Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5.5 Billion for Farmers 100 Mill for Firefighters

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • mongofire_99
    replied
    Dalmation90

    We simply must not cloud the issue with the facts, drives the liberals nuts.

    Oh yeah, nevermind, I just remembered life's not fair!

    Leave a comment:


  • mongofire_99
    replied
    So please stop with all the crap back and forth...I am so tired of it already.

    If you're tired of it, why do you keep at it?

    Even though you didn't answer a single question I asked (except to say life's not fair - a simply brilliant deduction), you just can't help yourself can you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dalmatian90
    replied
    What about the thousands of volunteers that go out west every year to help fight brush fires?

    Thousands?

    Anything near, like, oh, documentation on such a figure?

    Sure you're not thinking about some the of National Fire Crews states like mine (CT) send out? Many of CT's members are also volunteers, since being a small state we don't have a large forestry department. So they have red-carded volunteers -- who go on state payroll once activated, and the State gets reimbursed for their cost by the Feds.

    Kinda appropriate don't you think when the Feds own much if not most of the forest lands out west???

    Leave a comment:


  • mongofire_99
    replied
    hctrouble25

    Get over it already.

    Why should I get over the feds operating outside their role outlined in the US Constitution?

    Just because you think it's OK?

    The feds gave us some money...they do it for the cops, now they are helping us out a bit.

    So, two wrongs make a right?

    I don't think most tax payers have a damn clue where the money goes anyway...

    Probably the smartest thing you've said.

    and is it fair? Nope.

    I say yes. If the taxpayer doesn't know how their money is spent it's not that it's not fair, it's that they don't care.

    Is it right and within the federal governments constitutional authority is another issue and the answer is NO. You have failed to show anyone where welfare for the FD or the farmers or anyone else for that matter is constitutional.

    And you know why?

    Because it isn't.

    Is it fair that we have to get up at 2am to save a guy's house from fire because he fell asleep with a cig in his mouth and it caught his bed on fire? Nope...but we do it anyway don't we.

    Yep, but not because of a fairness issue, but because it's because you CHOOSE to.

    One thing I learned really early on is that LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

    Wow, what a shock.

    So please stop with all the crap back and forth...I am so tired of it already.

    Naw, when I have questions or comments, I have the same priviledge as you to ask or comment.

    Leave a comment:


  • hctrouble25
    replied
    What about the thousands of volunteers that go out west every year to help fight brush fires? I don't think those tax payers are bitching that they had to pay twice to provide equipment to departments out east - since some of those guys came to help them. Get over it already. The feds gave us some money...they do it for the cops, now they are helping us out a bit. I don't think most tax payers have a damn clue where the money goes anyway...and is it fair? Nope. Is it fair that we have to get up at 2am to save a guy's house from fire because he fell asleep with a cig in his mouth and it caught his bed on fire? Nope...but we do it anyway don't we. One thing I learned really early on is that LIFE IS NOT FAIR. You just learn to deal with the knocks and bumps it sends your way. So please stop with all the crap back and forth...I am so tired of it already.

    Leave a comment:


  • mongofire_99
    replied
    I am just saying that the Federal funding helps to provide gym equipment, and other safety equipment that may help to save someone's life...so I see some good in the Feds helping us.

    You can get in and stay in shape for this job and never spend a dime on gym equipment.

    But, that being said, my department has gym equipment in every station. Please explain why should Mrs. Jones who lives next door to the station (and makes awesome goodies for us once a week) should be taxed twice for gym equipment because some city 1,000 miles away doesn't want to or need to provide it for their fire department?

    Why should you pay for unnecessary gym equipment for a department in CA?

    Shouldn't the taxpayers of that community be responsible for ensureing their firefighters are in shape for the job?

    Now, I don't dispute that confiscated money is going to buy some departments safety equipment.

    I do dispute that we need the American taxpayer to have money forcibly taken from them by the federal government to buy it for a department out of city/county or state. The simpler solution would be to cut federal taxes (and increase taxes locally if necessary). I realize this is a futile point to make with you as you don't like the Constitution, but that's what our founding fathers instructed in the Tenth Ammendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (Jesse Jackson Jr. calls this the unequal protection clause)

    We are not doing without this because we cannot afford it. We are doing without because our priorities aren't straight (whether departmentally or local government).

    Federal funding has never improved anyones situation - education, healthcare, crime, housing and so on. The more money the feds throw at it, the worse it gets.

    What makes you think their involvement in the fire service is going to be any different?

    Why should you be forced to pay for somebody elses screwed up priorities?

    Because it's not fair that you have and they don't?

    Why is it your fault that some other community doesn't have their priorities right?

    Make your case, and not with generalized statements, be specific.

    Leave a comment:


  • hctrouble25
    replied
    Mongo, I understand what you are saying and I am not arguing with you..I am just saying that the Federal funding helps to provide gym equipment, and other safety equipment that may help to save someone's life...so I see some good in the Feds helping us..that is all. But yes I agree that some LODDs are not that and should not be treated as such. Sure they should still get a nice ceremony but don't call it a LODD if that is not what it is. My friend passed away several years ago from a heart condition (he was born with an unreparable hole in his heart) and we gave him a hero's funeral but not because he was what we considered an LODD (he passed away in his backyard in another fire fighter's arms), but because to a lot of us he was a hero. He did a lot for the community, and was respected by everyone. So we gave him a ceremony that reflected how we felt about him. But we never called it something it wasn't.

    Bucks - I agree that some cannot keep up..and it is hard to mandate the height/weight with volunteers, but something obviously has to be done when you see the numbers of heart attacks that occur in this job every year. When I say height/weight I don't mean you have to be at least 5' tall and weigh between 110-130 to join or anything like that, I mean height/weight as far as whatever height you are there is a weight requirement for that height....I am 5' 6" I would say my average weight should be 125-140. The guys that are taller would have their requirements just as the shorter guys would too. We have a local gym that offers discounts to all emergency personnel that join...since we can't afford to keep a gym onsite at our firehouse. Either way I think it sucks that people who could prevent themselves from these types of medical conditions don't try to. I quit smoking back in Feb because I saw that it hindered my ability to the job the way I wanted to (Smokers please don't yell at me...there are guys on my department that do a fantastic job and smoke...just for me it didn't work that way). And again, the reason you see more females that can't cut it is because there is a much smaller number of us out there and we stick out in the crowd. If as many women as men were in the fire service you wouldn't notice women not passing as much. It is all in the numbers. I know lots of women that could do the job but they are not interested in this line of work. It is very intimidating for women in a lot of cases to enter into a man's realm like this...I get along with guys, grew up with four older brothers, always played with the guys growing up, would rather throw a football then play barbies, etc. So for me it was no big deal. But a lot of other women are not raised this way and so the fire service does not appeal to them. Hopefully local municipalities will start to take th e fire service more seriously in the coming years as more developments are built, more people populate once rural areas, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • mongofire_99
    replied
    hctrouble

    you don't think that some of these "medical conditions" could have been avoided or resolved had these departments had a stricter physical requirement with regards to weight/height, etc.?

    Yes in fact I do think that.

    But do you think federal money would have forced a department to have stricter physical requirements?

    I ask you again, what have the feds got involved in that they've made better?

    Why would they start here?

    I think the every department should have a gym and that fire fighters should be mandated to be in shape - ie. height/weight.

    Yep, me too. But for those that can't afford gym equipment there are plenty of alternatives besides putting a gun to your head and taking your money.

    And does that make it any less of a LODD if the person was over weight with a risk for heart attack and died after going to call?

    Depends on how you look at it. If he/she was a heart-attack waiting to happen, seems hardly seems fair to call it a LODD doesn't it?

    By the same token it hardly seems fair to call an FD personnel at fault accident responding or returning from a call a LODD(departemnt apparatus or POV). It should be called what it is, an accident that could have been prevented if the operator of the vehicle had driven with due regard for the safety of himself and the public at large.

    But no, we'll call them all LODDs, have a big funeral, get sympathy cards and letters and donations from all across America, put the body in the ground and start talking about what an idiot they were for driving that way before we get back to the house.

    The vast majority of what we call LODDs are only LODDs in the strictest sense of the term - they were on duty and they died, doesn't matter how.

    But it does matter how. Somebody getting killed doing something stupid and getting the same admiration (FLBT) that somebody that was killed doing something brave deserves is a bunch of hogwash.

    And don't try to spin it with it's brave just to go so they deserve it. BS! I see more flat out cowards getting on the trucks everyday. They just wanna ride so they can wave at the girls.

    Anyway...

    Starting with your post on August 17, it seems that you are trying to make the case of using LODD deaths and Bush's statement as at least a partial justification for confiscating more money from the taxpayers of this nation and yet there are VERY FEW LODDs that money in the broadest spectrum have prevented (I can't think of a single one).

    You cannot buy-out stupidity (but you can buy votes).

    Why is it your fault that somebody had a heart attack because they didn't have enough sense to put down the fork and take a little walk, or quit smoking among other things.

    Why is it your fault that Joe Bob wiped out himself and a family of four on the way back from a fire?

    Why is it your fault that one guy in a ladder truck last year decided to try and beat the train after that call and was killed? He jumped the closed crossing arms to do it.

    Why is it your fault that somebody said "hey - watch this" before they did something stupid that ended their life?

    Please explain to the crowd why the independant actions and lifestyle of another person 1,000s of miles away from you is your fault and why you should be forced to pay for their actions.

    [ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: mongofire_99 ]

    Leave a comment:


  • BucksEng91
    replied
    HC -

    Not to stir sh*t up again, but many departments DID have a "...stricter physical requirement with regards to weight/height, etc."

    They were deemed discriminatory in some cases, and in others, the department just cracked under pressure from the PC crowd, therefore allowing less than physically capable people into the service...including a large contingent of females, who could have never passed the more stringent requirements of the past.

    Not trying to pull your chain here, HC. I just thought that what you said is kind of ironic given the forceful arguments that have flown around these forums on the issue of females in the fire service.

    Leave a comment:


  • hctrouble25
    replied
    Mongo you don't think that some of these "medical conditions" could have been avoided or resolved had these departments had a stricter physical requirement with regards to weight/height, etc.? I think the every department should have a gym and that fire fighters should be mandated to be in shape - ie. height/weight. Every police department I know of does this so why shouldn't we? And does that make it any less of a LODD if the person was over weight with a risk for heart attack and died after going to call? I don't think so.

    Leave a comment:


  • BucksEng91
    replied
    It'll be a great day for any tinpot Third World dictator with access to a stolen Russian nuke. It'll be a great day for the Chinese. It'll be a great day for Saddam, who can go back to murdering his own people with impunity.

    Gee, good thing we'll have all those firefighting funds so we can put out the glowing ashes...better include some NBC gear in those purchases...

    Leave a comment:


  • 2203
    replied
    as seen on a bumper sticker- "It will be a great day when the f.d. has everything and the Military has to hold a bake sale!"

    Leave a comment:


  • mongofire_99
    replied
    How about any other year Mongo? I mean if you are going to ask that question lets find out how many actual LODD - during the actual fire - there were.

    Tell you what.

    Between 1977 and 2000, there were 2,776 LODD. Less than 1,110 (40%) were due to something other than a medical condition (heart attack, stroke) or driving accident (to and from). That leaves an average of 48 fatalities a year for duty, training, station details and so forth.

    So here's a little research project so that you can come to your own conclusions based on the facts and not someones opinion.

    Research any year (or years) from that and find out how many died as the result of trauma that occured at the scene of an incident and let us know.

    Should be a piece of cake.

    Leave a comment:


  • BucksEng91
    replied
    Good post, Dal. Excellent analysis.

    Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dalmatian90
    replied
    If the purpose of the FIRE Act was to reduce firefighter (and civilian) injuries, they wouldn't have funded any catergory other than fire prevention.

    Over 20+ years, the *only* factor that has reduced the number of firefighter and civilian deaths due to the fire is a reduction in the number of fires.

    Sorry folks, those are the hard, cold numbers. New trucks, air packs, better bunker gear, PASS alarms, RITs, 2in/2out, NFPA 1500, OSHA, etc have had zip effect on the overall picture -- they may help a specific situation, but overall, nothing's changed.

    1977
    Fires 3,264,000
    Civilian Deaths 7,395 1 per 441 fires
    Firefighter Deaths 157 1 per 20790 fires

    1998
    Fires: 1,755,500 Number of fires decreased 46% since 1977.

    Civilian Deaths: 4,035
    A decrease of 46%, but with 1 death per 435 fires, that's an increase of 1% in rate

    Firefighter Deaths: 91
    A decrease of 40%, but with 1 death per 19291 fires , that's an increase of 7% in rate

    Bottom line -- spend as much money as you want on new stations, trucks, gear, and people. You're still more likely today to die in a fire than 20 years ago. 7% more likely in 1998.

    Fire Prevention *is* the only thing that affects the safety of us and people on a national basis.

    Stats for 1977 to 1998 (I made this page in '99) available at http://www.mortlake.org/Miscfire/LODDStats.htm

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X