GRAY: (mocking Cranick’s accent) Even tho’ I hadn’t paid mah seventy five dollahs I thought dey’d put it out… I wanted ‘em to put it out, but dey didn’t put it out.
BECK: Here’s the thing. Those that are just on raw feeling are not going to understand…
GRAY: But I thought they was gonna put the fire out anyway, but it burned down. Dat ain’t right!… What’s the Fire Department for if you don’t put out the fire?! I thought they’d put out mah fire even if I didn’t pay seventy five dollars.
BECK: This is the sort of argument that Americans are going to have.
GRAY: It is.
BECK: And it goes nowhere if you go onto “compassion, compassion, compassion, compassion” or well, “they should’ve put it out, what is the fire department for?”… If you don’t pay the 75 dollars then that hurts the fire department. They can’t use those resources, and you’d be sponging off your neighbor’s resources… It’s important for America to have this debate. This is the kind of stuff that’s going to have to happen, we are going to have to have these kinds of things.
Is this, applauding the loss of a family home, what it means for conservatives to restore honor?
They're not applauding it gratuitously. They're making a causal link between X (person doesn't pay for services) and Y (person doesn't get services).
It's just like insurance — if you don't pay the premiums, you don't get money to rebuild. You can't say "well, the insurance company should give me money to rebuild — because otherwise I won't have a home — and maybe I'll pay this year's premium," because that's not how insurance works. Fire department service based on a subscription fee is a similar concept — it's an insurance policy, really.
I do think that the fire department should've offered the homeowner that they'd put out the fire and bill a service charge. Quite frankly, I think fire departments should be collectively funded so these things don't happen ever.
But Glenn Beck is merely making an unpopular, but valid, statement. No matter what, you have to pay for services to receive them. Whether the federal government should pay from all tax dollars (or state/local gov't, in this case), or whether the department should be expected to fundraise, or whether a subscription fee is okay — that's a policy matter. You should focus on the policy matter, not criticize Glenn Beck for criticizing "something for nothing."
Yes, a person's home was at stake here. And it's tragic. But putting out fires is not free.
Yes, services aren't free, but this:
"I do think that the fire department should've offered the homeowner that they'd put out the fire and bill a service charge."
Is normally how we do business in America. If you don't have insurance, the collision company will still perform the work – but you should expect to be billed for a size-able amount.
What happened here, in their decision to do nothing regardless of the pleas of the homeowner, and the offer to pay for the costs. When they did nothing despite this – that's when they stopped being reasonable people who wanted money for services rendered and started being vindictive dicks.
My thoughts are that even though he did not pay the $75.00 they should have still put it out. If it were Jesus he would have put it out. Oh yeah I know they are not Jesus. Those animals could have been saved and they are makings of Jesus. Everything on this earth came through Jesus Christ himself somehow so you just killed one of Jesus makings. God don’t like ugly and because of their selfishness they will pay.
I absolutely agree with the fire department's decision. Too many people in this country find no fault with using government systems without paying into them. If you do not contribute, you should not receive.
I have to disagree with you. The purpose of services, like that of the fire department, are to ensure the safety of everyone. It's like getting free ER treatment in the hospital, even if you didn't pay your taxes or have insurance – sure, there will be fees later, but at least they help you! Would you still applaud the fire department if, suppose, the fire then spread to neighbors' houses? The department put the ENTIRE COMMUNITY at risk of PHYSICAL DANGER, just to make a point; and that's wrong. They should have put out the fire, and then sent an invoice – and if that didn't get paid, ARREST the people. The "penalty" for not paying fees should not be REVENGE.
So Lenora, what happens when your car breaks down in a small rural town on the way to somewhere heartless people like you live and while you're waiting for your car to get fixed you get raped? Only, you're in a town where police service requires a subscription fee and a cop walks by while it's happening but checks his list only to find out that you haven't paid and says "so sorry". Or what if it's your house that's on fire and you've paid the subscription fee, but the fire department's made a clerical error and they say your not on their list so they don't send out a fire truck and your baby is trapped inside and burned alive. Or your Grandma. Or your poodle. Moron,
Hey Everyone:
There are several issues here:
1) People already pay a "fee" for firefighting in the form of taxes. Taxes are compulsary, not optional. If the city of New York chose to make taxes voluntary, many people would not pay for firefighting… should the city let many of it's houses burn down?
2) Before you answer that you might want to consider the effect that it has on the neighbors…. a burnt down house affect property values all over a certain community… thus having an impact far beyond a single house.
3) People presumably become firefighters because they want to save lives and property. I think its a little disturbing that they stood around. Should we have an EMS fee, where people can opt into ambulance services? Should we let people who are suffering from a stroke… die, because they didn't pay said fee?
The point I am trying to make is that optional taxes… (running government like you run a insurance company) is simple not responsible and good governance. Its bad for everyone.
You'd be surprised the see the number of districts where taxes *don't* cover fire departments. Quite a number of fire departments must fundraise for most, if not all, of their money. A municipality may kick in a bit, but it's not guaranteed.
In this case, I assume that a subscription fee means tax money isn't going to the firehouses, or not enough of it, anyway.
And regarding your EMS point, there actually are EMS fees. They vary by area, and tend to be covered by insurance (sometimes, counties will cover for uninsured members of their county, but not for uninsured individuals who reside outside the county).
You make a good end point, but your #1 and #3 rely on assertions that don't accurately reflect firefighting and EMS services in some parts of the country.
Likening the fire department to an insurance agency is quite frankly a case of apples and oranges. A single individual or group of individuals create an insurance agency for the sake of making a profit, whereas a fire department and the firefighters it employs are put in place to fulfill the public service of putting out fires like this to protect lives and the town/city. If we want to make a proper comparison, we should look at the police force. If someone broke into this house intent on harming the family, would the police not respond to the call if they weren't paid a minimal fee beforehand? Of course they would respond. This doesn't make a statement to the community showing the need to pay this fee, it makes the community question why they're paying these taxes only to have the fire department watch a house burn down, especially one with animals inside it.
Letting that house burn down is not helpful to society. Changing what are traditionally governmental safeguards into goods and services is extremely dangerous. Glenn Beck's scenario places undo trust in the invisible hand and hopes that market forces will resolve the problems if left unfettered.
Beck doesn't understand that often, what is referred to as "the common" good exists because it is the basis upon which a free market system can exist in the first place. If we left houses and businesses the choice of what kind of protections they want, people would be able to opt out of paying taxes that support the war effort. When China invades Somerville, the US military will only defend the homes that paid their War Fee? When Hurricane Shabazz hits Medford, only the select people that paid the Hurricane Fee will get their free housing? And worst of all, this would potentially put a price on public schools, setting the United States back about another 100 years in terms of education opportunities.
There needs to be a degree of organization to deal with problems that are beyond the scope of markets. Letting houses burn and leaving people stranded hurts our economy in the long-term and shrinks the consumer base. The government is here to make sure that every citizen can fill her duty as both a producer and a consumer without hindrance from outside threats.
But it would be the fire departments fault if glenn "forgot" his 75 dollar fee then his house burned. I can not wait for the day this clown is gone. I swear my I.Q. goes down when i hear him speak.
The government does the same thing. They raise taxes this way and that but I bet there taxes don't get raised like ours so what is the difference. They are just as in fault as just us people who pay taxes.
Hey how about everyone quit there jobs and the government can pay all the taxes why we collect free stuff I bet the government would not like that.
In my state the $75 would go on my property tax bill. Pay it or lose your house. We pay $46/month for sewers we don't use. TN must be a tough place to live . What are the schools like?