Currently the fire departments are run by the government and funded by tax dollars. This is what many conservatives denounce as "socialized" (the same system as our police and military, incidentally).
So, given that you dislike this system, do you all favor elimating our public fire protection?
2007-08-01 04:48:58 · 24 answers · asked by Steve 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Anybody who has been paying the least attention knows that libraries and public education are already being hacked apart. Many libraries have closed, tuition at community colleges and state colleges is going through the roof, public schools are dealing with less and less all the time.
I have no problem with providing health CARE to everybody. The Bush family has had free federal medical care for four generations. If I'm paying for that, I have not qualms about paying for a family that deserves it, and that didn't found a family fortune by collaberating with German Nazis.
2007-08-01 05:12:00 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There are services that most agree are part of the governments job to provide. Armed services, highway maintenance, police and fire departments, even public education and libraries (though I'm sure there are some who would prefer to see the latter two privatized.)
We could do with a lot less welfare (I am talking not just otherwise able bodied individuals who aren't interested in working but businesses who make bad decisions and go to the government for a bailout)
If needed, pay people to investigate welfare fraud, don't just give them money because they knew how to fill out the form properly and claim "nervous disorder". I have had metastatic Kidney cancer for the last 7 years and I still work.
2007-08-01 05:01:55 · answer #2 · answered by SteveA8 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually it was not that long ago when we had community fire departments that required people to pay for fire protection.
The people that paid for the services would get a sticker from the fire department and would receive help from the fire department upon seeing the sticker on the door.
The people that chose not to pay for the service would have the fire department show up and watch their house burn.
These were non profit private community fire departments that used volunteer firefighters. If you volunteered for the fire department you automatically got your fire protection sticker.
There are many things that do not belong under the governments control or funding per the constitution.
2007-08-01 04:57:21 · answer #3 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The fire, police and even military protect the US public from the irresponsible, illegal or hostile actions of others. They are funded by taxpayers to avoid anarchy. Where should we draw the line on what government provides for us all?
By your logic, the government should raise taxes more & provide everyone with food, shelter and transportation. Aren't they all necessities too?
2007-08-01 06:05:23 · answer #4 · answered by heavysarcasm 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree with guffeetax. I hope he wasn't being sarcastic. In print it can be hard to tell. I think all the basics (food, clothing, shelter, health care, education...etc.) should be covered by taxes. Also, I'm beginning to wonder about the basic concept of capitalism. The idea that we should all work 40 hours a week seems to me like it's becoming obsolete. There are simply too many people and not enough for them to do (at least not without causing more environmental harm than good).
2007-08-01 05:29:44 · answer #5 · answered by socrates 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Good point - maybe we should privatize our fire protection like we do with energy and military contracts - that way the wealthy republicans can get excellent protection while the rest of the country whom they don't give two shakes about gets burned-out houses and people dead from fires.
Cons who say taxes pay for infrastructure - NO SHEIT!!! So, again, why are you constantly trying to cut taxes?
2007-08-01 04:52:58 · answer #6 · answered by TheEconomist 4 · 9⤊ 1⤋
Interestingly, some of the private communities have tried all volunteer fire departments. Invariably, they end up using a local municipality's "socialized" service because they underfund and underman the department.
2007-08-01 04:52:21 · answer #7 · answered by Buffy Summers 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋
all of us comprehend you will no longer do the learn. that ought to require actual artwork. And what are you doing immediately to make a distinction in this international? something? i assume your plate is complete inclusive of your 50 plus questions approximately right here. Our usa is not greater powerful than the different usa. we don't owe different countries voters something in basic terms like owe us no longer something. can we've a top to circulate into Canada and assume an analogous welfare and healthcare they acquire as voters? can we've a top to immigrate to and ecu Union usa and assume complete reward as the different citizen there? we don't. that's conceited to assume that the U. S. is in charge for everybody else. that's conceited to assume others choose us to. no longer all voters choose handouts. they choose to do for themselves.
2016-10-08 23:43:27 · answer #8 · answered by bickerstaff 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not share the conservative world view, I believe in government provided services like police, fire, first responders, education, health care, social security, road & highways, national security, diplomacy, ecological safeguards, workplace safeguards and more.
2007-08-01 04:59:47 · answer #9 · answered by Follow the money 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Do you mean "socialist"? But that doesn't really apply to protection services like police or military or fire. Military and police are necessarily provided by any government, because legitimate governments have a monopoly on use of force.
"Socialist" doesn't have anything to do with it.
Being funded with tax dollars doesn't make something "socialist".
So, are you purposely being obtuse? Or are you just a Corky?
2007-08-01 05:02:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋