In Reply to: Re: Then there is the thought that this is the first step in posted by russsmith on October 08, 2026 at 15:43:39
> My point is it's not free money.
Of course, it ultimately comes from deficit spending, but the scale of the program matters.
There are roughly 3.6 million births a year, so a $1,000 contribution for every newborn would represent about a $3.6 billion annual investment.
Put that in perspective with major stimulus spending over the past 25 years:
COVID direct payments: about $931 billion
2008–09 stimulus payments: about $108 billion
2001 rebate: about $36 billion
Compared with those programs, a $3.6 billion annual investment in children's future is relatively small.
Why not be more proactive and invest in the future rather than wait for the government to react to a crisis? The idea is to give children an asset that can compound for decades rather than simply providing another short-term payment.
Compare it with the Biden child tax credit. It lifted an estimated 2.9 million children out of poverty, while providing up to $3,600 per child under age 6 and $3,000 for older children in 2021. Yet the expanded credit expired because it had Biden's name on it.
Dems have no problem giving each child $21,600 if it has Biden's name on it but refuse to give $1,000 which will impact turn into $100,000+ because Trump's name is on it.
If that makes you feel better, in two years Democrats would be in charge of the program. The account would still exist, the investment would still be compounding, and the child would still benefit.
I just don't think we should reject a policy because of who gets credit for creating it. Evaluate the policy itself. You should be better than this.