in BHO's election.If you argue that the electorate voted the Repubs out because of their poor job, then surely by the same logic you can wait to the next election and make your protest against Obama?
That is one option, but that is a full 2 years away. In 2 years BHO has made the govt the biggest in US history, and tripled the deficit. He has continuously ignored the public's opinions when it came to auto bailouts, wall st and healthcare. The US cannot afford to wait another 2 years. That is why the tea party formed.0 -
And the Tea Party is planning to reduce the deficit by two thirds in less than two years... how?In 2 years BHO has made the govt the biggest in US history, and tripled the deficit. He has continuously ignored the public's opinions when it came to auto bailouts, wall st and healthcare. The US cannot afford to wait another 2 years. That is why the tea party formed.0 -
You're making my point. BHO was elected on the back of the anti-Bush sentiment. There was no need to organise because BHO painted himself as the opposite of GWB and the people believed BHO when he made promises to them. The people's opinion was voiced in BHO's election.
That is one option, but that is a full 2 years away. In 2 years BHO has made the govt the biggest in US history, and tripled the deficit. He has continuously ignored the public's opinions when it came to auto bailouts, wall st and healthcare. The US cannot afford to wait another 2 years. That is why the tea party formed.
So Bush had 2 terms, 8 years and there is not a word, he leaves a gigantic deficit mess, the US languishing in 2 foreign wars and in the depths of a recession. Yet within one year of Obama taking office, anger levels rise to unbelievable proportions, and all of a sudden there is an urge to protest.
Fox news might get away with that nonsense in the states but I doubt it will fly here.0 -
What do you mean: "where was I?". I have already stated in this thread how I oppose the big govt ideology that GWB espoused, and similarily, but to a larger degree, BHO. I opposed this even during the GWB administration. Because people like me didn't get together and organise back then, does not mean that we agreed with GWB's policies.
And yet so many people saw fit to mobilize within a year of Obama being elected to oppose big government programs. Ask yourself: why did the mass mobilization magically happen when a democrat was in the White House, even though his Republican predecessor spent eight years expanding both the budget and the power of the federal government?As I said in an earlier post, these people have paid their own money into these programs for years. They are entitled to get something in return. I don't see the irony. However, these programs are unsustainable in the long term. Most of the tea party people are intelligent and they advocate a phasing out of these programs.
"Phasing out". Nice. They drain the pond for themselves, and leave everyone else with the scum. If they are so opposed to government programs, then why are they claiming the benefits? And why do they oppose any and every effort to reform these programs? Sarah Palin's 'death panel' rabble rousing was a particularly shameful episode in this regard.I think you are wrong when they say they want unlimited benefits. I have never heard or read of a tea party member saying this. But these liberal social programs should never exist in the first place. They are created with mainly good intentions but they have almost exclusively failed miserably and society is by far worse off as a net result.
Failed by what standards?
1. Medicare and Social Security are extremely popular.
2. Social Security in particular has had an appreciable effect on the lives of senior citizens in the US, who prior to its creation were more likely to live in poverty than any other demographic group. If you don't believe me about how important social security and later Medicare have been for seniors, read Andrea Campbell's book How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State; seniors were political non-entities before the creation of entitlement programs.
I think you can call these programs failures in that as they are currently constructed they are unsustainable, but they are not inherently bad or failed policies. The problem is that nobody has the political will to take on seniors, and when policymakers try to have an honest conversation about restructuring them, they are accused of wanting to form "death panels" (see above comments).The difference between the Canadian banking system and the US system is simple: direct governmental manipulation in the market and political relationships with big banks. Congress mandated that banks lend to low-income people who were normally refused credit. Congress said that this was discrimination so banks were forced to lend to people who were unlikely to pay back the full amount. When the housing market crashed, these people all started to default and the rest is history.
Also look at Fannie May and Freddie Mac. This is a govt run financial institution that creates severe distortions in the market.
Big banks and big govt work together to create favourable regulations. Goldman Sachs was one of BHO's biggest donors for example. When the banks fail, they get bailed out and don't have to suffer the consequences. They never learn as a result.
So poor people are the cause of the financial meltdown? Wall Street only donates to Democrats? Look at the polling going into the 2008 elections - why would Goldman back a losing horse?
Why do you think the Wall Street Journal, CNBC, and other business press point the finger at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and community banking programs? Because the banks and their media representatives worked hard during the Clinton administration to dismantle the Depression-era banking regulations that prevented the kinds of practices that are - once again - wreaking havoc on the American economy. And they are desperately trying to distract attention elsewhere in order to avoid regulation of their own behavior. Based on your comments, their strategy is working.
I'll also add that bad loans would be less of a threat to the economy if mortgage brokers could not simply bundle off liability for these mortgage "assets" to someone else, nor if regulations not been lifted on banking mergers, thus creating two key problems: 1) they created monstrosities that were too big to fail and 2) they wore away at the social norms that helped regulate lending to homeowners. Why would anyone in the last decade treat their house as anything but another investment that one could let appreciate or dump depending on their financial situation? Mortgages were commodotized, and thus housing went from something that you saved for, were carefully screened for, and then settled into for years to something that you treated like a penny stock gone bad. The current problems with banks and housing markets are a direct result of two decades of deregulation (led by the Reagan Administration and furthered by the Clinton Administration) and the commodification of what was once every American family's most sacred asset.0 -
southsiderosie wrote: »I'm from the US, and the European media is not half as scathing as they should be. But given the problems in the eurozone, they have enough on their plate right now.
There where were you when Bush passed:
* The Patriot Act
*The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
*The Government Behemoth that is the Department of Homeland Security
Not to mention that for a movement that claims to want to return to the values of the Constitution, where were you when Bush and Chaney in particular were increasing the power of the Executive branch?
You don't see the irony of a movement that is allegedly based on limited government gleefully cashing in on Social Security and Medicare? Social Security and Medicare entitlements are what contribute to government spending FAR more than discretionary spending, and both programs are ticking time bombs given the demographic changes of the country. If Tea Partiers are really serious about fiscal prudence, then there have to be cuts in Medicare and Social Security entitlements.
I will also add that as a 30-something I find it sickening that there are so many in their 50s and 60s who consistently vote themselves lower taxes - thus underfunding entitlement programs - yet want unlimited benefits. Since these programs are pay-as-you-go, these people are sticking the folks my age with a bill for programs that we will probably never have access to.
Ultimately they paid in at a rate that will come nowhere near covering what they have voted to get out of it. And then they have the nerve to holler about 'big government'. It is the sheer hypocrisy of this position that drives me crazy.
Ask yourself this: why does Canada's banking system not have the problems of our banking system. Because their government actually regulates the banks. Regulation does not have to create perverse incentives, but not once in the history of finance has a lack of oversight not led to a major banking crisis.
Then why are social security and Medicaid universally popular? The problems with these programs stem precisely from the fact that they are so popular that politicians are afraid to change them so they are in line with actual revenues. Seniors certainly don't feel oppressed by Medicare, even if workers my age may.
Why shouldnt they get SS? They've been putting money into it all their lives. I dont think I'll see a cent of the SS [tax!] I've put in.
Are they popular? I thought the government just liked to take out big chunks of your paycheck to go and invest for a while, collect the interest and then theoretically [time will tell] give you back your money they borrowed off you.
You are thirty. They are sixty. THe young have to pay for the old. The healthy have to pay for the sick. The rich have to pay for the poor. That is the legacy of FDR.0 -
metrovelvet wrote: »Why shouldnt they get SS? They've been putting money into it all their lives. I dont think I'll see a cent of the SS [tax!] I've put in.
Are they popular? I thought the government just liked to take out big chunks of your paycheck to go and invest for a while, collect the interest and then theoretically [time will tell] give you back your money they borrowed off you.
You are thirty. They are sixty. THe young have to pay for the old. The healthy have to pay for the sick. The rich have to pay for the poor. That is the legacy of FDR.
They are extremely popular programs. I gave a reference in my earlier post.
What I find difficult to stomach is that seniors make reforms to programs like social security and Medicare impossible, yet consistently vote to lower their own taxes. If they had to meet the full cost of what they have voted for themselves for the last 25 years, the current situation would be less dire. Part of the problem is that young Americans do not vote at the rates that seniors do (although ironically the Campbell book points out that it was the creation of social security that gave seniors the leisure time to get deeply involved in politics). But politicians won't say no to seniors, even though elderly entitlement programs are the biggest black hole in the federal budget.
As for FDR, when he created these programs, they were not meant for people to draw from them for 20+ years, and they covered a relatively low percentage of the workforce.0 -
southsiderosie wrote: »They are extremely popular programs. I gave a reference in my earlier post.
What I find difficult to stomach is that seniors make reforms to programs like social security and Medicare impossible, yet consistently vote to lower their own taxes. If they had to meet the full cost of what they have voted for themselves for the last 25 years, the current situation would be less dire. Part of the problem is that young Americans do not vote at the rates that seniors do (although ironically the Campbell book points out that it was the creation of social security that gave seniors the leisure time to get deeply involved in politics). But politicians won't say no to seniors, even though elderly entitlement programs are the biggest black hole in the federal budget.
As for FDR, when he created these programs, they were not meant for people to draw from them for 20+ years, and they covered a relatively low percentage of the workforce.
Thats true and the lifespan is increasing. They better start confiscating more of your money because you will probably lie to 85 or so.0 -
metrovelvet wrote: »Thats true and the lifespan is increasing. They better start confiscating more of your money because you will probably lie to 85 or so.
How can you support a social security system without having any awareness of the necessity to raise taxes? You don't see the contradiction? For someone who allegedly reads Shakespeare et all, you seem to have a wonderful ability to deny reality.0 -
Advertisement
-
southsiderosie wrote: »They are extremely popular programs. I gave a reference in my earlier post.
What I find difficult to stomach is that seniors make reforms to programs like social security and Medicare impossible, yet consistently vote to lower their own taxes. If they had to meet the full cost of what they have voted for themselves for the last 25 years, the current situation would be less dire. Part of the problem is that young Americans do not vote at the rates that seniors do (although ironically the Campbell book points out that it was the creation of social security that gave seniors the leisure time to get deeply involved in politics). But politicians won't say no to seniors, even though elderly entitlement programs are the biggest black hole in the federal budget.
As for FDR, when he created these programs, they were not meant for people to draw from them for 20+ years, and they covered a relatively low percentage of the workforce.
The seniors themselves deserve to get money from Social Security. They paid into it their whole lives and should continue to receive payments. This is the point I'm trying to make. Of course they don't want to lose any benefits. If you were forced under threat of jail to pay your hard-earned money into a government scheme, you would want to see a return.
The tea party advocates a phasing out of social security. how this would be done is a completely different discussion but it can be done and it should be done.
I don't know why the focus is on the supposed hypocrisy of seniors. we've established numerous times why they deserve ss at this point in time.0 -
How can you support a social security system without having any awareness of the necessity to raise taxes? You don't see the contradiction? For someone who allegedly reads Shakespeare et all, you seem to have a wonderful ability to deny reality.
Im fully aware of it. That's why they need to start confiscating more money.0 -
I guess this town wasn't collecting enough tax or receiving enough state or federal funding?
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.htmlReporter - Jason Hibbs
Photojournalist - Mark Owen
Story Created: Sep 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM CDT
Story Updated: Sep 30, 2010 at 12:31 AM CDT
OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.
A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.
Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.
The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.
This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.
Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
Because of that, not much is left of Cranick's house.
They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.
The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.
"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.
It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.
We asked him why.
He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.
We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.
"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.
Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.
"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."
To give you an idea of just how intense the feelings got in this situation, soon after the fire department returned to the station, the Obion County Sheriff's Department said someone went there and assaulted one of the firefighters.0 -
-
I guess this town wasn't collecting enough tax or receiving enough state or federal funding?
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html
For people in favour of big govt, why is it that they always say the reason the govt programs aren't working is because of a lack of funding? The govt already takes under threat of jail more money than it could ever possibly need from the working man but this never seems to be enough. Incidentally, I believe that fire fighting should be privatised.0 -
-
oscarBravo wrote: »...because not enough houses are allowed to burn to the ground?
Extremely witty and intelligent comment.
But think about it. Why can't the free market provide it? It seems that you hold that everything govt = good while everything privatised = bad? As if profit is something bad?0 -
It could. And if it did, more houses will be allowed to burn to the ground than currently do.Extremely witty and intelligent comment.
But think about it. Why can't the free market provide it?
Are you denying that a market-oriented fire-fighting business would make commercial decisions as to whether or not to put out fires?0 -
I think some county councils in Ireland do charge you if you call out the fire department.0
-
Advertisement
-
They do, but it's a nominal fee to discourage frivolous callouts.metrovelvet wrote: »I think some county councils in Ireland do charge you if you call out the fire department.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGGAgljengsAdvertisement