.
.
A TSA I can get behind.
If people don’t need welfare they won’t need democrats. Heard it somewhere. That’s one reason why the BBB did not get one vote from the lefties in the house.
Not my speed. Sorry to see it. But most GOP policy types in DC are young married men with small children. We get a lot of this unjustified stuff.
Bacchanalia fuel.
Andrew Wilkow has been talking about this one on the show on and off for weeks now. People would’ve rejected this if Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton proposed it, and once codified into law (which it probably will be this afternoon), it’s in there. It’s a seemingly good idea because it’s attached to Trump’s name, but what might happen if a democrat president should decided to start making this baby bond about equity?
Not worried the democrats will money launder it away to their bank accounts if the get back in power ?
Wonderful. Just show us where in the Constitution this is justified.
Pubs are as bad as Dems with the free handouts.
If they deposited $10,000 in a Standard & Poor’s 500 mutual fund for every newborn, and the parents and then the owner of the account contributed $100.00 then (Assuming 6% growth a year (The average is 11%) that person would retire with over a million dollars and we could abolish Social Security
https://www.investor.gov/financial-tools-calculators/calculators/compound-interest-calculator
> The federal government would seed this with $1,000. <
Yet another federal program that looks good, but is actually beyond the scope of what the government should be doing.
Better that Congress concentrate on bringing industry back to America, as Trump wants. Let folks earn that money for themselves.
Yeah, I know I’m dreaming.
This is no way is Constitutional.
Best thing Congress could do is allow We the People to keep our money and do with it as we see fit.
So what are these “funds” going to be invested in? Is the government setting up a SP500 fund?
How is that a good idea? The government buying and selling stocks or even index funds is a bad, bad idea. Governments picking winners and losers in business is not something we want.
And if the government isn’t doing this…are we thinking that letting the parents of the crack babies born in the local NICU manage their money?
This is one of those ideas that sounds good. But in practical application it’s kind of stupid. $1,000 invested at birth isn’t going to do much for a kid who does nothing with it for 18 years. In 18 years that isn’t even enough to pay for a crap used car or a semester at a community college.
Not sure where in the Constitution it says to give newborns $1000.
Something like this should be mandatory for all US Citizens.
Too many morons sqaunder or are completely ignorant of finances.
Perfect example is that local chick with a BMW (on lease?) rents an apartment, and has zero in an IRA or 401k.
The article has two errors.
First, the article first says it is for children born before January 1, 2024 and under eight years old (which would imply birth between about 2016 to 2024). The article later says is for kids born “born from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2028”.
Actual language of the bill:
(1) who is born after December 31, 2024, and before January 1, 2029,
Second, the bill funds the program with $410,000,000 which will only cover about 10% of the children to be born in the next 4 years.
Births per year: 3.5 million X $1,000 = $350 million per year X 4 years = $14 billion.
I meant to mention the The One Big Beautiful Bill Act actually refers to the accounts as Trump Savings Accounts which will embed Trump’s name like one refers to Pell Grants or other legacy programs.
George Bush suggested something that would’ve gotten people off of social security, but would’ve funded their own retirement. I don’t remember all the details. But I believe they would’ve been better off under that plan than SS. As usual, the Dems did not want to let go of their control.