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.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Making things cheaper doesn’t help people in extreme poverty who have no money.

          Giving them money does!

                • snooggums@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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.

                • AA5B@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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

        • JamesFire@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          True, but giving money for free isn’t a proper way of fighting with poverty.

          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.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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