this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
1066 points (99.2% liked)

People Twitter

6843 readers
1580 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nathanjent@programming.dev 15 points 10 hours ago

After he rolls this out he'll start pushing to drop the child tax credit arguing, "they already get so much investment up front. They're so greedy."

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 50 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Clinton Floats $5,000 Baby Bond

~ September 28, 2007

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

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 19 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

put into an index fund over the last seventeen years, that $5k is now $30k. it was not a terrible idea.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 19 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Of all the people who are so strapped they could receive $5k and not immediately blow it on visa bills and rent, parents aren't even close to the list. $5k into investments? Most of them are either flirting with bankruptcy or engaging in some heavy petting in a corner booth.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 12 hours ago

Not on its face, no. I think it's still a band-aid attached to a bigger problem of generational inequality. Public housing, education, and a large competitive public hiring sector would have gone much farther in rectifying poverty in the US.

But the extra insulting aspect of "Baby Bonds" is that they're an idea dangled over a public hungry for economic reforms which never actually gets delivered. When liberals lose, they get to nag centrists and insist "We had all these good ideas but you were too racist and stupid to accept them". When they win, we get an earful about how the federal courts, the super-majority Senate, the prior administration's mid-level bureaucrats, the state legislatures, and two dozen of DC's biggest lobbying firms all have to agree to go along with it or the reforms can't pass.

Seems like Republicans are getting in on the same act, now that kitchen table liberalism is experiencing a popular resurgence.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It's really gonna help to pay for diapers in an index fund.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pappabosley@lemm.ee 9 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

We had this in Australia for a while, where there was no hospital costs for birth, and almost 20 years ago, so it was a considerable help. The conservatives started claiming people were having babies just to get the money and then spending it on big TV's and other luxuries.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 6 points 9 hours ago

Which is hilarious because iirc it was a fucking Howard policy

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world 27 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 8 points 10 hours ago

Remember? I'm still living off of mine!

Oh wait, that was just some right wing delusional bullshit that disappeared as quickly as it materialized.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 11 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

Why only after the baby is born? Is there something significant about the moment of birth or something?

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 11 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Yeah, clearly an embryo/fetus is a child with rights at the moment of conception (/s), so why wait until after delivery?

[–] JollyBrancher@lemm.ee 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Aye. Try and convict them as an adult and then they're free labor.

[–] Squorlple@lemmy.world 41 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

USA so shit they gotta pay people to make babies here

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] Barley_Man@sopuli.xyz 29 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

As someone who lives in a country where giving birth is free that sounds absolutely insane to me. Are these birth costs in the US at least covered by common medical insurance or is it always that bad? It's a miracle that the US birth rate is one of the highest in the western world when the conditions are like this...

[–] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 26 points 12 hours ago

After my son’s birth in 2006, we owed $12,000 after insurance. That was a single night’s stay in the hospital. Nothing out of the norm for the birth. We had to refinance the house the following year to pay off his and our daughter’s birth from 2005.

[–] 93maddie94@lemm.ee 11 points 12 hours ago

I think my hospital bills were around $5,000. What I didn’t anticipate was the fact that once my daughter was born I was paying hospital bills for me and for her. I think without insurance it was around 30k? So insurance covered 25,000 and we paid the rest

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Right? 🇨🇦

But I have family in Sweden, and I'm not sure they don't have a baby food fund, but I definitely remember that daycare, preschool and all schooling was free of user-fees and also nearby.

So she's been walking the kids to the schools down the road a bit for 14 years now, on her way to and from work. And it's been free. And I think they get lunch. And their schools are moderately successful and still have programmes. And they graduate kids who can add in their head and speak two languages or more.

Guys, I think rogue American states don't want to join Canada. Join Denmark or Sweden instead!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Nefara@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

I had a kid three years ago, we decided to get a higher premium health plan that specifically had excellent natal coverage. It's one of the most expensive plans available to us but we didn't pay anything for 9 months worth of prenatal visits plus 3 days in the hospital. The coverage statement said that delivery from the hospital was something like $28,000 but the first bill we actually saw that we had to pay was for a hearing test that was only partially covered.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 10 hours ago

More ineffective Band-Aids.

The core issues never get addressed. Prices keep going up.

And those issues will get worse under a corpo like Trump.

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 19 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

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?

[–] yourgodlucifer@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 hours ago

This won't even cover the medical costs to give birth

[–] ace_of_based@sh.itjust.works 10 points 12 hours ago

Even Elon pays better than this

[–] dangling_cat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Well, in a couple of years, some countries more than 50% of the population will be retired. Even a perfect democracy would not pass a law to improve young people’s lives so they can have time and money to have kids.

Just like in a perfect democracy, no affordable housing law will be approved because 66% of the population are homeowners.

Its unsolvable.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] griff 17 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

“White babies only please” —Cheetolini

[–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago

I know you were half joking but for everyone else here complaining that 5k ain't shit (I agree, it's not), it's because the incentive is not for you. It's for rich people (read: rich white people, since poverty disproportionately affects non-white people).

5k might not mean shit to you in trying to raise a child but for someone who already has the means to have/raise a kid, it's actually bonus money. That's the incentive.

[–] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

I sometimes joke with my kids and call them Lamborghini 1 and 2, because that's how much money it was suggested you would need for each kid, and I'm sure that has doubled or tripled by now.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 7 hours ago

Putin did the same thing, he aware 16k equivalent for having 10+ children .

[–] scala@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago

Add an extra zero to that. Then we might consider

[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 10 points 12 hours ago

Have 4 kids.

5k is couch money when you have kids. It'll maybe take care of a few months of daycare. Now if you're on gov assistance and make next to nothing? This will be great, but don't expect to get a job or climb out of poverty with 5k. A kid will eat that up super fast.

[–] ZagamTheVile@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

As an atheist baby-eater, sign me up. I could have a lovely dinner party for $5K on Hallowen every year and not have to find a main course.

[–] KelvarIW@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

That's the only way anyone would financially benefit from this bill. Infanticide. And only if they do a home birth.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 9 hours ago

Let them get braces.

[–] sommerset@thelemmy.club 4 points 10 hours ago

I mean I like the direction, but this is far cry from other countries.

Give us UHC, improve working rights, guaranteed housing for parents, daycare.

But Its good they at least bringing it up.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›