this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
96 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10186 readers
246 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
96
Kamala Harris unveils populist policy agenda, with $6,000 credit for newborns (and more) (www.washingtonpost.com)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

archive link

the long and short of this agenda (courtesy of a ResetERA post:

GROCERIES AND FOOD

  • First-ever federal ban on corporate price gouging on food and groceries
  • Set clear rules so that corporations can't unfairly exploit consumers with pricing to run up excessive corporate profits
  • Empower the FTC and state attorney generals to investigate corporations for violating the rules
  • Aggressively regulate mergers and proposed consolidation among food producers and grocers

HEALTHCARE

  • Expand the $35 insulin cap for Medicare to all Americans, not just the elderly ones
  • Cap all Americans annual out of pocket prescription drug spending at $2,000/year
  • Ramp up Medicare negotiations with drug companies over their most expensive drugs
  • Regulate pharmaceutical companies that block competitive and abusive practices by middlemen
  • Cancel medical debt for millions of Americans

TAX CUTS

  • Extend Inflation Reduction Act subsidies and lower premiums for ACA
  • Expand Earned Income Tax Credit by up to $1,500
  • Restore the $3,000 per child tax credit from the Inflation Reduction Act
  • Expand the Child Tax Credit so that even the poorest of families receive it (currently families need to make a high enough annual income to receive it)
  • Increase the Child Tax Credit to $6,000 per child for first year newborns

HOUSING

  • $25,000 down payment assistance for first time homebuyers who have paid rent on time for at least two years
  • Tax credit incentives for home builders who build starter homes sold to first time homebuyers
  • Build 3 million homes
  • $40B to local state governments for building housing
  • Pass the Stop Predatory Investing Act, legislation that would prohibit investors who acquire 50 or more new single-family rental homes from deducting interest or depreciation on the properties.
  • Pass the Preventing the Algorithmic Facilitation of Rental Housing Cartels Act, legislation that cracks down on companies that allow landlords to collude to set high housing prices via software and price-setting algorithms.
all 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Please I am begging you all I want is affordable healthcare. Is Medicare for All not brat-coded enough?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think she wants you to just rack up a bunch of medical debt so she can cancel it, gotta think in loopholes like the big companies

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It sounds to me like limiting spending, and reigning in those predatory intermediaries, would reduce that medical debt in the first place. Or am I missing something?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think the point is that even with caps on spending, it's still possible for people to fall into a financial hole. Even just looking at the prescription proposal, $2000 may not be a lot for some, but for others, that's a good chunk of change. And is that $2000 per person? Is there a limit for a family? Because if not, for a family of 4, $8000 is a lot.

And of course, this doesn't address the medical procedures themselves.

I'm explaining the other person's position as I've read it. To me, any step in the right direction, even if small, is a good thing. But I could see why others would be like "Come on, stop beating around the bush, M4A already!"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

$2000/year per person, would be $167/year per person. It's not $0, but sounds like a reasonable amount for anyone except the most marginalized groups

Medical procedures are indeed a problem, but my understanding is their price is artificially inflated due to intermediaries, so taking a harder approach to that, would partially solve the issue, and pave the way for further regulation.

M4A should be the goal, something most 1st World countries have already, but I also understand it would mean upending a lot of industries and their interrelationship in the US, so a step-by-step approach seems like a wise one.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

but sounds like a reasonable amount for anyone except the most marginalized groups

I know several people for whom $167 per month would be a big problem. Considering how many people struggle to get by on incredibly low wages, with ever-increasing rent, I really don't think it's fair to suggest that this would only be a problem for "the most marginalized groups."

And that's all ignoring the fact that "being unable to afford medicine" is not a problem anyone in such a rich country should ever have to face, regardless of income. Frankly, I really don't care if it upends industries; people's lives are more important than that.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

A whole lot of small but meaningful improvements... that nonetheless depress me on account of the fact that this is apparently the most we're allowed to vote for. And they're not even guaranteed in the least.

Still, I can at least keep going by remembering that this is a presidential race, and is thus among the least democratic aspects of the country, short of things like the Supreme Court. There are better, more impactful things for me to focus on.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Tax credit would be huge to reduce childhood poverty, but the housing changes would be amazing for transforming so many lives...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Tax credits are nice, but are least likely to help people in poverty. A lot of them can't wait to claim the credit and if it's not refundable it may not help them at all.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • Expand the Child Tax Credit so that even the poorest of families receive it
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Should also be noted that the covid tax credit drove childhood poverty to 8%.

In 2021, bolstered by federal pandemic relief, economic security programs drove the poverty rate down to a record low of 8.0 percent. The expiration of that aid drove poverty back up in 2022, to 12.4 percent. The number of people living in poverty fell by 14.5 million between 2019 and 2021 and rose back up by 14.5 million in 2022. - Source

It should be noted that the covid era tax credit was also redeemable by those below the income threshold.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

My reading comprehension apparently isn't what it used to be. Thank you for highlighting that.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Holy shit. These changes would be awesome. Not only would some of these changes help people in America, but I bet the ideas would spread elsewhere, too. Please oh please I want price gouging of groceries to stop.

Plus the rent stuff is huge too. People are struggling out here.

I've gotten a handful of raises over the past 4 years, and they have all been under inflation, so they might as well be demotions. LOL

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I had a conservative coworker having her second and final child who won't qualify for this tax credit by the time it goes through (if ever), and I must say:

LoL

Tell me more about how God gave Israel to the Jews (but they're still going to hell)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Huh. Usually someone used the word "populist" gets a long winded rebuttal why populism is bad.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Seems it depends on which elite/establishment, going by Wikipedia's definition: "populism" is the political stance of "the people" against "the elite/establishment"

So by that defn, both of these examples qualify:

  • The people being distrustful of the establishment of medical science
  • The people condemning the unfair practices of a monopolistic/oligopolistic establishment
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah, it seems like wrt media outlets, "populism" just means whatever they want it to mean