Think about it. Some advocate that the government take charge of health care, as a "human right."
Assuming for the sake of argument that that is true, would these same people advocate a similar program to provide FOOD to everyone?
Food is unquestionably more essential to survival than health care. No one can survive without food for long! And some people eat very well, at the finest restaruants, while others make do with A&P brand goods.
Should the government take over, to ensure more equality?
Why or why not?
:)
2007-09-14 07:38:09 · 11 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I have noticed the more government gets involved in the market the worse they make it in terms of quality, availablity and cost. they need to stay out of it. if people could keep their money they work for then even the working poor could afford enough to eat. and let the people (farmers and consumers) decide what they will grow and pay.
If I could keep most of my money I would have money to hire these unfortunant poor people to do work to earn some money to buy food. I have stuff I would love to get done in my house and yard that is I could keep that 3000 they take from me in fed income tax social security tax and my property tax. they aren't supposed to tax private property.
government is very involved in uk and britian, and I heard they are going around to people's property and taxing any improvements, gardens, and anything else they can think of. Now when you start taxing people just trying to supplement their diet with fresh stuff then you have a serious problem. if taxation was about helping out people to get enough to eat then what they just did they penalized people who can feed themselves for being able to feed themselves.
this is very contradictory. back in roman times they taxed fruits trees even if they weren't producing anything. governements will find any excuse to get other peoples hard earned property. Feeding the poor is an excuse to tax, not a reason.
RRRR
2007-09-14 12:23:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure, go for that. You gonna pay for it? Rest assured that the middle class will be paying for this as well. Are you daft? There is no way I would go for this. I pay taxes already so the govt can build roads, bridges provide police and fire protection and maintain the military. These taxes also go to welfare programs which are abused by 45 percent of the recipients. No way am I gonna stand for providing food for everyone. Get up and work for a freakin living!
2007-09-14 07:47:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Great; that's just what we need -- more government control over the lives of private citizens and more government-forced redistribution of wealth. Keep marching down the road of handing every "problem" over to the government to be fixed or handled and we'll end up looking exactly like the former Soviet Union, where the government will control everything and our civil liberties will be a thing of the past.
2007-09-14 07:47:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
If 45 million Americans were starving because they couldn't get access to food, then yes, that would be an area where the government should step in.
And in a way that's just what we have. The govt. regulates food production in great detail. The govt. decides what crops will be grown, what the prices will be, the govt. handles all the marketing and export of American-grown foood and the govt. buys and stores the surplusses. How much more 'socialized' could our food production system get?
2007-09-14 07:47:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
We should definitely allow 40 million people die of hunger or health problems because they were not lucky enough to be born rich. I just will like to suggest that if you think they enjoy a great life by living for "free" you should join them. This great life you say they enjoy from the taxes of others should be experienced at first hand to be able to understand why they continue "choosing" that life style. Try it.
2007-09-14 08:11:56 · answer #5 · answered by Jose R 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why should there be equality?
Those who do work hard should have something to strive for and to be rewarded for ... it isn't fair for those types of people to have the same as those who do not work hard. What would be the incentive?
There is nothing wrong with basic food - if people want more than that, let them get off their bums and do something to enable them to have more.
2007-09-14 08:07:48 · answer #6 · answered by Louisa 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Noooeewww. I'm not eating the same stuff the people on the other side of town eat. I'm more of a filet girl; the other people are more carne asada. If they want better, they have to earn it.
2007-09-14 08:03:44 · answer #7 · answered by Flatpaw 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Should there be a government program to purge all republican and conservative factions from the populace? Why or why not!
2007-09-14 09:02:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
nothing is a human right except the ability to breath and wake up
2007-09-14 07:53:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Wow. You have a good point. Starting to sound a little like communism, hugh?
2007-09-14 07:47:09 · answer #10 · answered by Kari B 1 · 3⤊ 2⤋