Someone who can spend $600 on a pair of shoes yet argues with a straight face that $300 is too much to give someone who cannot afford food, should not be a lawmaker.

May 23, 2021 · 1:54 PM UTC

157
2,422
72
25,243
Replying to @marwilliamson
Who can't afford food? // Why do people keep bringing this up? It makes them look stupid. Hunger is not a problem in America. Sure there are some, but it is not the ones losing $300.
Replying to @marwilliamson
There is a huge difference between how the government spends money collected through force and someone spending personal money
Replying to @marwilliamson
Mw, talk about the $300-$600-$1200-$1400 $3000 dollars going to individuals that are not paying their mortgage/rent/loans. Talk about the Democrat give aways to people who are working & receiving an earned paycheck, receiving this money, while the mismanaged system starves others
Replying to @marwilliamson
Corrupt ones to the core lack a conscience and morals.
Replying to @marwilliamson
there is no “should”. only “is” or “is not”. so much wasted energy on “should”.
Replying to @marwilliamson
Just because someone has a great deal of money and power does not mean they can easily abrogate their responsibility to the human race. On the contrary, they have a greater responsibility!
Replying to @marwilliamson
Since that is how you think policy works. With your $1,000 iPhone in pocket start giving your money away. I bet you wont. However, you will advocate for policy makers to give other peoples money away because they wear shoes you disagree with.
Replying to @marwilliamson
Good sarcasm
Replying to @marwilliamson
"Can" spend or "does" spend?