That would save tons of money and considerable savings in ALL financial aspects of life. Healthcare would be less expensive due to the lack of demand. Energy would be greatly in surplus. Every imaginable cost would be less.
And just think.... the lucky ones will no longer require welfare because we can pay them to do the extermination.
2007-02-15 06:51:49 · 17 answers · asked by lynchmob.justice 1 in Social Science ➔ Economics
When I was first married I got into an accident and lost both of my jobs. My pregnant wife was unable to work due to health issues. We lost everything due to medical expenses and no income. We were forced to get state aid.
I hated every minute of it. I refused to walk into the store using food stamps as I was too ashamed, but I had to in the end. I felt like half a human. It felt like everyone was looking at me and thinking as you do.
I healed, found new employment and we moved from the low-income housing where we'd been forced to move. I know that to someone who has been fortunate enough to not go through what I went through welfare might seem a drain on our economy and an unnecessary weight on the tax base. I am here to tell you that those who use welfare are people. Granted, some find it easier than being productive members of society, but for every person like that there are scores who just plain need the help.
Since that time I have had another child, received a Bachelor's degree, a Master's degree and an MBA. I have also purchased my first house.
Think of that when you peddle your message of hate and moral superiority.
2007-02-15 07:10:10 · answer #1 · answered by Edrondol 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i dont think getting rid of people who need help is the answer. after all it isn't their fault, like me i work, take care of my home, my husband works, but at the end of the day because of the current economy, we need a bit of help to feed our 2 children. i do believe the eliminating those who abuse such a good program should be eliminated. there are people who won't work, keep having kids so they can get more money (meanwhile neglecting the children) and even have multiple social security numbers to recieve more benefits then they need.
2007-02-15 15:01:29 · answer #2 · answered by PiX iE 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you mean only those getting corporate welfare, yes. Would save billions. Social welfare costs little in comparison.
2007-02-15 15:02:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Many people on welfare get off it and become productive and useful citizens, and all should have the opportunity to do so.
2007-02-15 15:50:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
But then you wouldn't have anybody to feel better than, unless you start exterminating people who have red hair or big hands or something like that.
2007-02-15 14:55:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the people on well fare should just get jobs and make money like the rest of us, what makes them so special.
2007-02-16 15:25:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
They should be required to work in community service.
Have you ever known someone who lost their job or suddenly had a disability which prevented them from working?
2007-02-15 15:01:58 · answer #7 · answered by DannyK 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No that's a waste of precious lead/poisonous gas. I think we should instead offer them employment by forcing them to do menial work in exchange for their lives.
2007-02-15 14:57:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We could also save even more money it we turned them into food. We could call it soylent red white and blue
2007-02-15 17:28:39 · answer #9 · answered by meg 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You'd be better off if you didn't waste vast amounts of money starting wars you can't win.
2007-02-15 15:03:22 · answer #10 · answered by Mighty C 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋