Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 53
  1. #1
    Forum Member DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default SAFER ACT a reality?

    Fed Bill To Fund Firefighters Passes House


    MARC LA VORGNA
    Office of U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ, 8th)


    U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell today joined colleagues in the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate to announce the inclusion of the SAFER (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Resources) Act as an amendment in the final version of the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization, which passed the House of Representatives today.

    The Senate could approve the bill early next week. It would then go to the White House and President Bush for his signature.

    The SAFER Act of 2003 amends the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to require the establishment of an office within the United States Fire Administration to administer a grant program to make direct four-year grants to State career, volunteer, and combination fire departments for staff increases.

    The Safer Act authorizes The Administrator of the U.S. Fire Administration to award $7.6 billion over seven years in annual grants for the purpose of hiring, recruiting and retaining career and volunteer firefighters to help communities meet industry minimum standards and attain 24-hour staffing to provide adequate protection from fire and fire-related hazards, including acts of terrorism.

    Ten percent of the total amount appropriated for SAFER are reserved for Recruitment and Retention Grants to enhance the number of volunteer firefighters and at least ten percent of the remaining funds are guaranteed for hiring firefighters at volunteer and majority volunteer departments. Any unused amounts are transferred to the Recruitment and Retention Grants.

    Grants will be awarded directly to career, volunteer and combination fire departments on the basis of need, modeled after the highly successful Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE Act) Grant Program.

    No fire department who accepts funds under this Act may penalize or discriminate against firefighters who chose to volunteer in other jurisdictions during off-duty hours.

    SAFER Hiring Grants will last for a period of four years and will be increasingly matched by local dollars to wean local governments from being dependent upon the federal government. Departments must commit to retaining newly acquired firefighters for one year past the termination of the grant. Employment applications must also specify long-term plans for retaining newly attained firefighters.

    The total four year grant for hiring a firefighter may not exceed $100,000; adjusted annually. Authority for the grant program sunsets after 10 years from the date of enactment. SAFER Hiring Grant funds must not be used to supplant existing federal, State or local resources.

    "We used the Department of Defense Authorization as a vehicle to pass the SAFER Act, which authorizes money for personnel for fire departments throughout the country,” Pascrell said. ”The $7.6 billion has been authorized. Of course, when all is said and done, much less could be appropriated also. Money authorized and money eventually appropriated are two different things. For example, the FIRE Act has been authorized at $900 million, but was appropriated at $750 million this year."

    Pascrell was an original cosponsor of the legislation and was the lead House Democrat supporting the SAFER act, which was sponsored by House Committee on Science Chairman, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY, 24th).

    "My original draft of the FIRE Act tried to get more firefighters into uniform. The program has been a landmark success, but in order to get the legislation passed, the staffing component had to unfortunately be removed," stated Pascrell. "We are all here to address this omission."

    "The dangerous crisis of inadequate staffing in our nation's fire departments is finally being confronted head-on-at a time when it is more crucial than ever.

    "Adequate staffing is essential to safe and effective emergency operations-I know of no one who would attempt to refute this. The firefighters whose bravery and valor protect our nation deserve all that we can give them. The consequences of insufficient personnel levels often lead to tragic, heartbreaking results-and it is a moral imperative that Congress addresses this issue and it has finally happened.

    "I have been honored to work with my colleagues on the SAFER Act and I wish to thank all of our nation's firefighters for everything they do."

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    I have posted my feelings on this boondogle and the misrepresentation of this program but it seems that it may come to fruition.

    Personally, federal funding of public safety is an innapropriate use of tax dollars, yes I feel the same about the COPS grants for police. Why not reduce the federal tax burden an equal amount and allow for the local community to provide for appropriate staffing by the use of the money?

    The COPS grants "put 100,000 new police officers on the streets" is used to provide for the justification of this program. However, the communities hired these "new" officers and as officers retired, they were simply not replaced leaving staffing at the same level. I personally feel that this same situation will occur with this firefighter bill not helping out staffing levels at all in the long run.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org


  2. #2
    Senior Member FFMcDonald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    N 41* 2.770' W 74* 7.338'
    Posts
    272

    Default

    Why is federal funding of public safety a boondoggle??

    Federal money is used to make the nations highways safer - The Army Corps of Engineers has taken on hundreds of various projects across the country in order to benefit the general public. The Coast Guard- oh- there's another federal agency -- enforces state and federal, as well as international laws in order to make the waterway of the nation safer.

    You say ease the tax burden -

    By improving the ISO rating within the jurisdiction that we service - we lower the insurance burden. And do we see a dime - for the money that is outlayed. No. You lower the insurance in your area - and you see nothing.

    Personally - I'd rather see the FIRE Act - and the SAFER Act - fully funded; than a quarter of the crap (porkbarrel projects) that gets tagged on to federal appropriations bills.

    The nations police, firefighters, and EMT's and Paramedics - are the frontline of our nations defense. Pure and Simple.
    It is about time that the federal government realize this fact- and do something to lend a hand.

    When the fecal matter hits the oscillating mechanism - the first ones there, surely won't be the Army and the Navy.

    I think it is about time.

    You give me solid reasoning why the federal government shouldn't help the nations fire service.
    I didn't see the wildfires in California stop at the county line for San Diego. I know of natural disasters that have crossed state boundries --
    Marc

    "In Omnia Paratus"

    Member - IACOJ
    "Got Crust?"

    -- The opinions presented here are my own; and are not those of any organization that I belong to, or work for.

  3. #3
    Forum Member DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    By improving the ISO rating within the jurisdiction that we service - we lower the insurance burden. And do we see a dime - for the money that is outlayed. No. You lower the insurance in your area - and you see nothing.
    Our fault for not letting the public know this.

    Personally - I'd rather see the FIRE Act - and the SAFER Act - fully funded; than a quarter of the crap (porkbarrel projects) that gets tagged on to federal appropriations bills.
    How about no pork, no FIRE Act, no SAFER Act. Instead, lower the federal tax burden and have the state, or more appropriately, the local government pick up that same burden. Shift the tax burden and tax structure. Public safety for a community is a local responsibility, not something that some paper pusher political hack in D.C. should be assigned to.

    The nations police, firefighters, and EMT's and Paramedics - are the frontline of our nations defense. Pure and Simple.
    As a firefighter (laid off) and a paramedic I never did anything by way of defense. I always responded / respond to an incident after the fact. Now when I was a Marine, I did do something for the defense of my nation.

    federal money is used to make the nations highways safer
    Federal highways are used for interstate commerce to enhance the lifestyle of our citizenry. The fact that we use them for our personal travel is secondary. They were designed in the 1950s for Interstate commerce but also for easy movement of the military throughout the nation in time of crisis and also for "orderly" evacuation of the public from communities. And if you think that the highways are getting better, you nedd to come to Massachusetts adn see how bad our state highways are because of a FEDERALLY FUNDED project in Boston called the "Big Dig" - a.k.a. the Big Pig. Started at a cost of 2 Billion and is now over 15 Billion and it isn't even done yet - after more than 10 years of work.

    You give me solid reasoning why the federal government shouldn't help the nations fire service.
    1) Money is more efficiently collected, dispursed, spent, and controlled at the local level. The members of the community can control it more. Don't believe me? Ask the federal department of education - for every $1 of money given to them, only $.48 is distributed out of the department. This is according to a study about 3 or 4 years old now.

    2) When you take money from the federal government it isn't simply given to you. There are controls, laws, and limitations as to how the money and, in many cases where the money, can be spent. Don't believe me, go ask your local school sidtrict what all of the regulations are for them to get involved in the federal student lunch program are, or ask the police all the strings attached to a COPS grant.

    3) As I have stated, the federal government's job is not to provide for local public safety. It is the responsibility of the local government, whether it be county or municipal, to provide adequate protection for their community. If they are not doing so, it is our job as a public employee or resident to make the rest of our community aware of it. If we do not, then we have failed ourselves, our neighbors, and our community.

    4) At the end of the day, after the 4 years have passed, the overall number of career firefighters will not have increased. This is what occurred in most cities and towns that hired under the COPS grants. I stated this in my original post.

    5) As for the tax structure, It should be inverted from what it is now. The local government should get the most from tax monies, then the state, then the federal government. In this manner we are able to know what our community needs and address it appropriately.

    6) According to the latest information, for every tax dollar that citizens of Massachusetts, where I currently live, sends to Washington D.C., we get roughly $.68 back to the state. Explain to me how this is efficient use of my tax dollars? Realizing that we are one nation, why is money I send to D.C. going to fund some road project in Utah? It would be better spent here, where I live, to address the needs of my community adn my state. On the flip side, some state is getting $1.32 back for every dollar that they send to D.C.

    I just have a problem with the federal government having to take over every facet of my daily life. What ever happened to personal independence and not wanting the government in my life?
    Last edited by DaSharkie; 11-08-2003 at 09:04 AM.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  4. #4
    Forum Member DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    I didn't see the wildfires in California stop at the county line for San Diego. I know of natural disasters that have crossed state boundries --
    That's right. This is what mutual aid is for. When an incident is too large for your community's resources to handle to request assistance. This is why the government has contractors, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). One cannot staff for the eventual "Big One." It is not sound financially and is a waste of reources.

    These large wildfires occur every 10 years or so, wiht many less severe fires every year. When disasters do cross boundaries everyone works to accomplish the goal and the federal governemtn helps with deisaster aid, roughly 10 to 25 cents for every dollar spent on the disaster. When they do cross state lines FEMA comes in and aids in getting you money and in mitigating the disaster. That is why FEMA was created in the '70s. An excellent use of resources at the federal level.

    If you watch every year, thousands of firefighters are contracted to work for the state and federal governments to fight these fires. They are not staffed by thousands year round, a skeleton crew maintains equipment and when the spring comes on they recall everyone.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  5. #5
    IACOJ Agitator Adze39's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    In a van down by the CT River!
    Posts
    2,771

    Default

    Originally posted by DaSharkie
    Office of U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ, 8th)
    Allow me to be an ___ for a minute.

    Press release from a Democrat. Less than a year to go to the Presidential Elections. Do you think the Dems might be hoping that GW vetoes this so he looks bad in an election year?
    IACOJ Agitator
    Fightin' Da Man Since '78!

  6. #6
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Why not reduce the federal tax burden an equal amount and allow for the local community to provide for appropriate staffing by the use of the money?
    Because they won't. That's the problem in the first place. If "local communities" could or would fund the local fire department properly, we wouldn't need oversight in the form of grants from the federal government.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber ChiefReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
    Posts
    5,636

    Default

    Sharkie:
    If I agree with you, I will be accused of being sour grapes because I haven't gotten my piece of the FIRE Act pie!
    Ah, what the hell. Not since the days of Mongo has there been such a blatant misuse of federal tax money. I see so much that could be abused with this act that it makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
    A maximum of $100,000 per firefighter? I realize that salary and benefits add up, but 100K?
    Now; the information on the Act says that it was modeled after the FIRE Act. So I suppose that means that it will be "competitive"? Whoever meets the computerized criteria, writes a compelling narrative and comes from the right geo-political area gets the moolah?
    Remember; you have to match your answers on the grant app with the rules. The grant writers (Pros) are already licking their chops, I would guess.
    But I also wonder, based on my experiences with the FIRE Act process, that; because I am in need of firefighters but can't show need or get the correct numbers to crunch, should I go into a different category where my chances of getting a grant would improve? I mean, if I can't get firefighters, should I apply for crap that I don't need?
    There's got to be more than one category for this SAFER money. Otherwise, the politically connected wouldn't stand as good a chance of getting some.
    Oh, I'll stop now. I'm starting to sound like I got turned down and I haven't even applied yet. I'm "bashing" a program that's going to cost all of us way too much money. I would rather see a reduction in taxes or at least see the money come to the states for disbursement. Yeah, yeah, yeah; I said it again. I suppose I'm modelling my opinions after the FIRE Act!
    But Sharkie; I hear ya. And I agree.
    CR
    Last edited by ChiefReason; 11-08-2003 at 03:54 PM.
    Visit www.iacoj.com
    Remember Bradley Golden (9/25/01)
    RIP HOF Robert J. Compton(ENG6511)

  8. #8
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    A maximum of $100,000 per firefighter? I realize that salary and benefits add up, but 100K?
    I believe that was meant to be over a four year period (or, at least that's how I understood it).

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber ChiefReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
    Posts
    5,636

    Default

    Noz:
    I believe that you may be right, but don't you have to keep them one year past the four years? So it would be a five year plan that averages out to 20k per year.
    Sounds like a buttload if you're volunteer, but peanuts if you are career.
    I guess we could buy annuities for the volunteers if that's part of the language. Probably not. Maybe incentives? I can't wait to see the rules on this one.
    CR
    Visit www.iacoj.com
    Remember Bradley Golden (9/25/01)
    RIP HOF Robert J. Compton(ENG6511)

  10. #10
    Forum Member DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    If "local communities" could or would fund the local fire department properly, we wouldn't need oversight in the form of grants from the federal government.
    Ah but the problem is that we have failed as a group to ensure that we are properly protected and supported. WE are to blame.

    If you do not hav eht esupport that you need, then your department, union, chief, and leadership need to let the people in your community know.

    And let me ask you this? Do you really want the federal government giving you so called "oversight" when it comes to administering your community budget? These buffoons, Democrat, Republican, Independent, and Socialist (We can't forget about Vermont can we?) can't handle a federal budget and agree on where to spend that money, do you really want trying to budget something that affects you, pardon the pun, much closer to home? I hope not.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  11. #11
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Ah but the problem is that we have failed as a group to ensure that we are properly protected and supported. WE are to blame.
    While that may be true in some cases, no amount of common sense presentation will work with most city/county managements. They KNOW what they need to be doing to ensure the citizens in their area have adequate fire protection. They just refuse out of arrogance. Either that, or they are just plain stupid. The end result is the same; underfunded, understaffed fire stations.
    And let me ask you this? Do you really want the federal government giving you so called "oversight" when it comes to administering your community budget? These buffoons, Democrat, Republican, Independent, and Socialist (We can't forget about Vermont can we?) can't handle a federal budget and agree on where to spend that money, do you really want trying to budget something that affects you, pardon the pun, much closer to home? I hope not.
    Well, don't forget; we have the same "buffoons" on a local level, all across the nation.
    I can't wait to see the rules on this one.
    Me, too.

  12. #12
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Press release from a Democrat. Less than a year to go to the Presidential Elections. Do you think the Dems might be hoping that GW vetoes this so he looks bad in an election year?

    Pascrell was an original cosponsor of the legislation and was the lead House Democrat supporting the SAFER act, which was sponsored by House Committee on Science Chairman, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY, 24th).
    Nice try! I assure you, GWB has done an EXCELLENT job of making himself look bad this year, with no help from anyone.

  13. #13
    Senior Member FFMcDonald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    N 41* 2.770' W 74* 7.338'
    Posts
    272

    Default

    DaSharkie -
    How about no pork, no FIRE Act, no SAFER Act. Instead, lower the federal tax burden and have the state, or more appropriately, the local government pick up that same burden. Shift the tax burden and tax structure. Public safety for a community is a local responsibility, not something that some paper pusher political hack in D.C. should be assigned to.
    It is exactly this opinion that has caused the fire service to hang its own throat for decades. We think nothing of taking on added responsibilty in our community time after time - Hazardous Materials response, technical rescue, ice rescue, EMS, etc... And each time we do this we increase the burden placed on our equipment and our personnel.
    Personally - I think it it poor leadership in the fire service. The chiefs out there need to realize that there is a limit to what can be done with underpaid, understaffed engine and ladder companies.
    These local communities that you praise so highly for being able to better manage their money - are the same politicans that have been stringing us along with inadequate funding for decades.

    As a firefighter (laid off) and a paramedic I never did anything by way of defense. I always responded / respond to an incident after the fact. Now when I was a Marine, I did do something for the defense of my nation.
    Who is it that you think responded to the terrorist attacks at the Pentagon - that wasn't the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps- it was the Arlington County, and Arlington City Fire Departments. Then subsequently - the "federal" USAR teams. The only thing that the military provided was logistical support in the way of food and shelter.
    I too know of service to my country. I spent 6 years in the Marine Corps. 4 of those years spent overseas.

    Federal highways are used for interstate commerce to enhance the lifestyle of our citizenry. The fact that we use them for our personal travel is secondary. They were designed in the 1950s for Interstate commerce but also for easy movement of the military throughout the nation in time of crisis and also for "orderly" evacuation of the public from communities. And if you think that the highways are getting better, you nedd to come to Massachusetts adn see how bad our state highways are because of a FEDERALLY FUNDED project in Boston called the "Big Dig" - a.k.a. the Big Pig. Started at a cost of 2 Billion and is now over 15 Billion and it isn't even done yet - after more than 10 years of work.
    What Stalinist regieme do you live in???
    When is the last time you saw a convoy of camouflage vehicles rolling down I-93? Do you realize that they could have left a 40 year old structure, a double decked 3 lane highway running smack through the center of Boston?? Should they try and expand the existing- inadequate- structure?? Or should they try and increase the capacity of the roadway?? And at the same time bury the roadway beneath the city; and alleviate the giant 'green scar' that runs through the heart of Boston?
    Have you been overseas? The main thing that seperates the US from many other countries is the infrastructure that exists throughout the US. The roadways, the airports, the port cities, the rail systems.
    What do the Postal Service, Amtrak, and Greyhound have in common? They are all federally owned or sponsored.
    Is it the governments responsibilty to provide rail service? Is it the federal governments responsibility to provide bus service??

    Do you know why the federal government is even involved in fire protection?? Because the US Forest Service is responsible for the forests, they are public lands. Hell -- the Bureau of Land Management "owns" the majority of the state of Nevada. Likewise - they are the trustee of the land -and responsible for fire suppression upon it.


    3) As I have stated, the federal government's job is not to provide for local public safety. It is the responsibility of the local government, whether it be county or municipal, to provide adequate protection for their community. If they are not doing so, it is our job as a public employee or resident to make the rest of our community aware of it. If we do not, then we have failed ourselves, our neighbors, and our community.
    WE - the American fire service - need to do a better job. Almost every 'paid' department is understaffed. Volunteer departments are desperately wanting for more volunteers - while they run their current volunteers into the ground....
    If the federal government can aid State, County, and municipal government with money in order to make equipment purchases that would otherwise remain unfulfilled without the money -- then I say job well done.

    You mentioned that you were a paid firefighter - albeit, laid off at the moment... If your departmet recieved a grant under the SAFER Act - and was able to hire you back on; would you refuse it????

    You agree with FEMA administering funds in the wake of a disaster -- but you disagree with the federal government aiding in the purchase of training and equipment that will be used to mitigate the very same disaster?!?!?!
    I think that's a lot like closing the barn door, after the horse got out.
    Marc

    "In Omnia Paratus"

    Member - IACOJ
    "Got Crust?"

    -- The opinions presented here are my own; and are not those of any organization that I belong to, or work for.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    I haven't read or researched this at all, but one piece jumped out at me. Do not expect this bill to be signed intact, if at all.

    No fire department who accepts funds under this Act may penalize or discriminate against firefighters who chose to volunteer in other jurisdictions during off-duty hours.

    The IAFF is opening up the war room now.

  15. #15
    Forum Member MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default Its all in the language

    It dosent say anything about a local Union from taking action. Plus the IAFF knows exactly what the bill entails. I just got done reading a "personal" e-mail detailing it from our general president.so I guess the "war room" can stand down at this time.

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default Re: Its all in the language

    Originally posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
    It dosent say anything about a local Union from taking action. Plus the IAFF knows exactly what the bill entails. I just got done reading a "personal" e-mail detailing it from our general president.so I guess the "war room" can stand down at this time.
    Noit exactly. The department would have to agree to a CBA with that provision in it. That's where it will stop.

  17. #17
    Forum Member DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    These local communities that you praise so highly for being able to better manage their money - are the same politicans that have been stringing us along with inadequate funding for decades.
    Not once did I say that there were communities that did this, I only said communities need to do it. And we have been allowing ourselves to be strung along, then whose fault is that? The ones who led us on or us, the unwilling saps who let ourselves be led on?

    Who is it that you think responded to the terrorist attacks at the Pentagon - that wasn't the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps- it was the Arlington County, and Arlington City Fire Departments. Then subsequently - the "federal" USAR teams. The only thing that the military provided was logistical support in the way of food and shelter.
    Again, what defense was provided? The response was to an incident, not preventing it, therefore no defense was made. One must also remember, the military has little to no jurisdiction or authority to act within the confines of the country, unless attacked, or assigned so by the President.

    What Stalinist regieme do you live in???
    Massachusetts.

    Should they try and expand the existing- inadequate- structure?? Or should they try and increase the capacity of the roadway?? And at the same time bury the roadway beneath the city; and alleviate the giant 'green scar' that runs through the heart of Boston?
    I never said that the road shouldn't be built, but it is not the purview of the federal government to finance it. It benefits the residents of Boston and the commuters to Boston. Why should you, in New Jersey, of someone in California fund it? By the way, when the federal government said no more money, after several extra billion, the state is now financing it off of the people of Metro West who do not even drive on the road.

    As for the military using the road, well since the military bases in New England have been essentially removed we don't. If you research the Eisenhower Interstate System, this was a main reason for it soncsidering it was built in 1950s and 1960s - during the cold war when we feared the communist hethens.

    Is it the governments responsibilty to provide rail service? Is it the federal governments responsibility to provide bus service??
    No it isn't.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  18. #18
    Forum Member DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    You mentioned that you were a paid firefighter - albeit, laid off at the moment... If your departmet recieved a grant under the SAFER Act - and was able to hire you back on; would you refuse it????
    Yes. I already have three times due to my desire to move on in the medical field.

    You agree with FEMA administering funds in the wake of a disaster -- but you disagree with the federal government aiding in the purchase of training and equipment that will be used to mitigate the very same disaster?!?!?!
    The funds adminsitered are for the manpower, overtime, rebuilding, and extra costs incurred beyond what would normally be used.

    As for getting equipment for mitigating the incident, it is still a local need and this is where regionalization and proper utilization of funds is neccesary. Most departments are using these grants for turnout gear, radio equipment, apparatus (replacement), and the like. Hardly something extreme, only necessary for the daily operations of the department. When the extreme is achieved, this is when extra equipment is needed.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  19. #19
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Again, what defense was provided? The response was to an incident, not preventing it, therefore no defense was made.
    Not true at all; if firefighters had not provided defense, the entire damn building would have burned to the ground. You don't have to carry a gun to be a defender of life and property. The military didn't do a single thing to defend us against the attacks on 9-11. However, firefighters saved lives and property, and that's what defense is all about.

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by ThNozzleman

    Not true at all; if firefighters had not provided defense, the entire damn building would have burned to the ground. You don't have to carry a gun to be a defender of life and property. The military didn't do a single thing to defend us against the attacks on 9-11. However, firefighters saved lives and property, and that's what defense is all about.
    In the context of Homeland Defense, that is not what they are talking about. The fire service had the same record as the military in the PREVENTION of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. The FBI came closer than anybody. And nobiody would listen to her.



    What Stalinist regieme do you live in???
    Massachussetts
    (GeorgeWendtCFI currently unavailable due to him providing a standing ovation).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts