The two presidential candidates can both point to records of pushing poverty rates down, but their approaches could hardly be more different.According to The New York Times, both presidential candidates have a track record of reducing poverty rates, but their approaches differ greatly. The latest updates on the campaigns of Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump show a sharp contrast in their antipoverty policies, which could have a significant impact on the economic security of low-income Americans.

When the pandemic hit in 2020, Mr. Trump signed a large stimulus package that included aid for the poor. When President Biden and Ms. Harris took office in 2021, they pushed for more aid expansions through Congress as part of their pandemic-recovery plan, resulting in a further decrease in the poverty rate. However, while their responses to the pandemic had some similarities, the two candidates drew different conclusions from the experience.

The pandemic-era programs, which have mostly expired or been reduced, reinforced Ms. Harris and other Democrats’ belief in the government’s ability to alleviate hardship. If elected, Ms. Harris plans to continue or expand these programs, including subsidies for food, healthcare, and housing, as well as reviving a change to the child tax credit that essentially provided a guaranteed income for families with children. These policies helped reduce the poverty rate by more than half from pre-pandemic levels.

Ms. Harris also supports a $15 federal minimum wage, which has been opposed by Republicans, and advocates for programs such as subsidized child care and paid family leave to help balance work and family responsibilities.

On the other hand, Mr. Trump does not mention his role in pandemic-era poverty programs, which many Republicans view as excessive and prone to fraud. Instead, he highlights his 2017 tax cuts, which he claims boosted the economy and reduced poverty to pre-pandemic levels. He has promised to extend these cuts when they expire next year, even though most of the benefits went to corporations and the wealthy.

In conclusion, the two candidates have different perspectives on how to address poverty in the country, and the outcome of the election could have a significant impact on the economic well-being of low-income Americans. 

Source:Read More