Trump proposes government funded investment accounts for babies

Funded in trump crypto currency so he gets a cut?

 

I do not hate the idea, but I am absolutely dumb-founded that the same Faux Conservatives who cried for decades about "wealth redistribution" are going to sit back and applaud this because Trump says so.

 

We actually do something similar for our grandkids but add to it every year. They will have a nice piece of change at the end, but not enough to demotivate them for a career or financial success. The main idea is to teach some financial lessons on the stock market, economy and compound interest. I think that is a big plus for most young people, especially those from less financially secure homes. So, that I like.

However, I am a bit troubled by this $$ going to millions of kids that dont need it and for whom it wont make any difference in their lives. Exclude higher income households and maybe it's ok. With 3-4 million babies born every year, that's a bigger sum than you would think. Nice bonus for the stock market I guess.

Also, there is the bureaucracy ($$) necessary to administer it and at the same time he will be cutting back Medicaid/SNAP programs for lower income folks. Seems like those less fortunate would rather have health care, but JMO.

 

If we really wanted to do something for our grandchildren, why don’t we just work on reducing the deficit, balancing the budget, and provide them with better government moving forward?

 

Trying to get more women to have babies?

 

So, Elon will be happy with this, right.

 

agree. I’m unaware of the details but recipients won’t have access until college age or something? Imo a good way to get people planning for their future. But agree, surprised it’s maga because it’s helpful for the poor & society as whole, benefits are long term, and it’s a handout.

 

That's some badass socialism that Trump is proposing.

 

Remember when Republicans blamed inflation on government money being given to people?

 

Please raise your hand if you think this is a good idea and why you trust future politicians not to raid or steal the funds.

Hi, I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.

 

good point. In 15 years this big turkey is on the table when we’re paying $1.5T a yr in interest because of the BBB.

 

This was my first thought as well. We already have an overpopulation problem and this is throwing gasoline on the fire.

Even tossing that potential issue aside, the only way something like this has any chance of success is if there are ironclad guarantees that the money cannot be touched by anyone other than whom it was intended for and cannot be touched until age 65. Not by family (unless as a beneficiary) and not by any other third party for any reason.

 

With a $1000.? Laughably inadequate. With current grocery prices, housing prices, medical insurance instability, and the cost of childcare, not even a drop in the bucket.

 

Conceptually I totally agree. But if a program is allocated mainly for the poor, at times there will be political consensus to cut it. The poor don’t have much power, don’t vote as much and are easily distracted by cultural and other issues.

It’s one of the reasons Social Security has stuck around so long. Everybody who works pays into and has a stake in it. Some of the people who devised the program actually foresaw that.

That is good for the longevity of the program. It’s not necessarily good for long term fiscal responsibility when most spending is completely off limits to touch, but that’s another issue.

 

Fair point I suppose, tho a sad commentary.
I will note that there are several long standing programs around that are income based such as Pell Grants.

Of course there is the issue of worsening the national debt. That, in of itself should kill the idea.

 

Lol... you're so practical.

 

$1000 would presumably be for the child when they become an adult (or even retirement?), I.e. not something to incentivize would be mothers as the mothers wouldn’t have access.

But I agree $1000 seems pointless either way. Of course it’s $3B a year (based on annual births in U.S) so doesn’t cost anything either. It’s so small it falls into “who gives a shit” or could be categorized as a pointless exercise. It would probably be more debatable as meaningful policy for something like $10,000 into an account. At least that would buy a kid a semester at some colleges when they turn 18. Of course with the people involved here, there’s got to be a grifting angle whether the idea is $1,000 or $10,000. So it’s probably best to stick with $0.

 

Slight correction: Remember when Republicans blamed Democrats for inflation caused from Republicans giving money to people? Pepperidge farm remembers.