.....most of the poor people in the country to save on money paid out on benefits and cut down on the awful smell they create.
2007-01-31 12:00:06 · 12 answers · asked by thuddie 3 in Social Science ➔ Economics
start in liverpool that should take you a few hundred years!
2007-01-31 12:04:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have to ask, are you serious?
I think more money should be given to charities example "The Salvation Army" which some helps people put of poverty, educates them, gives them a place to stay etc. I say "some" people because most are turned away as there is no room. A lot of these charities are not government funded and a lot of the people are volunteers.
2007-01-31 20:16:27 · answer #2 · answered by mya♣ 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We could have public showers somewhere so they won't offend your delicate nose. We should find decent housing. Affordable housing here is advertized in the low 120's. Is that a joke? I like to see a return of the old hippie communes. Put enough people together and even working for minimum wage, they could afford someplace to live.
2007-01-31 23:57:56 · answer #3 · answered by nursesr4evr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You make a persuasive argument. I'll pick up some ammo at the Wal Marts and head downtown to the soup kitchen.
2007-01-31 21:46:24 · answer #4 · answered by KevinStud99 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You assume all people on benefits are poor. What about those of us receiving disability benefits?
We take up a small space and our carers keep us clean so we don't upset your sensitive nose.
2007-01-31 20:16:15 · answer #5 · answered by Ilkie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
sorry thuddie, looks like you didnt get the angry ott reaction you were looking for! as for the woman above, how about we cull mothers that deny fathers access as well?
2007-02-01 05:36:23 · answer #6 · answered by mr. me 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Only the wealthiest 0.1% should remain. The rest including you and I should leap into the flames.
2007-01-31 20:08:12 · answer #7 · answered by monkeymanelvis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have long held the belief that the best way to improve our lot is to give everyone an IQ test at, say, five and then drown all those who score below 110
2007-01-31 20:07:10 · answer #8 · answered by Bob Danvers-Walker 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
How about we just cull the chavs? that would be much more econimical!
2007-01-31 21:42:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
how about we cull fathers that dont pay child support?
2007-02-01 01:42:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The real problem (economy wise) is the post-war baby boomers reaching retirement age.
Once they all carp it - we should be cool... ;-)
2007-01-31 20:10:07 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋