Let's Think Together
What would a NA do?
Published on December 19, 2007 By ThinkAloud In US Domestic
In a series of comments between Draginol and I on his thread of the analogy between a Neighborhood Association and a Nation, Draginol said the following:

I believe people should help their fellow citizens in time of need. I do not, however, believe that people should be forced to help their fellow citizens at the point of a gun.

And he also said this:

The family who has more children than they can afford demanding that I pay for the health insurance for their children is an infringement on my family's inalienable rights.

I was about to respond saying this:

Strangely enough, i agree with all of that. Where we differ is this: what do we do about those people who do these destructive things like being lazy and don’t work or just produce more kids than they can care for?

And that is not the only problems these people represent. You see, they get sick, and they get hungry, and they become criminals among other few more bad things.

Then I discovered that it will be a very very long response. So I decided to respond in this article. I think it is a very good exercise for all of us. At least I hope so.

..... let's say that YOU and I and many others like us who are not doing these bad things live in the same housing development. It is a nice one with great-looking homes with very nice market value. but these people are in it too because the developer did not evict and demolish existing houses on the parcel of land he bought to build this development. These people were not so bad when we moved in. few years later, there was an economic downturn and some of them lost their jobs, then some more and things started to go downhill for these people and now they are doing the things described above.

Now ... what do you think we should do about these people? keep in mind the following:

A- We can’t evict them. They pay their mortgage and fees.
B- We can’t move out. We love this neighborhood and we cant find any place better than this one.
C-No help of any kind is available from outside the Development. This development is self-sufficient in everything.

These people, don’t maintain their property at all, their kids are ignorant and sick and they all are hungry and stand begging on the corners. Our homes' values are going down fast .....

You are the NA president and we give you all the authorities you need.

You investigate and discover that they have no income other than to pay for mortgage and fees and some food and some utilities. they have nothing else and no one outside the development wants to offer any work for them.

We are discussing many proposals to solve this problem, here is mine:

1- Get the healthy and able bodies to work for us (maids, gardeners, street sweepers, secretaries, drivers ...etc) even if we don’t need the work and we deduct the cost of maintaining their properties from their wages.
2- Treat the sick and get them to work too when they get well.
3- Collect all these kids put them in a class in the NA building and hire a teacher for them.
4- Start an adult-education and job-training program for the adults so they can get work.
5- We all share the cost of the above according to our income.
6- The NA President is responsible for implementing the above program and must report to us on the progress or the problems with recommendations.

Ok all you guys from the right and the left what is your proposal. Change mine, discard it or get your own …. Just tell us what we do to solve our problem. Restrictions A ,B and C above strictly apply. No exceptions. You can do anything else other than these 3 restrictions.

Comments (Page 6)
6 PagesFirst 4 5 6 
on Jan 03, 2008
who is being affected? the top 1% of the people?


Famous last words. How about a new set of words. remember the AMT.

it was a temporary provision ... what is the logic of making it permanent? arent we in the middle of a war? dont we have enough debt?


See the problem is you are looking at only 1 tax. Now look at ALL taxes. Here in this state, they instituted a temporary (so called) tax to pay for the Jamestown 400 year celebration. Now I think we will all admit that the states are not funding the war (it is against the constitution), yet these clowns (Reps and Dems) are trying to make that tax permanent! One state senator went so far as to belittle a radio talking head for being concerned about the $1 (the tax was $1/year on each registered vehicle)!

He totally missed the point (and found out that public opinion could still be whipped up for doofusses like him)! That may be $1, but that is only one of hundreds of taxes! Some were created as temporary taxes, that are now permanent!

No, the mentality of "just this little tax" is the basis for creeping incrementalism. And the reason that the tax rate on most Americans is approaching 50%, even the lowest paid ones. "It is just this little tax" one of hundreds that all pay, even for the most part, the poorest.
on Jan 04, 2008
No, the mentality of "just this little tax" is the basis for creeping incrementalism


Doc, I dont know how many times do i have to say it. but here it is again: I really really really dont like taxes for me or for the rich or for anyone.

That is not the issue. The issue is this: there are problems in the society, we cant leave them to fester because they hurt us if not solved or contained, we need funds to do that and we should do it effeciently with min cost and effort.

does anyone disagree with that?

yes , there are poeple who say :it is not our problem, and we dont care.

I disagree.

Is that clear Doc?

now tell me , where do you stand? with solving the problems as i described above or with not-my-problem-and-i-don-care crowd?

Anything beyond that is details and could be worked out in so many ways. as they say: there are many ways to skin a cat.

The question is do we skin the cat or not?



on Jan 04, 2008
yes , there are poeple who say :it is not our problem, and we dont care.


TA,

Ever hear the oft used phrase, "You can't legislate morality"? Leftists use it all the time regarding abortion, etc. It applies here as well.

We have a moral responsibility to care for the poor, to lift up the downtrodden and make society better. You will get no argument from me there. The question is, whose responsibility is it to carry it out? It is not the federal government's.

If a state, or better yet, a community, decides they want to reapportion wealth to help the poor, that's their choice, provided there is a democratic basis for the decision. Residents who don't like it can move to greener pastures where they don't have to contribute.

The responsibility for caring for the downtrodden rests on the individual, and on the churches, synagogues and mosques in this country. It's time to start expecting our citizens to BE citizens, and stop expecting the government to pony up everytime a need presents itself.
on Jan 04, 2008
That is not the issue. The issue is this: there are problems in the society, we cant leave them to fester because they hurt us if not solved or contained, we need funds to do that and we should do it effeciently with min cost and effort.

does anyone disagree with that?


I was not addressing your overall points, just one. I did not claim you like taxes, only that I do not like those who would deceive us by saying "only this.....".

But to your point above, yes I do disagree. Not the whole statement where you ask for agreement, only in the part of "we need funds". NO we do not. We HAVE funds. Funds wasted on programs that have been shown time and time again to be a waste of money and contra to their purpose. No, we (as in the government I gather and I am using) do not need more funds. We need for some cojones on our elected officials to take the money they have and address the problems with effective programs.

If that ever were to happen (dont hold your breath), we would not only not need more funds, we would see the largest tax cut in history!
on Jan 04, 2008
We HAVE funds. Funds wasted on programs that have been shown time and time again to be a waste of money and contra to their purpose. No, we (as in the government I gather and I am using) do not need more funds


I did not say we need more funds ....at all. I said we need funds and that is why taxes exist . and i agree with your statement above. My problem is with people who say we DO NOT NEED to solve these problems.like Gid above.

here is what he said in part:

The responsibility for caring for the downtrodden rests on the individual, and on the churches, synagogues and mosques in this country


I responded to that million times, but it looks it doesnt register: These organization help and they do their role .... but they cant handle the problem it is too big for them ....... and the problem represent a danger to all the rest of us ... we cantjust ignore it and say it is the individual's responsibility because there are some people who are not responsible at all and if left to their own devices they will ruin everything for us.

There was no answer to this response whatsoever. none, zelch . just repeating the same THEORITICAL concept that these organization can do it.

They cant, it is too much for them .... and if they get large enough and funded enough to the point where they can handle it ..... I guarantee you they will be exactly like the Gov that we all saying is not doing things properly.

This is the nature of things ..... you get bigger and richer things get more messy

the trick is to minimize the mess and the problems. ..... not to kill it, ignore it or throw it on others who cant deal with it.

I said many times it is not a matter of morality alone. It is a matter of self-interest in the first place.



6 PagesFirst 4 5 6