patrick.net

rewrew7 says

What small business owner, or property developer, chooses to invest in a town that just burnt down, and still has no fire department in its city planning? You would risk your money there?

Well you see in a free market, private fire stations would arise that could out compete the socialist fire stations. These private stations would cost far less because you could simply pay the firemen minimum wage. This also would stimulate the economy because many of these fire stations would become publicly traded companies that are dependent on there being lots of fires. If you really think about it, that would make global warming a good thing because it drives up profits.

However, the real question we should be asking is why did Obama start the fires in the first place?

Abe, eightball, Thomas wong, Bap, Fort Wayne, I'm looking at you. School me. What important piece of the puzzle am I missing here?

sorry I'm late, just seen this.

CaptnShuddup is correct. The danger created by the greeny freaks is the problem behind all huge forest fires.

forestry has been destroyed by greeny freaks.

wood prices are stupid because of greeny freaks.

also note the tons of particals sent into the air by wild fires, while on your way to smog your diesel burning car/truck.

Sending money to help stupid lazy looters in New Orleans pissed me off. The state that was hit the hardest by that same storm needed no help. Guess which state is a liberal mecca.

p.s. only an idiot would think the EPA "allowing" some "controlled burning" is the same as having large swaths of forest cycled so as to have 3 mile breaks between fuel, not 100 yards. idiots.

why do libs want better fire suppression to save American lives and jobs, but refuse to close the border (jobs) or punish murderers (lives)?

I didn't realize Megabucks Whitman was a liberal. With all her billions, she could have hired a US citizen as the help and provided them a living wage?

Rouxben says

What's so wrong with a city burning down? The houses, commercial buildings, etc. can then be rebuilt, which of course means big time job creation!

Unfortunately, this really is how Keynesians think.

Bap33 says

why do libs want better fire suppression to save American lives and jobs, but refuse to close the border (jobs) or punish murderers (lives)?

I am a liberal. I don't want firefighting funding to just give people jobs. I want firefighting funding to prevent fires from killing people and destroying property. You know, sound economics.

I don't refuse to close the border. I don't refuse to punish murderers. I just don't want innocent people on death row for crimes they didn't commit. We've already know beyond any doubt that we killed two innocent people under the death penalty. We probably have killed hundreds if not thousands of other innocent people. Of course, no local or state government is going to want to re-open those cases and let the public find that out.

The border agent murdered by one of Holder's weapons, he was innocent. I'm sure you are ready to storm the gates over that too, right?

It's the 4th of July.

Not the best day to ask Bap to drop all of his extreme right wing bias.

This is true for at least 2 reasons.

I cant argue with that marcus! lol

Bap33 says

The border agent murdered by one of Holder's weapons, he was innocent. I'm sure you are ready to storm the gates over that too, right?

Storm what gates? If a person murders a border agent, that's a crime just like any other murder. Last time I checked, Mexico and the U.S. have an extradition treaty that covers just this thing.

Your point?

Bap33 says

CaptnShuddup is correct. The danger created by the greeny freaks is the problem behind all huge forest fires.

Irrelevant to the topic. The state of the forestry industry in the US has no bearing on the topic of this thread, which is how tax and fiscal policy decisions have affected the response ability of local services. Please deal with the point of the question instead of attempting to deflect.

Bap33 says

The border agent murdered by one of Holder's weapons, he was innocent. I'm sure you are ready to storm the gates over that too, right?

Bap, thanks for commenting but, please, deal with the topic of the thread. It's not about the border, it's not about the EPA, it's not about fire fighting, it's not about murder. Here's the question again:

What would you do? Your choice apparently is to let the city burn or to admit your philosophy is a fraud & hypocrisy based on the unspoken assumption that after youve stripped away all the services and amenities the culture will still come to rescue you. Or can you offer a third?

I'm waiting to be schooled in how great and proper it is, the plan, that strips the local support structure away to the point where a community is unable to protect itself from forseeable problems... And then how does it work into it that it still manages to get saved in the end by socialism, and was this actually the plan all along, unspoken, in all of the 'freemarket' debates and posts - that it was the expectation that it would happen anyway?

Please show me how it was a great choice to gut local services in the run up to this tragedy.

Dan8267 says

Unfortunately, this really is how Keynesians think.

It's true isn't it? Every time theres a tragedy the GDP goes up. When theres an oil spill the damage is ignored and the clean up is counted as a positive... I remember an interesting PR campaign from years ago: "Teach Economists To Subtract" that was spot on. Fortunately it's had some traction over the years and environmental damage and the loss or reduction in productivity is better understood and is being factored in to discussions of fiscal responsibility more and more.

EXCEPT by those who support make decisions based on ideology & magic wishes & personal profit instead of experience & science. Which it seems to me is exactly what happened in CO Springs.

CaptainShuddup says

Well if it were up to me, I'd fire the EPA so that the old tried and true practice of seasonal brush fires may resume to keep over burden in check.

It has already been pointed out that the EPA actually does allow for controlled burns. Meanwhile, there's this story: "Investigations have found that the fire was likely caused by a controlled burn started one week earlier by the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS)." http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3757119

kent,
I did answer above. THe issue at hand is due to a problem created by nanny state EPA big brother liberal horseshit. The effects of liberalism(progressiveism, socialism,communism,leftistism) will not just go away over night and will cost AMerica millions in treasure and lives.

Answer B: Outlaw fire insurance as it sits. Make anyone selling fire insurance show how they plan to help the customer AVOID having a fire cause them loss, rather than responding to the loss after it happens. What I am getting at is this, we currently pay for fire insurance and get zero benifit from doing so unless there is a fire and the investigation shows we deserve to have some help from the insurance provider. It seems more fair to have the insurance companies be pro-active to assure their customers will not have any fire cause them any loss - ever. If there is a fire, at all, then those taking fire insurance premiums should be fined $5,000,000 per fire, until they have taken the steps needed to make sure every structure will never be harmed by fire. Do you agree kent?

kentm says

how tax and fiscal policy decisions have affected the response ability of local services.

um, how can the destruction of the foresters not be part of the equasion? Before there were foresters, wild fires taught people lessons about living in those areas. After there were foresters, more poepl moved up there to work in that industry, and the supporting industires, and it was safer because the foresting made wild fires much more manageable. Along comes the green freaks and all kinds of Gov regualtions on foresters, logging, trucking, OSHA crap, all taking a swipe at the entity that made living in heavy forested areas safer. I don't think it is fair to discount this fact in this discussion. WHen a tooth needs to get pulled because it never got brushed, and it costs $1,000,,, and this all happens after the $2 tooth brush was thrown away,,, do you blame the folks who threw away the tooth brush or the ones who are not in favor of paying $1,000 dental bills for other people?

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Insurance companies used to run municipal fire departments.

winner winner pollo dinner

Bap33 says

I did answer above. THe issue at hand is due to a problem created by nanny state EPA big brother liberal horseshit. The effects of liberalism(progressiveism, socialism,communism,leftistism) will not just go away over night and will cost AMerica millions in treasure and lives.

I love how bap never lets reality or facts trouble him. You really need to stop seeing the liberal boogey man everywhere. It's just not healthy for an adult to think that way. Here's a hint, any time you see a liberal conspiracy (that would be 24/7 but that's a different issue) try following the money and see where it leads.

For example forest fire suppression came from the timber logging industry protecting it's assets. The original fire suppression teams 100 years ago were from the logging industry not government. Government got into fire suppression later to protect timber for the logging industry.

The nanny state department of interior has been allowing natural burns and setting prescribed burns since the 50's. The nanny state forest service has been allowing natural burns and prescribed burns since the 60's. Today even the logging industry is actively managing forests through fires. The problem is it will take decades to undo the accumulation of burnable products from 100+ of fire suppression.

See, realizing the forest fires aren't liberal nanny state bullshit that wasn't so painful was it? One less boogey man to trouble your soul with.

facts, not the liberals best friend. Are you suggesting that the logging industry did not come under fire (huge pun) for clear cutting large tracks? Are you suggesting that fast growth tech resulted in a much shorter cycle time between sapling to harvet, and THAT pissed off the money hungry libs that realized the industry that they seen has toothless hicks busting their ass for a buck would now be able to make real money? (feel free to insert the American based oil fields here).

You know I am right leo, but don't let it bother you. I know I am right, and it don't bother me.

Abolish the EPA, it was created by libs hunting a "boogieman" ... just like AffirmAction. Focus on feeling, not truth or results, and no care as to the cost. Classic libtopian horsepoo

I apologize bap. I always thought you were paranoid. Now I realize you are way on the far side of delusional. After reading your totally incoherent reply I must ask that you please see a mental health professional as quickly as possible.

What in the world does clear cutting, fast growth tech (whatever that is), and now making real money (when did logging not make money huge fortunes have been made in logging?) have to do with forest fire suppression? I don't even have a clue what this is all supposed to mean or how it relates to oil fields or fire suppression. Any one out there speak bap.

The EPA was created by a man called RIchard Nixon. Ever hear of him?

Bap33 says

Focus on feeling

??

Everyone believes what they want to believe, but Bap, you sir (and your fellow "truth seeking" right wingers) have a whole different level of skills in this area.

EPA is evil ? I suppose next you want to argue how corporations don't have enough influence over your thinking or over elections.

Maybe you can tell us how congress should have been more severe with Holder, and how we need to get someone into the attorney generals office that will turn a blind eye to voter suppression ?

Bap33 says

Abolish the EPA, it was created by libs hunting a "boogieman" ... just like AffirmAction. Focus on feeling, not truth or results, and no care as to the cost.

You do realize that the EPA is run by scientist and their publications go through the scrutiny of peer view process. You may like the empirical evidence they present but that doesn't changes facts.
Regulations that are put in place by the EPA are good for business in the long run because the provide sustainability for an industry and also allows for entrepreneurial niche markets to arises.

Use fishing for an example: The EPA regulates fishing to prevent overfishing. This is actually a very good thing for fishermen because ensures the fish populations stay within a sustainable level for years to come. While they may not have the profits as high as they like, they will have a job next year.

I suggest you read John Steinbeck's classic novel Cannery Row before you try to argue about the EPA is evil.

The EPA touched me down there, when I was camping over at its house when I was twelve.

bob2356 says

The EPA was created by a man called RIchard Nixon. Ever hear of him?

Yeah didn't he put a man on the Moon? The only President in history to do so. He chose to do that and the other things, not because they were easy but because he wanted to one up the Libs. He was all like...

"I stole yo thunder! Woo Woo"
"I stole yo thunder! Woo Woo"
"I stole yo thunder! Woo Woo"

Then he got full of him self and sent inspector Clouseau to the Watergate Hotel to break into the Democrat campaign headquarters.

But not before he created the EPA so the government could arrest hippies for burning the American flag, what with the toxic fumes and all.

kentm says

I remember an interesting PR campaign from years ago: "Teach Economists To Subtract" that was spot on.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/I2QHj75Ulmo

So true indeed.

Bap33 says

Make anyone selling fire insurance show how they plan to help the customer AVOID having a fire cause them loss, rather than responding to the loss after it happens.

My insurance company sent an inspector, who recommended trimming some brush back from the house. Well, more than recommended, it was a condition of future insurance. This is in suburban California, not out in the country.

So, yes, this already happens. It is a good idea.

CaptainShuddup says

bob2356 says

The EPA was created by a man called RIchard Nixon. Ever hear of him?

Yeah didn't he put a man on the Moon? The only President in history to do so. He chose to do that and the other things, not because they were easy but because he wanted to one up the Libs. He was all like...

"I stole yo thunder! Woo Woo"
"I stole yo thunder! Woo Woo"
"I stole yo thunder! Woo Woo"

Then he got full of him self and sent inspector Clouseau to the Watergate Hotel to break into the Democrat campaign headquarters.

But not before he created the EPA so the government could arrest hippies for burning the American flag, what with the toxic fumes and all.

Nixon was also the guy who put a 10% import tax on all imports, because the balance of trade was starting to turn against us. Back then we had pragmatic people on both sides.

Can you imagine fighting world war II with the current crop of politicians. At least Obama got Bin Laden. But when Dubya the Shrub was the President, not only did Bin Laden attack us, he kept releasing audio tapes making fun of us ever so often. Despite being the most "powerful" nation on earth-we couldn't do a thing-well except invade the wrong country.

Just get rid of the bloodsucking public employee unions, then there will be enough money for services.

still1bear says

Just get rid of the bloodsucking public employee unions, then there will be enough money for services.

Yes police and teachers are just way overpaid. We could get better people to do those jobs for less.

(although - since the jobs were basically open to the best applicants for the pay and benefits that the unions make possible - I'm not sure I could prove this. Let's just assume that the kind of teacher or cop you get for 60K plus benefits is no different than the one you get for 28K with no benefits. Eventually this will be true and damn it, it will make it easier to ratchet pay down in the private sector too. yippeeeeee. slavery for all !!!)

marcus says

still1bear says

Just get rid of the bloodsucking public employee unions, then there will be enough money for services.

Yes police and teachers are just way overpaid. We could get better people to do those jobs for less.

Let's just assume that the kind of teacher or cop you get for 60K plus benefits is no different than the one you get for 28K with no benefits. Eventually this will be true and damn it, it will make it easier to ratchet pay down in the private sector too. yippeeeeee. slavery for all !!!)

No, let's just assume we eliminate union monopoly on labor (and this applies to private sector employees too). Then break the public employee "right" to negotiate their benefits between them and themselves.

Believe it or not, even the liberal-infested California is moving in this direction (e.g. Chuck Reed pension reform). This will give some more freedom to the *real* slaves (the taxpayers).

evilmonkeyboy says

The EPA regulates fishing to prevent overfishing.

lmao ... someone else take this one please, this guy wont hear me.

bobkent ... or should I say kentbob?
I write like crap. Sorry. In my head it sounds pretty good though. lol

@marcus,
the dudes that worked at AIG were working for those bonuses that Lord Barry "felt" they did not "deserve" .... one day he may "feel" teachers "deserve" less too ... maybe?

still1bear says

This will give some more freedom to the *real* slaves (the taxpayers).

So in other words you think lower pay for everyone, while more goes to the 1% and the 10% is a good thing. I have news for you, the logical conclusion of what you want is everyone gets food stamps and free health care because they just aren't paid enough to live.

Don't forget about prisons too.

Taxpayers pay either way. The difference is less decent middle class jobs in the world you (think you) want. Not to mention actually getting something good for their taxes.

Bap33 says

the dudes that worked at AIG were working for those bonuses that Lord Barry "felt" they did not "deserve"

When I play softball, you don't have to pitch me a big lob as if you think I'm a terrible hitter and you're trying to help me out. Are you on my team or their team ?

CaptainShuddup says

Yeah didn't he put a man on the Moon? The only President in history to do so. He chose to do that and the other things, not because they were easy but because he wanted to one up the Libs. He was all like...

"I stole yo thunder! Woo Woo"
"I stole yo thunder! Woo Woo"
"I stole yo thunder! Woo Woo"

Then he got full of him self and sent inspector Clouseau to the Watergate Hotel to break into the Democrat campaign headquarters.

But not before he created the EPA so the government could arrest hippies for burning the American flag, what with the toxic fumes and all.

LSD day at patnet? So does all of the above mean Nixon is conservative or liberal?

lol ... I'm just watching the game!

The third section of "This American Life" focuses on Colorado Springs; its really worth listening to:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/459/what-kind-of-country?act=3

The attitudes of the residents sort of mystified me: every elected official in the city was a conservative, small-government republican and the residents still considered their city government a tyrannical socialist boondoggle. Almost all of the residents would still rather to obtain services themselves than pay taxes for municipal services, even when the latter was clearly cheaper and better value for money. Just weird.

bdrasin says

Just weird

Propaganda works.