• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What to know about $1,000 "Trump accounts" for newborns included in House bill


Seems like an easy way for crack whores and addicts to make some $$. "Boyfriends" could even force or coerce women into it...and take the cash. Give birth to a kid with a very high risk of mental and physical defects and dump it for adoption. Bonus: "special needs" kids are even less likely to be adopted.

If you really want a kid, you'll have one. Anyone intelligent enough or informed enough to be a decent parent knows that $1000 goes almost nowhere in terms of what a kid needs. If $1000 changes your mind...um, either you're not in a financially stable position to have one yet...or you really just want the $.
 
Bucky said:
A lot of parents are bad with their finances, so this amazing Trump account gives young children at birth the ability to participate in the market.
Click to expand...
That's what SS was about too. But somehow at the time Republicans called it socialism. So what's the diff?
 
Cope said:
So you are against then?
Click to expand...
On one hand we have DOGE killing people's jobs with zero proof of any savings, which this administration keeps harping on while they want to give away who knows how much for having a baby and the GOP also wants to raise the debt ceiling. Does that sound like a party trying to save America money?

I can only imagine the outcry from the gop is Biden had made this suggestion.
 
So.....

Are you against it?
 
VySky said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Explain first why doing so is necessary.

It’s dumb because it’s an obvious attempt at vote buying, provides the government with an additional way of identifying children of possibly illegal migrant parents, and is simply unjustifiable expenditure of taxpayers dollars to fund accounts managed by the federal government, not the parents, just to start.
 
VySky said:
Keep in mind parents can make yearly contributions I believe up to $5000.
Click to expand...
Only parents who are wealthy would be able to do that. I imagine most parents who are just starting out in adult life, with a child or children will not have the funds to contribute $5000 for each of them. Maybe $500, if they are fortunate enough to have good paying jobs with benefits and not a slew of kids. My husband and I weren't able to start saving much until the kids were teenagers or out on their own, And, we both worked at decent-paying jobs.
 
VySky said:
Trump is not running in 28.

Oh boy...

That's because you look down your nose at poor people.
Click to expand...

Don't count out Trump or what runs through his rancid mind.

Besides, he's got police actions in mind that would need public support to carry off.
 
It's better than nothing. Still a bandaid to the real problem.
 

I'm sure there's plenty more details to follow, albeit I'm not a big fan of our federal government supporting its citizens whether through handouts or dependency, yet this one might be a good idea down the road. If anything, it will incentivize parents to save/invest for their children's future. Getting more parents to do this would be great for the future of our country, as it's not paying off anyone's obligations or just a free Covid check, etc.
 
redbeer said:
I'm sure there's plenty more details to follow, albeit I'm not a big fan of our federal government supporting its citizens whether through handouts or dependency, yet this one might be a good idea down the road.
Click to expand...
redbeer said:
If anything, it will incentivize parents to save/invest for their children's future.
Click to expand...
That's part of what I'm pointing out - it does not do this. There is no advantage to doing so via this method; only disadvantages.

redbeer said:
Getting more parents to do this would be great for the future of our country, as it's not paying off anyone's obligations or just a free Covid check, etc.
Click to expand...

Again; I'm a fan of long term savings. But this offers no incentive to do so, does not offset the spending, and establishes a new entitlement.
 


Crooked donnie trump SHO DO love to spend Other Peoples Money.

Why can't the parents provide for their own offspring?

What about ME?!?
 
Cope said:
What was it?
Click to expand...

You try games now? It's clear in both those posts. Dont bother me with it again, if you choose to pretend you didnt understand his position it's obvious you are exposing limited reading ability to avoid addressing what he did provide, in detail.
 
Lursa said:
You try games now? It's clear in both those posts. Dont bother me with it again, if you choose to pretend you didnt understand his position it's obvious you are exposing limited reading ability to avoid addressing what he did provide, in detail.
Click to expand...
There was no answer. It was simply a rant about what someone else once did. He provided whataboutism's, which doesn't need addressing when discussing THIS thing.

And your inability to specify is much the same.

How about you, do you agree with this provision or no?
 
Last edited:

Lursa said:
You try games now? It's clear in both those posts. Dont bother me with it again, if you choose to pretend you didnt understand his position it's obvious you are exposing limited reading ability to avoid addressing what he did provide, in detail.
Click to expand...
 
Another non answer recorded.

If you can't or don't wish to answer, simply don't respond. But attempting to tell me not to talk to you is .... childish at best.
 
Cope said:
Another non answer recorded.

If you can't or don't wish to answer, simply don't respond. But attempting to tell me not to talk to you is .... childish at best.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
You try games now? It's clear in both those posts. Dont bother me with it again, if you choose to pretend you didnt understand his position it's obvious you are exposing limited reading ability to avoid addressing what he did provide, in detail.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.