(10-17-2009 02:47 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-16-2009 10:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-16-2009 07:59 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-15-2009 07:22 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(10-15-2009 07:08 PM)GRPunk Wrote:  

(10-15-2009 07:06 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  The local government entity in question should have cut administrative costs (in whatever way) first before going to the voters for a tax increase.
You think in the current economic conditions voters will approve a tax increase if the government entity hasn't cut its expenses beforehand?

That is total political stupidity. The local government deserves to lose this election.

Awesome. Then the Dems will be in charge of my local government as well.

You don't have a problem with the theft of OTHER peoples money to pay YOUR bills?

Sorry Paul. I appreciate your perspective, but in this case, it's the wrong answer,
GRPunk and his neighbors footed the start up costs for the fire station. They've paid the costs for years to maintain the fire station. And no one else is expected to pay more for his fire station. Everyone is paying for their nearest fire station. It was a reasonable part of their social contract.
However, the government (b/c there is no competition) decided to cut that essential service when funds ran low. They could have cut many other things: mayoral salaries, beautification of local parks, admin support, underage drinking sting operations, etc. I don't know all the details, but there are undoubtedly lots of options.
Instead, they chose to cut an essential, life-saving service. One that has had most of the costs already paid for. We should all appreciate that it was GRPunk and his neighbors who got the raw deal.
That's extortion.

That's what governments always do. Because there is no competition and no profit motive to force discipline on them. For all the blame that the profit motive gets from those on the left, it is really a valuable disciplinary tool to keep private enterprises focusing on the proper goals. Those that fail to do so may give the temporary illusion of profitability (see Enron), but it doesn't last. Show me a private enterprise that has consistently screwed over any significant group of stakeholders and has continued to prosper over a long period.

If Obama has his way, at the end of the day this is who is going to be running your health care. Makes you feel all warm and tingly inside, right?

Wait. Are you guys actually saying that the fire department should be privatized? Are you guys kidding or do you actually believe that pay-for-play fire fighting is a good idea?

No..."marketized" not privatized. Privatization usually involves some government granted monopoly. I would prefer that these services be open to an unfettered marketplace.