"If all fire departments are short handed why doesnt the government produce funds to pay more and keep firefighters?"

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jeremy 588 on August 31, 2009 at 3:31pm

If I'm not mistaken, and I could be, the government does have funds available for staffing through grants. I think it's the SAFER grant somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Loyd Dittfurth on August 31, 2009 at 3:34pm

i dont know im just curious

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on August 31, 2009 at 7:31pm

Ding, ding, ding...WINNER!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ralph L. Carr IV on August 31, 2009 at 5:02pm

Because the govt is too busy handing money out like candy to lazy people who live off of the govt & to stupid greedy auto unions AND companies.


I`m EMS, so I don`t have a good arguement for fire.

Why doesn`t the government reimburse ambulance companies for care given, equipment used and cost of the service? Age old argument. What was a $350 trip 20 years ago, reimbursed $300. Is now a $650 trip ( cost of) and reimbursed $200. Everyone wonders why......Everyone thinks doctors are making a killing at the bank. Hell, their reimbursement has gone down even farther. Instead of socialized medicine, maybe a lil tort reform. Docs are payin out the, you know what, for legal insurance. In a round about way, we ALL are paying for the BS lawsuits.

The govt is busy bailing out greedy auto industry, yet fire & EMS sits, left on the back burner AGAIN......Just plain sad.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff Betz on August 31, 2009 at 5:02pm

You know, I don't care to debate the actual question, but Lloyd asks a good question. Consider how much money the government has handed out to bail-out the auto industry, the financial pigs, and others. Lloyd makes a great point - why not assist (with a pay back note) cities that are getting hit so hard in nearly every direction? I haven't been in favor of the amount of money the government has given out recently, but my point is that assisting to pay for public safety (cops & FF's) is every bit if not more logical than some of the other funds given out with no oversight for repayment.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Loyd Dittfurth on August 31, 2009 at 5:17pm

It will all be ok as soon as they shut down the station that is closest to the white house and they need it. Then they will think about the fire service. Does it always takes a tragety for need to be addressed? 9/11 Katrina I think both of those helped the fire service temporarilly untill somthing new happened on reality tv.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on August 31, 2009 at 7:02pm

It isn't the White House that is the concern. Fire departments are a LOCAL issue, not a Federal....those who should be concerned are the local elected officials who close down their nearest firehouse to their OWN homes.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on August 31, 2009 at 7:00pm

Most basic of answers...the govt just doesn't care

Second basic...many still have a stigma that FF's are overpaid anyway and just sit around playing cards.

Third...The local taxpayer is the one paying for the fire protection and doesn't see the same value placed on fire protection as we do....the avg taxpayer has no need for the services and so they don't have a tangible service UNTIL they call for us. It isn't like trash pickup, streets plowed and so forth, they only time they really care is when they need us.

Fourth...for career depts...the FF is a govt worker and the taxpayer gets that bill for taxes and suddenly all govt workers are overpaid. Joe Taxpayer sees cuts made in his job and sees less take home, so damn forbid he wants govt workers to feel the same pain....despite the fact he is oblivious that he is reducing his own service. He doesn't understand that you can't run things like a private business. When cuts are made something has to give and since Avg Joe doesn't usually have a need the fire dept, they have no clue about the cuts, until he DOES need the FD.

Finally....the govt has more important concerns...like reelection and kickbacks...than they do about your fire protection. Oh and local govts care more about convention centers, flowers in the median, waterfronts and so on than they do about the basic services.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Loyd Dittfurth on August 31, 2009 at 7:07pm

i agree but what im sayn is if the government that is bailing out everyone y dont they do a sort iso rating kickback kinda of deal i mean farmers get kickbacks y not cities get kickbacks for more equipment

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jim Owens on August 31, 2009 at 7:23pm

The federal government didn't create the fire problem, it has traditionally been a local responsibility and its my belief that it should stay that way. Someone tell me why its my problem that a department in South Dakota needs a brush truck when I live in New England? i dont think that prarie fire threatens my house. And Im not picking on South Dakota , just an example. That being said my department has recieved fire act funds, as long as its available why not. But my argument is that it never should have been necessary in the first place. You can only provide the level of protection your community is willing to fund. I have a decrepit old one bay station housing our newest truck. If the citizens dont approve a new building and the old one falls down, they are the ones who suffer through thier own shortsightedness. I don't think its the problem of a guy in Georgia.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Loyd Dittfurth on August 31, 2009 at 7:30pm

i see where your coming from but why should i pay for some bum in newyork that wont even try to get a job thats just the way the government works y did they bale out all these states and not all of them needed it so they refused the money

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on August 31, 2009 at 7:33pm

Loyd.. the basic premise here is the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
What you have is fire departments making the issue to the politicians, that is a low number when you have the taxpayer more concerned about crime. It is a low number when local politicians care more about convention centers, flowers in medians, boardwalks, etc, basically everything but their level of fire service. ISO really doesn't make that big of a difference because it affects the homeowner or building owner's insurance rate moreso than the city's tax base.

Bottom line is the taxpayer themselves has to be the one to really give a crap and makes a stink. The reason you see police departments getting more funding is because that is what the taxpayer is asking for. The local leaders are more concerned about keeping businesses and tax base than staffing for a fire dept that the taxpayer may never use.

Reality is that If a neighbor's home catches fire, the homeowner doesn't think about their own home or level of fire protection staffing. However, if the neighbor's home is robbed, the homeowner cares about their OWN security and now wants that police presence.

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last