When a politician supports a humanitarian policy now, they feel the need to justify the move in economic terms. How about “We need to feed hungry children because it’s the right thing to do”? The people who should feel the need to justify themselves are those who would say no.
This week, I introduced a new bill to help more kids get no-cost meals at school without bombarding their families with paperwork. This will not only strengthen our workforce of tomorrow by improving student achievement, attendance, and behavior; it will save schools money.

Dec 12, 2022 · 4:47 PM UTC

20
37
3
210
Replying to @marwilliamson
Being able to speak in the financial aspect of things is a basic of any level of organizing. Even if you get a “yes”, you still have to find a a way to pay for it.
2
1
Like the 2017 tax cut that gave $.83 of every dollar to the richest corporations and individuals and clearly will never pay for itself? Like an almost $900 billion defense budget? Like subsidies to oil and Pharma companies are already making billions of dollars in profit?
1
11
Replying to @marwilliamson
it is the right thing to do but many people in this country don’t believe in the right thing to do, they need validation as an economic policy . Porter is trying to help getting people on board not justifying her actions
1
1
Of course. I’m just saying it’s sad she has to
2
5
Replying to @marwilliamson
We should help people be able to provide food for themselves is the right thing to do. Feeding people without that extra intent is morally ambiguous at best.
1
Replying to @marwilliamson
It’s really very simple… “When you see a person who needs help—You help them.” Marianne Williamson
1
7
Replying to @marwilliamson
I agree 100% ... If someone is hungry ...you feed them ... you don't need reasons and justifications!
2
Replying to @marwilliamson
The people who say no don’t care and are often rewarded. We live in the upside down.
1