2007-03-10 16:32:17 · 19 answers · asked by me m 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Sounds very Mayan to me or Soylent Green.
I will never agree to being sacrificed or rationed.
2007-03-10 17:40:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If things get worse in the middle east, gas rationing could become a reality. Of course, the likely method of limiting consumption of fuel is to raise the price through the roof rather than rationing.
Another possibility is that China will stop footing the bill for the war. Then taxes would raise considerably and corporate subsidies would end.
Escalation of the war could also cause rationing due to the fact that we import almost everything now. It wouldn't be optional.
2007-03-11 01:24:05 · answer #2 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In this day and age due to cecumstances our governments have put us into without our consent I'd be highly pissed off! The 40's was a different situation all together. Todays government is putting us in great parrel! We did not ask for it! We did not vote for it! I would not want it to happen.
2007-03-11 07:24:18 · answer #3 · answered by Alright! 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats why I have to laugh when people say we are at war we dont have sacrifice anything we all sleep in our warm beds,we have plenty to eat,clean water and we dont have to listen to bombs outside our homes this is war and only the people of Europe,Bosnia and Iraq know what that is like to be in the middle of it.Watching it on TV doesnt mean you are actually there.
2007-03-11 01:29:23 · answer #4 · answered by molly 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm all for supporting our country in times of need, and would gladly limit my consumption to ensure our troops have the support and supplies they need. World War II was definately a time of need.
Iraq, however is not a necessary war, and a waste of resources. So I would not be happy if they suddenly decided to start rationing to help with their efforts there.
2007-03-11 00:38:44 · answer #5 · answered by MtnBlossom 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, because it's force. MAYBE if there was a really good reason, like a major worldwide famine or some such I could be persuaded, but don't bet the farm.
2007-03-11 04:25:38 · answer #6 · answered by wrathinif 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would suggest that the government lower taxes. If the government would lower taxes, we wouldn't need to ration. Here's why:
> Lower taxes means increased spending by consumers with jobs.
> Increased spending means companies have to hire more people to keep up with the demand.
> Hiring more people means more jobs.
> More jobs means more people are paying taxes, which means more tax revenue.
> More tax revenue means more money to spend on whatever our government "needs."
It will take a while to trickle down, so they should start lowering taxes now.
2007-03-11 00:46:38 · answer #7 · answered by nobody knows 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If times get hard and its necessary to rations whatever need to be rationed, then I say yes. We would have to do whatever it takes to get all of us through the hard times right.
2007-03-11 00:37:59 · answer #8 · answered by Debs 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only then will understand what the dreat American dreams is all about with great dreams turn into smokes and ashes at loss and blurr on what reality is all about in planet of apes.
2007-03-11 00:54:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It would depend on why they asked. If I felt the cause was just, I might. If it was to support a war, then probably not.
2007-03-11 00:35:28 · answer #10 · answered by Qwyrx 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋