yes! i hear you!

 half of my family lives in Calif, it is so expensive, i would NOT pay more taxes!JAJT

Happily, if you don't live in California you don't pay to fight their wildfires.  They receive 78 cents of federal spending for every dollar they collect and send in.  That means that a percentage of the taxes that Californians pay are going to pay for someone else's choices, not the other way around.

Evening Gary...

Everything you are mentioning my husband and I were discussing this evening...I was thinking like you earlier today listening to Ahhhnold, I was remembering when Bush was there also, can't think of the gal reporter at the moment that made an arse of herself with her questions, can see her face, anyway, the msm whined if Bush wasn't at all areas in this country immediately if there were any problem areas....etc etc...we all know why they did it...yet the hypocrisy is so obvious now it isn't amusing..in all various areas politically by the way.

'Go Green...Recycle Congress'

Hmmmm, I wonder where the studies are that show X number of acres burning is equal to X number of cars on the road.  They throw it out there for everything else under the sun.  Let's hear it with regard to wildfires!

Calif has wildfires every year. last year there was a huge out of control fire in northern calif, it lasted weeks.  my brother is a firefighter. once in a while he has to go either norht or south to help fight the fires. 

 we need to divorce Calif, it is not environmentally friendly to keep them part of our 57 state! JAJT

  Careful now. (laughing)  Here in the midwest a lot has been done to move people out of flood zones.  But you can't move them all.  You can't stop it from raining or stop a sudden warm-up when there is a lot of snow on the ground.  Building levees only moves the flooding to someone elses backyard.  Actually I see our flooding as a wasted resource that is worth billions.  Instead of letting all that flood water work its way down the mississippi we should somehow capture it and sell it to the western states.  All we need is a pipeline and we would become the Midwestern sheiks of the water business.

4BP- but it just is not environmentally friendly to brush clear..
this makes me think of last year when Austrilia had that huge fire and they were not allowed to clear old dead brush. because their "green party" had passed a law that it was forbidden to do so.

in northern calif, my brother in law is not allowed ot burn the field after harvesting, and it smells real awful for a few weeks
JAJT

President Reagan was able to get Congress to lower taxes and revenue increased; therefore, the Democrats in Congress increased spending.

President Bush was able to get Congress to lower taxes and revenue increased; therefore, the Republicans in Congress increased spending.

Also of note, when revenue goes down due to tax increases or economic down turns spending in Congress still increases. There seems to be a common thread to all this and the voters don't seem to get it.

A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections

 Doesn't everyone think that tax dollars should be used to pay for firefighters to try and save your house when it catches on fire, for whatever reason?  An idiot who falls asleep with a lit cigarette in their hand may not deserve to have their house saved, but the firefighters who save it also saved every other house in the immediate vicinity.  I would think we could all agree that we want them to do that.  Do you have any idea the percentage of firefighters in this country that fight fires for FREE? 

We did used to have private fire companies in this country.  We still do.  Have you been to the Houston area?  As it has many an oil refinery and chemical facility, it is full of private, industrial firefighters.  I hear it was a great racket that provided gainful employment to many an arsonist.  Surely this is the best way to do it, and if the firefighters are doing an amazing job, then you are actually seeing your tax dollars well spent.   That should be a good thing!  Repeat: do you have any idea the percentage of firefighters who fight fires for FREE?

And the guy who is willing to pay more seems right in line with conservative philosophy.  He's not taking taking taking, expecting more when he gets a handout.  He's saying this is a great service, and if we need more money I'm willing to step up and pay more for it.  Personal responsibility, no sense of entitlement, recognition that things cost money and they don't come for free just because they come from the government, etc.  Seems to me he could get even more accomplished by starting up a VFD.  They are all over the place.  VFDs are one of my favorite charitable causes.  THAT is in line with conservative philosophy; not sitting around whining about how higher taxes are the cure-all.

I really don't see how this is an example of a liberally biased news piece.  It's not that you don't - you don't want to.  That's the difference. 

See, ABC looked all over and cheerfully reported one one guy who would be tickled pink to pay more in taxes.  This suits the reporters in ABC just fine.  I'd be willing to bet they would be totlly unwilling to utter one single PEEP about volunteer firefighters. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Indeed.  I have a few VFDs I give money to every year.  It would stun people, especially posters like mamabear, to know how many people fight fires and respond to emergency medical calls for free. 

When you give money to a VFD, it goes to equipment, training, sending off firefighters to advanced training, EMT courses, and things of this nature. 

Do you have any links to those charities?  I would look but I have my hands full at the moment.  Thanks much in advance.   

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)