Turns out that cutting the fire fighting and police budgets means that the response to wild fires is less effective and looting is harder to control.
Surprising.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-02/wildfire-tests-police-force-in-colorado-anti-tax-movement-s-home.html
Thank god for federal funding to deal with disaster areas.
Low tax states have always relied on the feds to make up the difference. It's part of the ideology of rugged individualism.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 03, 2012, 08:42:24 PM
Low tax states have always relied on the feds to make up the difference. It's part of the ideology of rugged individualism.
:lol:
Well that and oil :Texas:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 03, 2012, 08:42:24 PM
Low tax states have always relied on the feds to make up the difference. It's part of the ideology of rugged individualism.
Not "always". Federal revenue sharing really is a fairly recent development.
Low taxes are never better. History has taught us this lesson. Also, Victoria.
They chose to live in wild fire country.
Quote from: The Brain on July 04, 2012, 02:55:46 AM
They chose to live in wild fire country.
Heh, was that Arkestra? ITS NOT MY FAULT THEY LIVE IN FIRE ALLEY WHY SHOULD INSURANCE COVER THEM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 04, 2012, 10:17:37 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 04, 2012, 02:55:46 AM
They chose to live in wild fire country.
Heh, was that Arkestra? ITS NOT MY FAULT THEY LIVE IN FIRE ALLEY WHY SHOULD INSURANCE COVER THEM
Know your Languish meme. :rolleyes:
That was Hamilcar.
But yeah, they chose to vote for idiots who wanted to cut funding for public services. I have no pity for red states and people who vote Republican. They can all burn.
Quote from: Jacob on July 03, 2012, 07:50:49 PM
Turns out that cutting the fire fighting and police budgets means that the response to wild fires is less effective and looting is harder to control.
Surprising.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-02/wildfire-tests-police-force-in-colorado-anti-tax-movement-s-home.html
That's pretty alarming. Something needs to be done about this. How about some tax cuts?
Unfortunately the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to bear firefighting equipment. :(
Tax cuts and deregulation means you can create your own for-profit fire department if you don't want to burn. It's far more efficient than state-run fire fighting.
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:19:58 AM
But yeah, they chose to vote for idiots who wanted to cut funding for public services. I have no pity for red states and people who vote Republican. They can all burn.
Yeah, governments in Louisiana, Mississippit and Alabama were always the biggest proponents for reducing their own state Emergency Management services and their elected officials sent to DC the most anti-government (read: voting against more money for FEMA, because GUVMINT IS TEH BAD). Except when their asses get hit by hurricanes.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 04, 2012, 10:45:09 AM
Tax cuts and deregulation means you can create your own for-profit fire department if you don't want to burn. It's far more efficient than state-run fire fighting.
Next time they get blasted with a hurricane, oil spill, tornado system or wildfires of biblical proportions, fuck centralized Emergency Management response plans; let the local churches do it with blood drives and bake sales.
I guess this means we all agree now that Katrina was the local's fault too? :)
Our local fire department want to change the tax scheme because the fire department is paid by city property tax and 45% of their calls come from outside the city. So they wish to switch over to a sales tax so some of them will at least pay a little bit.
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:19:58 AM
But yeah, they chose to vote for idiots who wanted to cut funding for public services. I have no pity for red states and people who vote Republican. They can all burn.
But if we find there are 100 Democrat voters should we not save them?
What if there are 50?
10?
If there is one democrat voter should we not save them?
Quote from: Josephus on July 04, 2012, 01:22:32 PM
But if we find there are 100 Democrat voters should we not save them?
What if there are 50?
10?
If there is one democrat voter should we not save them?
:D
The biggest problem we have fighting fires atm is the lack of aircraft. A couple of crashes a while ago got people spooked about the planes and choppers used to drop water and chems on them, and fires in the mountains are often impossible to reach on land.
The feds grounded a large percentage of them. I heard they thought they weren't as effective, they had safety concerns, environmentalist groups were complaining about the chemicals, or it was budget cuts. I don't know which is the real reason, but I could put a probability on it.
The local fire departments and not tasked with taking care of a burning national forest. That's not what they are built for, and there's no realistic budgetary increase they could get that would make up that capacity.
Take off and soak it from orbit.
Quote from: DGuller on July 04, 2012, 10:26:28 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 03, 2012, 07:50:49 PM
Turns out that cutting the fire fighting and police budgets means that the response to wild fires is less effective and looting is harder to control.
Surprising.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-02/wildfire-tests-police-force-in-colorado-anti-tax-movement-s-home.html
That's pretty alarming. Something needs to be done about this. How about some tax cuts?
:lol:
Quote from: Jacob on July 03, 2012, 07:50:49 PM
Turns out that cutting the fire fighting and police budgets means that the response to wild fires is less effective and looting is harder to control.
Surprising.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-02/wildfire-tests-police-force-in-colorado-anti-tax-movement-s-home.html
Not to take issue too much, but...I was recently listening to a speaker that was discussing how the effectiveness of wild fire containment has rather dramatically altered US ecology. It seems that wildfires were much more common before the modern age and forests went through a cycle of burning and regrowth. We've broken the cycle, and the wildlife that thrives now isn't the same as before.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 04, 2012, 12:41:31 PM
I guess this means we all agree now that Katrina was the local's fault too? :)
No, just their suffering.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 04, 2012, 03:07:56 PM
The biggest problem we have fighting fires atm is the lack of aircraft. A couple of crashes a while ago got people spooked about the planes and choppers used to drop water and chems on them, and fires in the mountains are often impossible to reach on land.
The feds grounded a large percentage of them. I heard they thought they weren't as effective, they had safety concerns, environmentalist groups were complaining about the chemicals, or it was budget cuts. I don't know which is the real reason, but I could put a probability on it.
The local fire departments and not tasked with taking care of a burning national forest. That's not what they are built for, and there's no realistic budgetary increase they could get that would make up that capacity.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7888.msg439222.html#msg439222