365
Kamala Harris unveils populist policy agenda, with $6,000 credit for newborns
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
365 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19089 readers
4103 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. It's basically a continuation of the child tax credit that the republicans killed. It lifted half of kids out of poverty that were in poverty and it was a very very popular covid relief program.
I mean, everyone's happy when money is flowing in. But someone has to pay for this.
Also: 6k is pretty much nothing compared to the long term cost of raising the child. It really is a populist move - she's buying votes with taxpayer money
Yeah, you simply reduce your defense budget by 0.0001%
Yes, you see.. i want the taxes I pay to go to helping people. We could instead, say, stop giving as much to the DoD. We could raise taxes on corporations and close off shore loopholes.. you know, basic good governance.
I generally agree with this, but I'd rather see government spending my money on infrastructure, like roads, power plants, research ect. so everyone benefits instead of giving it away for free.
Why not both?
Society benefits from children not growing up in extreme poverty.
True, but giving money for free isn't a proper way of fighting with poverty. The proper way would be introducing reforms that make housing, healthcare and education fundamentally cheaper. That would be effective at fixing the very causes that make people impoverished
Making things cheaper doesn't help people in extreme poverty who have no money.
Giving them money does!
They have no money, because everything they need to live, is expensive!!!
Extreme poverty is caused by a lack of income, not by the cost of living.
People who have no job and no income at all, shouldn't make children they can't support - this is a horrible pathology 6k USD can't possibly solve
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you squandered it.
A ton of kids in poverty were not born into poverty, but their parents lost jobs or had health emergencies or parents who died. A lot of parents didn't choose to become pregnant, because birth control isn't perfect. Some kids are in extreme poverty because the parent without the job leaft due to domestic violence.
And sometimes kids end up in poverty because a natural disaster made the family homeless and they lost their job becsuse the business was also halted due to the disaster.
Blaming the parents casts a huge net and carches a lot of people who had shit come up in the 18 years between birth and adulthood.
The topic is about 6k for newborns. I was giving you benefit of the doubt, but you seem to fail to process relevant information.
These are separate cases, that should be treated accordingly. The entire discussion is about subsidizing parents of newborns. My stance is simple: Parents who can't afford child shouldn't have a child, it's basic 101 of parenthood planning. The lowering of cost of living could increase affordability of having child considerably.
The only good argument you've made here, is about imperfect birth control - this exists, but it's a rare case. There are many cases when this is a result of negligence, rather than actual failure of anti conception measures.
Losing a job isn't something uncommon. The proper solution is to find a new job. This is ugly, and some support during the hard transition may be justified, but again single 6k benefit changes absolutely nothing
I don't understand what you've said here
Yeah, that is clear.
No seriously, "carches" isn't even a word, and I can't decrypt any sense out of that sentence
It wasn’t the child’s choice to be born into poverty, however that came about. That money is to give the child a fighting chance to become a contributing member of society, regardless of its circumstances.
Investing in our children is not to fight today’s poverty, but tomorrow’s. We need to give all children a good start and the potential to develop into a healthy part of a strong society. The goal is for them to break the cycle of poverty rather than go around again
It literally is. Study after study proves just giving people money with no strings attached gives massive benefits for essentially no net cost.
https://college.unc.edu/2021/03/universal-basic-income/
The fact that you don't know this proves you either ignore this, or don't search anything to confirm you're correct.
That's just an opinion, not an argument.
Why not both? Both choices are an investment in our future, which I’m all for. It’s just a minor difference whether we’re investing in something concrete or something more squishy
I'll pay for it. Gladly. Even though I won't benefit. Ever hear of the old saying about old men planting trees whose shade they'll never sit in?
That money gets put right back into the economy. Tax breaks for wealthy people gets offshored where it won't help the economy.
You say "buying votes with taxpayer money"
I say: "Literally listening to the middle, lower, and working poor and doing what they want."
The child tax credit never should have been stopped because it lifted kids out of poverty and poverty is the number one cause of crime.
It’s not meant to help the long term cost, only the first year cost. After that, there’s the usual $2k or $3k or year or whatever it ends up being after good ones expire
Do not feed the trolls