California Girl
Rookie
- Oct 8, 2009
- 50,337
- 10,058
- 0
- Banned
- #41
More? No. But we need to keep the ones we have.
Not surprisingly, your position makes no logical sense. The rate of fires has been decreasing dramatically over the years, as has the rate of injury due to fire. There are fewer fires and fewer dangers from fires, but you want to keep the number of firefighters locked. If you owned a firefighting business, is that how you would run it?
No one "deserves" a salary, one EARNS a salary. What Marxist bullshit are you spreading here?
Clearly.
But I'll take a guess. When the colonies won the Revolutionary War, they helped each other on US soil. They helped put out fires the Brits set. Their common folk in the non-regular militia fought off threats for each other, over state lines. I'd guess if George Washington was asked to send help to CHarleston to put out a massive fire, or to control violent crime waves, he would. Oh wait............HE DID.
So, yeah, I'd argue the Feds can send resources to a state for the protection of it's people if needed.
A wild ass guess. Those militia were STATE militia. States are free to send their citizen's money to other states for the purposes of hiring firefighters...even if they're not needed. The federal government has NO such authority...unless I missed that in the enumerated powers.
1) Why do you think the level of fires has dropped? (Hint: Good firemen) Should we change that now and risk it going back?
2) So you're saying George Washington would have opposed sending federal aid to Charleston, SC, to control massive fires or violent crime? (Because he did just that).
**So risking one's life to defend strangers in his city isn't "deserving" of a decent salary? I suppose you'd argue that cops should only get paid when a crime is occurring then right? Otherwise, what are they doing to "earn" their salary?
How many firefighters are employed by the federal government?