The most striking proposals were for the elimination of medical debt for millions of Americans; the “first-ever” ban on price gouging for groceries and food; a cap on prescription drug costs; a $25,000 subsidy for first-time home buyers; and a child tax credit that would provide $6,000 per child to families for the first year of a baby’s life.
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
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