People Twitter

They chose to use a stock photo of a million dollars.

$5000 is only 2 and a half of those bundles of $20’s.

These people are trying to run propaganda for Trump, they can’t even keep their fascist bullshit straight.

WE CAN'T DO THAT, IT'S LIKE PUNISHING THE MOMS WHO ALREADY HAD CHILDREN!!!! /s

That won’t even cover half of the (insured) cost of even the smoothest birth with my plan, and I work for a multi-billion dollar company.

This country, man. Having traveled abroad a bit, you start to realize how tunnel-visioned people stateside can get. Don’t even realize how much they/we are getting fleeced.

Better Idea, let's fix the economy so people can afford to have Babies.

Or fix the world so we want to have Babies.

Or lower the price of housing so we have a place to put babies.

Or open forced breeding camps, shanty towns and and slave labor...oh wait.

They just cut head start, slashed medicade(51% of us babies are born on this program), no medicade no pediatric care for your baby either, cut hud, slashed the department of education, blocked student loan forgiveness, are dismantling the aca preventative care mandate, gutting worker protections, canceling child labor laws, laid off 275,000 workers and destroyed their livelihood and tanked the economy ……yea the birth rate is going to plummet. 5k lol doesn’t even cover a fraction of the utter devastation coming to American families from these moronic policies. Who in their right mind would want to bring a child into this racist sexist tech bro oligarchy?

5000$ is a lot. In Germany you get only 250€

This wouldn't even cover the hospital bill for most people lol.

And since hospitals know moms will be getting an extra 5k they will just add that into the cost somehow. /s

It won't even cover the cost of giving birth. This is some real "how much could a banana cost" energy.

Clinton Floats $5,000 Baby Bond

~ September 28, 2007

It's nice to know these two are still in touch.

The type of person who would think 5k for having a kid is a great deal is exactly the type of person conservatives would bitch about having kids and leeching all the other government resources.

Trade:

• One person's wages

For:

• Mortgage payments on a reasonably sized house
• All bills
• Food for two adults plus children
• Entertainment

Then you might see more babies.

It was their greed that caused this.

USA so shit they gotta pay people to make babies here

That's a weird way of wording "You'll only have to pay 95K out of your 100K bill of your hospital stay for giving birth"

5K PER MONTH and paying for the full hospital bill would be a great place start. But of course, they aren't really pro-life to begin with.

Pro-Birth =/= Pro-Life

They don't care what happens after birth.

According to my halfassed search engine results, giving birth costs on average $18,000.

Just the cost of epidural, estimates range from $1000 to $3500 out of that cost.

Wages have not kept up with productivity and GDP increases since the 1970s.

How about making single income middle class families possible again, so you can have one stay at home parent.

• A: This is the 'bad' kind of incentive. My mom worked in a hospital where people would come in pregnant, tons of neglected kids in tow, asking how much wellfare they could get for the next kid. Stuff like vouchers for school, care, healthcare and stuff doesn't incentive that.

• B: It's hilariously inadequate and out-of-touch. $5K for childcare these days is a joke, even as a nice supplement.

...But that's the point. This is for show, like Trump's COVID checks with his signature on them. It's a brand to tell people "Hey! I'm Trump, and I'm helping you!" directly, a decent idea poorly implemented for PR purposes. It's also hilariously hypocritical, seeing how much 'blank check hand-outs' were criticized for decades.

They sure do act like it's the 1930s alright...

Having a kid will cost you much more than 100grand. Giving you 5k to fuck is such an insult.

Remember the stimulus checks that covered approximately 15 days' worth of rent?

My personsl hypothesis is that when couples are living in times of prosperity or growth, they can see a future and can comfortably grow a pension, then they are likely to consider having kids. This also happens to be the time they are getting a share of the wealth society generates.

In recession and uncertain times, couples tend to hold of on getting kids, and if they do get kids, they do it much later in life, when they have saved some money.

Of course couples need free time as well. If both parents need to work full time, it's gonna be a lot less palatable to have kids.

I think the global low fertility is the problem of infinite growth self correcting.

It really is a bummer to have such a legitimately retarded man just riding this country into the earths crust all Slim Pickens style.

This has been tried elsewhere I believe. It ends up being a gift for those who can afford kids anyway, and does not incease the number of couples deciding to have children. A small gift for upper middle class.

Better wealth distribution however; that works.

So conservatives want smaller government and less taxes but they're totally fine with their tax dollars being used to bribe women to give birth?

So they're stupid?

Based on data presented here: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-true-cost-of-raising-a-child

It takes a minimum of $200K USD to raise a child from birth to 18; which works out to ~$1K/mo.

If the Government were serious in wanting to address the aging population issue, the best way to tackle it would be to provide family funding at this level for a family’s first ~3 children.

Would it be expensive? Absolutely it would be in the initial term - but the increase in economic activity would arguably more than cover it in the long run.

Would it lead to inflation? Not if the costs were derived from taxes due to the government (which currently get dodged), rather than through national debt.

Would it lead to a positive outcome for the nation? Arguably yes, but there may also be unintended consequences to the negative. Human greed knows no bounds, after all.

Ah yes, the conservatives plan to boost the birth rate has finally come to bear a rotten fruit:

• People can't afford to have kids
• People can't afford to feed kids
• People can't afford to shelter kids
• Therefore they won't have able bodied kids to keep the retirement and tax doles fulfilled
• Nor will they have able bodied soldiers for war

But they're boosting the birth rate! (they aren't, actually, the rate will be even more in decline since the replacement rate in the US was held up by immigration like in most countries, and dumbfuck's actions have brought a stop to that).

I used to work as a teller at a bank. That bag of money is over 100k.

Daycare is free where I live. It has to be. You can't expect people to pay for public services themselves; that's done with taxes. Corporations can't have customers or employees without people, and to get people to make more people, you have to make it easier for them. So what makes the most sense is cutting corporation porfits, which they don't need past a limit if they aren't investing in things that will benefit the public. So if a corporation isn't doing anything good, raise their taxes, use them to pay for daycare.

Isn’t it like ~$310,000 to raise a kid to 17? That’s, what, 2% of what is needed after the poor child is born? And some woman is going to decide to let a guy nut in her for $5000?

“White babies only please” —Cheetolini