Trump Baby Bonus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want a higher birth rate, baby bonuses don’t work. They need to address the housing problem, the economic uncertainty, and the unavailability of daycare/expense of daycare. Men also need to modernize their approach to marriage and family. (Gift article)

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/us/politics/baby-bonuses-fertility-planning-trump-aides-assess-ideas-to-boost-birthrate.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BU8.NtkN.WagWczUEi5e6&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

exactly who gets harmed with lower birthrates?

our nation is already overwhelmed with too many people.

please explain the problem with a lower birthrate?

What are you talking about? We don’t have enough people! If you had your dream and got rid of all the brown people who would pick our props? Who would care for our elderly? Who would build our houses? there aren’t enough white people to do the work.

Why don't we have enough people? It feels like you are advocating just importing a slave labor class and turning this country into a third world - what if these jobs actually payed a legit wage. I don't understand how having more people solves some of the major issues we have today with housing, pay, etc.

DP. You have to have a certain percentage of new people (by birth or immigration) to have economic growth. It’s economics 101. America has always had better than replacement rates. We are a big country. If you live in a city, there are plenty of people but rural areas are dying. Nobody is advocating for a slave labor class. America needs to overhaul/update/fix our immigration process. We need to prosecute employers who hire people here illegally but we need to have a better immigration system that ends employer’s ability to exploit people here illegally or in programs like H1 B. But American businesses, like Trump’s, love cheap labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These are some of the more "interesting" proposals being considered to boost fertility in the US that are mentioned in the article:

*Reserving 30% of Fulbright scholarships for married applicants or those with children. [I thought the current admin was eliminating the Fullbright program?]

*Providing a $5,000 “baby bonus” for new mothers. [But how are they going to ensure that it motivates the "right" kind of women to have more babies?]

*Funding programs to teach women about their menstrual cycles and fertility awareness. [I'm all for women knowing more about their bodies, but conservatives have been attacking sex ed programs for decades].

*National Medal of Motherhood for women with 6+ children. [Gives Soviet Union vibes.]

Maybe because "sex ed" is all about teaching kids to have sex before getting married and without pregnancy. If sex ed was about how to get pregnant within marriage, you wouldn't have all the objections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are some of the more "interesting" proposals being considered to boost fertility in the US that are mentioned in the article:

*Reserving 30% of Fulbright scholarships for married applicants or those with children. [I thought the current admin was eliminating the Fullbright program?]

*Providing a $5,000 “baby bonus” for new mothers. [But how are they going to ensure that it motivates the "right" kind of women to have more babies?]

*Funding programs to teach women about their menstrual cycles and fertility awareness. [I'm all for women knowing more about their bodies, but conservatives have been attacking sex ed programs for decades].

*National Medal of Motherhood for women with 6+ children. [Gives Soviet Union vibes.]

Maybe because "sex ed" is all about teaching kids to have sex before getting married and without pregnancy. If sex ed was about how to get pregnant within marriage, you wouldn't have all the objections.

I don't know what you're yammering about but women do not want to give birth to kids that are going to be subjected to life under an authoritarian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want a higher birth rate, baby bonuses don’t work. They need to address the housing problem, the economic uncertainty, and the unavailability of daycare/expense of daycare. Men also need to modernize their approach to marriage and family. (Gift article)

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/us/politics/baby-bonuses-fertility-planning-trump-aides-assess-ideas-to-boost-birthrate.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BU8.NtkN.WagWczUEi5e6&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

exactly who gets harmed with lower birthrates?

our nation is already overwhelmed with too many people.

please explain the problem with a lower birthrate?

What are you talking about? We don’t have enough people! If you had your dream and got rid of all the brown people who would pick our props? Who would care for our elderly? Who would build our houses? there aren’t enough white people to do the work.

Why don't we have enough people? It feels like you are advocating just importing a slave labor class and turning this country into a third world - what if these jobs actually payed a legit wage. I don't understand how having more people solves some of the major issues we have today with housing, pay, etc.

DP. You have to have a certain percentage of new people (by birth or immigration) to have economic growth. It’s economics 101. America has always had better than replacement rates. We are a big country. If you live in a city, there are plenty of people but rural areas are dying. Nobody is advocating for a slave labor class. America needs to overhaul/update/fix our immigration process. We need to prosecute employers who hire people here illegally but we need to have a better immigration system that ends employer’s ability to exploit people here illegally or in programs like H1 B. But American businesses, like Trump’s, love cheap labor.

But it's Environmental Science 101 that over-population is not sustainable nor desirable. And there is a reason that birth rates go down as countries develop.

The economics need to adapt. That's a much better solution than trying to coerce growth of the underclass.

[Anonymous]

We don't want kids because we're too poor.

I make more per year than my parents ever did combined before their retirements.

I will NEVER have the life my parents had.

My dad was a blue-collar worker and my mom was an AP specialist. Neither had any college education. My dad didn't even have a HS education. Yet they managed to buy a house, have 3 kids, take us on yearly vacations, save a bit in college funds for us, and have multiple cars.

They bought their house in Loudoun County for $189k in 1990. That house is now worth $1.28mil.

The bank says I can't afford a mortgage on any house above $490k. Yet I pay almost $30k/yr in rent. Never been late. Never been evicted. Never had any utilities cut off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don't want kids because we're too poor.

I make more per year than my parents ever did combined before their retirements.

I will NEVER have the life my parents had.

My dad was a blue-collar worker and my mom was an AP specialist. Neither had any college education. My dad didn't even have a HS education. Yet they managed to buy a house, have 3 kids, take us on yearly vacations, save a bit in college funds for us, and have multiple cars.

They bought their house in Loudoun County for $189k in 1990. That house is now worth $1.28mil.

The bank says I can't afford a mortgage on any house above $490k. Yet I pay almost $30k/yr in rent. Never been late. Never been evicted. Never had any utilities cut off.

+1. Who wants to bring kids into this never-ending worsening rat race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are some of the more "interesting" proposals being considered to boost fertility in the US that are mentioned in the article:

*Reserving 30% of Fulbright scholarships for married applicants or those with children. [I thought the current admin was eliminating the Fullbright program?]

*Providing a $5,000 “baby bonus” for new mothers. [But how are they going to ensure that it motivates the "right" kind of women to have more babies?]

*Funding programs to teach women about their menstrual cycles and fertility awareness. [I'm all for women knowing more about their bodies, but conservatives have been attacking sex ed programs for decades].

*National Medal of Motherhood for women with 6+ children. [Gives Soviet Union vibes.]

Maybe because "sex ed" is all about teaching kids to have sex before getting married and without pregnancy. If sex ed was about how to get pregnant within marriage, you wouldn't have all the objections.

Sex Ed is done to prevent teenage pregnancy which is currently at a very low rate. Abstinence only education straight up doesn’t work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t get over how out of touch…lol $5000 they clearly don’t know how much the hospital bill is, or the cost of daycare

lolol. Who do they think is going to be incentivized to have a baby for $5000? How about pay the woman a full time salary for 18 years while raising the kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want a higher birth rate, baby bonuses don’t work. They need to address the housing problem, the economic uncertainty, and the unavailability of daycare/expense of daycare. Men also need to modernize their approach to marriage and family. (Gift article)

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/us/politics/baby-bonuses-fertility-planning-trump-aides-assess-ideas-to-boost-birthrate.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BU8.NtkN.WagWczUEi5e6&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

exactly who gets harmed with lower birthrates?

our nation is already overwhelmed with too many people.

please explain the problem with a lower birthrate?

What are you talking about? We don’t have enough people! If you had your dream and got rid of all the brown people who would pick our props? Who would care for our elderly? Who would build our houses? there aren’t enough white people to do the work.

Why don't we have enough people? It feels like you are advocating just importing a slave labor class and turning this country into a third world - what if these jobs actually payed a legit wage. I don't understand how having more people solves some of the major issues we have today with housing, pay, etc.

DP. You have to have a certain percentage of new people (by birth or immigration) to have economic growth. It’s economics 101. America has always had better than replacement rates. We are a big country. If you live in a city, there are plenty of people but rural areas are dying. Nobody is advocating for a slave labor class. America needs to overhaul/update/fix our immigration process. We need to prosecute employers who hire people here illegally but we need to have a better immigration system that ends employer’s ability to exploit people here illegally or in programs like H1 B. But American businesses, like Trump’s, love cheap labor.

But it's Environmental Science 101 that over-population is not sustainable nor desirable. And there is a reason that birth rates go down as countries develop.

The economics need to adapt. That's a much better solution than trying to coerce growth of the underclass.

Birthrates go down as people move to cities. It is less desirable to have a family in a tiny apartment and houses are very expensive. I just got back from very rural America and they’re losing people left and right. Funny having folks work remote would be great for small towns! But Trump et al are not really interested in this. They want to give Mormons and Catholics prizes for doing nothing different.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who is incentivized by $5K to have a kid is not anyone who should be having kids.

[Anonymous]

"Having children to get more government cheese" used to be the Republicans main complaint about the existence of black women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who is incentivized by $5K to have a kid is not anyone who should be having kids.

So....?

[Anonymous]

when do they get the $5K? With a positive pregnancy test or a successful birth? What if she miscarries? Or has twins? Or implants 3 but loses 1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:*Providing a $5,000 “baby bonus” for new mothers. [But how are they going to ensure that it motivates the "right" kind of women to have more babies?]

How has this sentence gone unchallenged? I'd love to hear what the poster believes is the "right" kind of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:*Providing a $5,000 “baby bonus” for new mothers. [But how are they going to ensure that it motivates the "right" kind of women to have more babies?]

How has this sentence gone unchallenged? I'd love to hear what the poster believes is the "right" kind of women.

The fact that the administration brought up Fulbright makes me think that they are targeting middle to upper middle class, mostly white, educated women. These are the main types that are skipping or delaying children. The largest families I know are immigrant families and I don’t think that is what the administration wants.