Read on Twitter
It makes no moral or fiscal sense to increase suffering for the poor, disabled, elderly, or those suffering long term injury or mental illness.
When we invest in these areas, we get massive savings returns.
If the goal is chaos, cut funding in these areas & watch what happens.
When we invest in these areas, we get massive savings returns.
If the goal is chaos, cut funding in these areas & watch what happens.
Who’d want chaos created on the backs of the vulnerable?
No one with any common sense.
“We can’t afford it!”
Wrong.
That’s like saying you can’t afford to fix the dike that keeps the ocean at bay.
We can’t afford not to do the right thing, every time.
Goodness makes sense.
No one with any common sense.
“We can’t afford it!”
Wrong.
That’s like saying you can’t afford to fix the dike that keeps the ocean at bay.
We can’t afford not to do the right thing, every time.
Goodness makes sense.
Example: Every person I’ve spoken to & have the honour of representing, no matter their politics, has said that the least we could do is help the homeless.
Every single one.
They don’t even know the huge financial savings it represents.
We are kind people. Kindred. Family.
Every single one.
They don’t even know the huge financial savings it represents.
We are kind people. Kindred. Family.
Someone will try to sell you on the idea that reducing funding for the most vulnerable represents HARD DECISIONS. That’s it’s pragmatic in some way.
False. Easily proven false. It costs us all more in the long run.
“What if someone abuses the aid?”
Punish 99% because 1% cheat?
False. Easily proven false. It costs us all more in the long run.
“What if someone abuses the aid?”
Punish 99% because 1% cheat?
Or help 99 people out of a hundred, even though one might take advantage of that goodness?
Am I my brother’s keeper?
Yes.
We all keep each other.
That’s the point.
Am I my brother’s keeper?
Yes.
We all keep each other.
That’s the point.
