The vice president’s speech on Friday is expected to reflect her most thorough articulation yet of her economic priorities.

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.

  • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
    0·
    1 month ago

    $6,000 credit for newborns

    So, you mean, born with debt? (On top of whatever public debt per capita is)

    • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
      0·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
        0·
        1 month ago

        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

        • Mathazzar@lemmy.world
          0·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
            0·
            1 month ago

            i want the taxes I pay to go to helping people

            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.

              • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
                01·
                1 month ago

                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

                • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
                  0·
                  1 month ago

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

                  Giving them money does!

  • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
    0·
    1 month ago

    I can already hear the crabs who didn’t get this in the past trying to yank down the other crabs who will qualify for it back into the bucket. Happens every time there’s a discussion about minimum wage.

    • blandfordforever@lemm.ee
      0·
      1 month ago

      Maybe I’m missing somethng here. I’m not just asking this because I’m upset about the possibility of other people getting money and not me: Wouldn’t we expect the home buyers’ subsidy to only increase demand and drive up the cost of houses? Then the money would end up in the hands of those who already own one or many houses. Isn’t this just giving money to people who are already well-off? Wouldn’t it be better to create a program focused on building more houses instead?

      • Tyfud@lemmy.world
        0·
        1 month ago

        Serious answer from a long term economic standpoint.

        You want more people to participate in home ownership, it’s good for all home owners. Homes are the majority of a family’s equity/net worth. It continues to grow and appreciate and allows them to invest into themselves.

        In 5-10 years, when they’re ready to upgrade, they create a lot of economic activity for everyone by selling their current house, plus additional funds, to upgrade to a new one.

        If you ever want to sell your house to someone under the age of 35 who’s not a tech bro, this is how it’s done.

        It’s the same logic that the economic stimulus package used to generate economic growth and activity.

        The more hands money exchanges, the more valuable it is as a currency to everyone. Counter intuitively, the economy is not a zero sum game. It’s unbounded. The more people we help to achieve financial stability and the ability to participate in the housing market, the better it is for everyone currently participating in the housing market.

        • blandfordforever@lemm.ee
          01·
          1 month ago

          I’m still not understanding the part where everyone having an extra 25k for a house purchase doesn’t just increase the price of all houses by 25k. This is what happens when you increase the demand for something without increasing the supply.