2006-06-18 04:31:49 · 11 answers · asked by stacey s 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
There would be no less fortunate. spread the word!
2006-06-18 04:34:22 · answer #1 · answered by doktordbel 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe it's better for the less fortunate to feed themselves,
with a little help at first. Besides,exactly what crap do we stop spending on?
2006-06-18 11:40:58 · answer #2 · answered by Alion 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we spent money on the less fortunate, and none on luxuries, than we would be no more fortunate than the less fortunate! It would make everybody equal, like communism. That didn't work too well last time someone tried it out, did it? And, no offense, but to ask the question, you must have spent money on "crap" AKA a computer!
2006-06-18 11:39:39 · answer #3 · answered by irock67 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree we need to spend on the less fortunate. Who is going to define who qualifies for less fortunate? Too many of the less fortunate have opportunities to better themselves. Many chose the role. It irritates me when people do not try to help themselves.
I agree there is too much spending on unnecessary items. There is federal funding available for things that are of no relevance to the majority. I'm not saying leave out the minority. I mean why does my tax dollars have to go to items that are irrelevant to me and the majority of Americans. There is too much research being done that does not come up with a solution. Usually it creates more problems, and more money is spent on the outcome of the research.
Funding space exploration is one of my pet peeves. Who cares!! Let's help those that are truly in need. Space research is irrelevant.
2006-06-18 11:43:34 · answer #4 · answered by Forget-n-forgive forget it!! 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What would happen if the less fortunate did something to help themselves instead of waiting for a handout? I realize there are people who truly cannot do more for themselves than they are, but there are many more that can, but do not.
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.... teach a man to fish and he will eat for life....."
2006-06-18 11:36:01 · answer #5 · answered by casperbtch 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
to tell you the truth i really don't know but i am guessing there would be less "less fortunate" people and i'm pretty sure that like half of the forests would be cut down to make houses or room for more houses
2006-06-18 16:22:53 · answer #6 · answered by Claire C 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There would be more less fortunate because they would be 100% enabled.
2006-06-18 11:35:09 · answer #7 · answered by BobTheBizGuru 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
thats why we pay taxes....and wouldnt it be great if the needie actually went out and got a job rather than rely on the goverment for there spending like all the known welfare cases that ive seen being abused in the past GIVE ME A BREAK
2006-06-18 11:36:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you feed today they will still be hungry tommorrow. Teach a person to fish today and tommorrow he or she will have food. In other words lets look at helping people to help themselves.
2006-06-18 11:36:42 · answer #9 · answered by Ray S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ther would be more "less fortunate"
2006-06-18 11:35:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋