Mitt Romney has a plan to give parents up to $15,000 a year

[MelissaB]

This is a good plan by @MittRomney, and Democrats should eagerly work with him to pass it. There's items worth debating in here — particularly the pay-fors — but what a wonderful world where this is what we were debating.

Link to tweet

Mitt Romney has a plan to give parents up to $15,000 a year

The Family Security Act would offer up to $350 per month, per kid, to help parents raise their children.

In 2019, Mitt Romney made history: he became the first Senate Republican to endorse a form of child allowance, where all low- and middle-income parents would get a cash benefit to help raise their kids, regardless of whether or not they’re able to work. At the time, the plan was modest, amounting to only $1,500 a year for kids under 6 and $1,000 for kids 6-17.

But on Thursday, Romney went even further and proposed the Family Security Act, one of the most generous child-benefit packages ever, regardless of political party. The plan completely overhauls the current child tax credit (CTC) and turns it from a once-a-year bonus to massive income support, paid out monthly by the Social Security Administration. (The bill text isn’t final but you can read the Romney team’s summary here.)

Romney’s plan would replace the CTC, currently worth up to $2,000 per child and restricted to parents with substantial income (it doesn’t fully kick in until you reach an income of over $11,000), with a flat monthly allowance paid out to all parents:

Parents of kids ages 0 to 5 would get $350 per month, or $4,200 a year
Parents of kids ages 6 to 17 would get $250 per month, or $3,000 a year

Parents with multiple kids could get a maximum of $1,250 per month or $15,000 a year; that translates to five kids between the ages of 6 and 17. Very large families would be somewhat penalized, but many families with three or four kids will get the full benefit.

Just like the current CTC, Romney’s proposal would phase out for wealthy parents — the benefits begin phasing out for single filers with $200,000 and joint filers with $400,000 in annual income. But the phaseout would be implemented on the back end, through the tax code — even the richest parents would still get their $250-$350 per-kid checks in the mail every month; they’d just return the money on April 15. That helps ensure the benefit is truly available to all eligible people and not delayed due to concerns of “overpayment.”

More: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22264520/mitt-romney-checks-parents-4200

[BusyBeingBest]

1. Well, the Mormons will love it.

I am opposed to paying people to have shitloads of children.

[LuvNewcastle]

7. Thank you!

If they want to help struggling people pay their bills, give a universal income check to each adult. Most single people need help, too. And if you give a check to each adult, families with two adults will still get plenty of help for their children without giving an extra amount based on how many kids they have. The world has enough people; don't encourage more people to have children.

[Auggie]

12. Same here

[DLCWIdem]

14. Anyone who thinks $350/month encourages people to have kids hasn't had to pay for children

Believe me it costs more than that to raise a child.

[BusyBeingBest]

26. Why would you give people ANY money for having children, beyond

those at or under poverty line who really need the help? I don't like the government targeting certain lifestyle choices for a cash bonus. Including marriage benefits. Edit to add: I raised two kids and I'm married, and I think such shit is unfair and money down a rat hole. I'm all for strengthening the social safety net for ANYONE of any lifestyle situation to not be poor, hungry, homeless, etc.

[DLCWIdem]

42. It's for children not parents

Last edited Thu Feb 4, 2021, 06:03 PM - Edit history (1)

At a time when we are complaining that children are going hungry. It can be very helpful. Especially as it is just taking the CCC and giving the money at a different time. As to it you not needing help to raise your kids. That kind of argument is used by many of the Hispanic emigres when they talk about not giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Well times change and the fact that we can help provide should be applauded.

[BusyBeingBest]

52. Um, there's no guarantees on how that money will be spent--really, you think

parents are always going to use monthly cash payments on their kids? Maybe the poorest families will, but the wealthier families will probably use it for vacation funds, credit card bills, etc. Why not help parents and families with daycare, or health insurance, or before and after school care? Just a goddamn dumb waste of taxpayer money, with ZERO accountability or metrics as to how it will truly benefit kids.

[StarfishSaver]

62. There's NEVER a guarantee for how the money will be spent.

Last edited Thu Feb 4, 2021, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)

The "we shouldn't give it to them because they might not use the money wisely" attitude is very paternalistic and sounds much more like the arguments we hear from the other side whenever they're trying to deny any assistance to anyone other than the wealthiest.

[BusyBeingBest]

67. I think people who make 200,000-400,000 are pretty wealthy.

Those are the people who probably won't use the cash bonus for their kids. It'll most likely be fun-money for them. Sorry, I oppose cash payments for people's personal lifestyle choices, period. Having a child, or many children, is a personal lifestyle choice. I support money to be funneled into institutions and educational and health services that benefit existing poor and middle class children instead--measurable community benefits and accountability. Monthly cash payments simply for having children is stupid, unfair, and taxpayer money being pissed away with no way to measure success.

[StarfishSaver]

70. How do you prove they used the money for their kids?

And, this is NOT "monthly cash payment simply for having kids."

This argument sounds like Republicans who claim that poor women have children just to get a welfare check. Bad take. I can't believe I'm seeing people on a Democratic board say something like this.

[BusyBeingBest]

73. Why create a financial incentive to have large families, for anyone? Poor or wealthy.

It's fucking dumb. Do we have an underpopulation problem in this country that I'm not aware of? Since when do we need to automatically pay people to support their families if they have the fiscal means to do so on their own?

[StarfishSaver]

75. You must not have children

Or are independently wealthy.

I don't think anyone with children or who has a ridiculous amount of disposable income would believe that $250/month creates in anyone "a financial incentive to have large families."

As I said, you sound like those people who think government has no business ever helping needy families because "they should have thought of that before they had all those kids."

But you didn't answer my question. How does a parent prove they spent the money on their kids?

[BusyBeingBest]

83. I have two kids who are adults now. I would have thought this was dumb

even if I would have benefitted from it financially. It's stupid on the face of it, and it seems like a scheme for some other purpose. I've said that the only large families I personally know (3 plus kids) are all people of means, and they're either Mormon or evangelical Christian--this seems like a way to engineer the "right" sort of population growth, if you ask me, at the expense of dismantling other forms of aid that don't help the "right" people. Can't help but be suspicious.

[Goodheart]

107. Correct!

[Bettie]

97. I thought I was the only one who heard that

yes, it is the "welfare queen" meme...some days I wonder if I've stumbled onto another board. Sigh.

[DeminPennswoods]

114. Good point

nt

[Tommymac]

119. Other Modern Industrialized Democracies do it.

Germany is an example.

https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/kindergeld.html

Children's Allowance - Kindergeld in Germany
Germany offers a variety of children allowances and benefits. Kindergeld is probably the most well known of these.
Updated – September 2020

Taxpaying expatriate residents of Germany are, like Germans, entitled to Kindergeld if they have children. This is an allowance (also called a Child Benefit) from the German government to help defray some of the cost of raising children. It can run from €204 to €235 per child per month, and is usually made by a fund transfer into a German bank account.

Just about any taxpayer living in Germany with children can get the Kindergeld, whether employed, self employed or independent. You get it as a rule until the children turn 18, though it can continue until they are 25 if they are still in school or meet other requirements for an extension. Starting in July 2019 the benefit was raised to €204 per month for each of the first two children, €210 for the third child and €235 for each subsequent one.

Adopted and foster children qualify you for the Kindergeld, as do children of your spouse and your grandchildren if they live in your household. Some people living abroad may also be eligible for Kindergeld if they meet certain German unrestricted income tax payment obligations or other requirements. You can find out about the exact requirements from the German authorities.

Next.

[Blue_true]

116. Yeah, the argument against it sounds suspiciously like "welfare encourages women to have more

babies”. It has been proven over and over that women that have access to a quality education and good job opportunities have fewer, or no children. I can bet you that the better educated Mormon women that have meaningful, good paying jobs aren’t having many kids.

[TomCADem]

19. Exactly. Utah.

It is actually brilliant, because for all of their so-called fiscal conservativism, the folks in Utah would love it.

[BusyBeingBest]

31. My husband's younger cousins all have massive families--3-4-5 kids and up--they're all

evangelical Christians who are middle to upper middle class, all college grads/professionals, much nicer cars/houses than I could have ever dreamed of back in my 30's. I am baffled as to why people like this would deserve 15,000 a year--the only people I see anymore with large families are already affluent. Income caps of 400,000? My tax money will be going to funding the lifestyles of people who make far more money than I do? Bullshit.

[Towlie]

27. "Opposed to paying people to have children"? But why would you punish the child for that?

 
←

The money is meant to give the child a fair opportunity to have a good life.

[BusyBeingBest]

36. How is it "punishing" children to NOT pay a tax-supported stipend to support other

people's children? We're not talking poor people here--I'm all for continuing to help needy families. We're talking about couples who make up to $400,000 a year receiving monthly stipends to raise their children. I don't make anywhere NEAR that, and I've never received anything but modest tax benefits while raising my kids, and now my tax money is going to support already-affluent people to fund their chosen lifestyles?

[DLCWIdem]

44. So is it the means tested that you object to.

I agree that 200k seems high but I know the cost of living is higher in New York City then in my home town

[BusyBeingBest]

47. I'd like to see a better use of money than just cutting checks, regardless.

Universal, publicly-supported daycare or preschool/afterschool. Medicare for all or some other single-payer would probably be the biggest help for middle class and working class parents, people who make too much for Medicaid. Better-funded schools. Many ways to help families besides giving a monthly cash bonus per kid, which is easily abused/misused anyway.

[DLCWIdem]

55. I am not for telling people what they need

Let people target the money to their own needs. They know where they need help for themselves. Nor do I believe that people are getting rich on $350 month when they are raising kids. Especially since this is just taking the tax credit and redistributing it during the year and not one lump sum at the end of the year. Nor do I believe that most are or will misuse the funds. Sounds too much like the stereotype of the "welfare queen".

[BusyBeingBest]

69. This is the welfare queen myth come to life--actually paying people for each kid, every month.

Except many of these welfare queens and kings will earn far more than most people I know. Fucking ridiculous.

[StarfishSaver]

78. No, it's NOT "the welfare queen myth come to life." It is YOU who is propagating that myth

And it's a disgusting thing to see on a Democratic board.

[BusyBeingBest]

85. How am I propagating that myth, when the proposal is literally to pay

people cash per child, every month, up to 15,000 a year, for people who make up to $400,000 a year? That's the proposal. Edit to add: It used to be a Republican myth about poor people, as if people would jump through hoops to get food stamps, etc. But this is actually them making a reality out of the myth.

[StarfishSaver]

87. I suggest you change your language if you wish to engage in a discussion with me

I don't respond to being gratuitously cursed at.

[BusyBeingBest]

89. I wasn't cursing at you. But I removed the curse word so as not to offend you.

[StarfishSaver]

90. Thank you

They're not paying people to have children - any more than giving a child tax credit pays people to have more children.

I don't think the proposal is perfect - for example, I think the income cap is too high. But I don't think the overall idea is a bad one and I certainly don't think it in any way pays people to have children. That's often the excuse given for opposing ANY aid to people - treating people as if they are stupid or grifters or completely cavalier about their life choices.

[BusyBeingBest]

93. It absolutely pays people to have children. Three or more kids

and your typical monthly mortgage is covered by the American taxpayer--that's quite a benefit. This guarantees your standard of living won't go down with each additional child up to what--four or five kids? How is that not an incentive?

[marlakay]

51. I was thinking the same thing. Nt

[StarfishSaver]

61. This isn't "paying people to have children" - shitloads or otherwise

This recognizes that many families are in desperate straits and it is usually the children who suffer most.

I have no problem with this plan at all. I think it makes sense and hope Romney and the Democrats can figure out a way to make it work.

[BusyBeingBest]

71. I hope it fails. Direct the money to things that actually help people far more broadly.

Like single payer health care.

[Meowmee]

118. This

What about single or partnered people who are struggling who chose not to have children etc.?

[My Pet Orangutan]

2. Rule No. 1. The money is paid to the woman

(in a Male/Female household)

[FreeState]

24. Why?

I know several households where the woman is the primary bread winner and the man stays home with the children. I would rather it be directed to the stay at home parent/guardian and split if both parents work.

[My Pet Orangutan]

34. Those 'several households' are atypical.

Very atypical.

[FreeState]

37. Depends on location

In my area it’s not atypical - just on my street there are more stay at home dads than moms. I think law should support all regardless of numbers.

[My Pet Orangutan]

38. I can't say I've heard of too many cases

where abusive, controlling wives have starved their husbands of money. The reverse is well known, and way too commonplace.

[FreeState]

88. Really?

I was a domestic violence interventionist for a while and it does go both ways. Ofcourse it is way more common for women to be the victim. Usually the male in those cases has access to his partners accounts and usually controls them, that's part of the abuse. Sending it to the abused's account would do no good in 90% of those situations.

Abuse happens to men and women, everyone deserves support.

[My Pet Orangutan]

92. Abuse happens "way more more common(ly)" to women.

Support them. That's it as far as I'm concerned.

You argument - men may be abused too.

Again - how many controlling wives starve their husbands of money - NEXT TO NONE.

That's it. cu.

[JI7]

56. How about lgbtq couples ?

[still_one]

3. It will be interesting to see if this gets traction.

[Dream Girl]

4. Hell no! I guess the purpose is to encourage white childbearing

Kind of the flip side of antiabortion laws

[Loki Liesmith]

22. It's a great idea

Fully support it.

[DLCWIdem]

45. I am listening

I don't know either way

[FreeState]

28. How does this promote white childbearing

Seems like its set up to support children regardless of race. In fact this would support minority families at a higher level than white childbearing.

Among mothers near the end of their childbearing years, Hispanics and blacks have the largest families. On average, a Hispanic mother ages 40 to 44 has had about 2.6 children. By comparison, black mothers have had about 2.5. White and Asian mothers have families that are a bit smaller, on average. White mothers have 2.3 children, and Asian mothers have 2.2 children.

When looking at the distribution of family size by race and ethnicity, the distinctiveness of the Hispanic family becomes particularly apparent. Among mothers ages 40 to 44, Hispanics are the least likely to have only one child – just 17% do. In contrast, fully 25% of black moms have had just one child, as is the case for 23% of white moms and 22% of Asian moms.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/family-size-among-mothers/

[Dream Girl]

33. You've kind of supported my point. White children bearing is lower than black and Hispanic.

It is this trend that has been fueling proliferation for 50+ years. Proving an incentive could increase the imbalance. I believe this has been done in Europe to,correct for low birth rate and reduce the need for foreign labor

[themaguffin]

77. Um no. Are you a parent?

[greenjar_01]

5. HE'S RUNNING

And he will probably win if the GOPers are smart enough to nominate him, which is doubtful.

[DLCWIdem]

18. I agree. He is running

But he won't make it out of their primary.

[brush]

39. Why do you think that? He's not too popular among...

republicans because of his vote for the first impeachment of trump so why do you think he'd even get their nomination, much less beat our candidate in 2024?

[greenjar_01]

41. Literally in the one line post

"if the GOPers are smart enough to nominate him, which is doubtful. "

[brush]

46. But you said he'd win the presidency.

Why do think he'd beat the Democrat?

[greenjar_01]

48. It's telling that you won't even say who "our candidate" or "the Democrat" will be

Let's be clear: it won't be Biden, and everybody knows it. So, would a moderate Romney, if GOPers were smart enough the nominate a moderate, beat Kamala Harris? Yes, he would, I think. She'd be painted as a radical and face both racism and misogyny. Sorry, but that's not an unreasonable claim, and I think you know it.

I said "probably," in any case.

[brush]

50. Whoa! Unusual thoughts for a Democrat.

Sure you're on the right site?

[greenjar_01]

54. What the fuck???

OK, buddy.



"Unusual thoughts."

Feel free to tell me how they're unreasonable while you're out here telling me they're unusual.

[brush]

57. First off, we just won by 7 million votes. We outnumber repubicans..

Secondly, there are many women still sore at how Hillary was treated and IMO would support Kamala Harris if Biden steps down, but from his effective, hitting-the-ground-running performance I don't see why he would.

Thirdly, Romney is a republican, not that popular even in his own party, the party that horribly bungled the covid response in which 400,000 have died, not to mention it's the party that just tried to overthrow the government and is now supporting and not punishing a Q-anon idiot congresswoman in their midst. Those are things that won't be forgotten in four years.

The above is what sounds reasonable to this Democrat, and frankly, you sound like a republican rooting for Romney.

[TheRealNorth]

6. People with children already get tax breaks

We need to do something about rent prices which have gotten bonkers on a lot of urban areas in the past 10 years.

[Goodheart]

100. Correct!

[DLCWIdem]

8. Question. Why doesn't it kick in under 11,000

For a republican he is not bad with help. After all. Obama care is essentially a Romney program in Massachusetts.

[Kali]

17. presumably other help available at that level of poverty

the EIC is the same as are the subsidies for ACA

[highplainsdem]

9. Income limit is way too high.

[niyad]

10. Cripes, who writes this stuff at vox? Other countries do far better at these benefits. And, one

writes of "children", not "kids", in a professional context. Try to contain your enthusiasm, vox, you were practically slobbering on mittens.

[DLCWIdem]

20. Yes other countries have a sort of mom's pension

[niyad]

25. And paid family leave.

[lindysalsagal]

11. We're not calling it universal basic income, or universal health insurance

but I think we're already past the point of keeping the economy afloat without them. Unintended consequences.

[JT45242]

13. Seems like a reasoned approach

Unlike post #2 - it doesn't encourage people to have a boatload of kids but would help families of 1-5 kids.

Children of lower income families enter school far behind middle class and upper class families in large part due to differences in access to opportunity to learn. This might help families get better preschools, more access to other learning environments, etc.

This isn't a perfect solution, but it is a good first step to find a sane member of the opposition party.

[Laelth]

15. I like it. n/t

-Laelth

[Politicub]

16. What about people caring for aging parents? They are

just as deserving as a parent.

[niyad]

30. A very good point.

[StarfishSaver]

63. We've got to start somewhere

And usually, aging parents have some income and entitlements to offset costs - e.g., Social Security, pensions, Medicare ...

[bigtree]

21. not so fast

Link to tweet

...this is the subterfuge 'Lincoln Project' republicans want to bring back. No more of the open racism and war on people of color Trump recklessly waged, imperiling GQP chances at election time. Back to serving bigotry underneath nice-sounding titles concealing savage funding cuts.

[Loki Liesmith]

23. That doesn't bother me

[bigtree]

60. I'm not sure of the consequences

...of replacing TANF.

He takes away the child benefit to families with more children and replaces it with a 1k credit.

He eliminates the child care tax credit, and the head-of-household credit that benefits single parents.

Link to tweet

[niyad]

29. I was not aware that mittens is part of TLP.

[bigtree]

59. I use the term perjoratively

...in this context.

None of those people are my allies.

[niyad]

72. I understood you very well. Your feelings about TLP are well-known.

[bigtree]

96. that's absurd

...I couldn't have mentioned them here more than once or twice.

I don't have an axe to grind against them and I haven't really bothered. But, they made the effort they did in the last campaign and it's nothing more than what they should have done to clean up the mess they made.

Romney is a special case. His campaign... don't even. He's a calculating menace. Whatever he's up to should be quashed before it breathes a single breath of political air. He needs to sit down. Reinvented crud is still crud.

No one should be ashamed of holding republicans to their past. I lived it, I suffered their rule. If that bothers anyone...

So, basically you were just baiting me. Find something more productive to do with your time.

[Goodheart]

32. I oppose ANY proposal, Republican or Democratic, that encourages people to have children.

Period.

[StarfishSaver]

65. Why do you think this encourages people to have children?

Would you have a child you otherwise wouldn't be likely to have because you might get an additional $250 month?

This pushback sounds suspiciously like arguments from conservative Republicans who claim that poor women are having babies just to get a welfare check.

[Goodheart]

98. I wouldn't, no, but some would, yes.

And it has nothing to do with having babies just to get a welfare check, but growing the likelihood of having children if one's budget is expanded. That shouldn't be a goal of our government unless we have a population problem, which we certainly don't.

[StarfishSaver]

104. So you could be trusted to make responsible choices, but "some" other people can't.

Got it.

[Goodheart]

106. More a matter of budget.

You wouldn't buy a $25,000 car if your budget only allows $20,000. If somebody pays you an extra $15k per year you might go for it.

And with that I suspect your next snippy comment will be "how dare you compare having a child to buying a car!"

I am ALL FOR helping people already here. But encouraging people to have children compounds that responsibility. And, yes, it certainly would do just that, just as my budget example demonstrates. And, on TOP OF THAT, this world is already overpopulated. We should reproduce responsibly.

[roamer65]

76. THIS.

[themaguffin]

79. Then don't worry, because this doesn't.

[bearsfootball516]

35. As someone who has a toddler, this would be a lifesaver.

[msongs]

40. should recipients be required to prove they spend the money on their kids? nt

[StarfishSaver]

66. Why should they have to prove that?

And how would they prove it?

[haele]

43. Read the fine print. What will this do to current EIC, Child/Dependent Care and Tax Credits?

If it's just a tweak of the EIC that will give everyone eligible for it with children an extra $3K a kid, I can live with this.
But a $250 - $350 a month with an arbitrary claw-back for "rich parents (define "rich parents"- over EIC limit, over $100K, over $200K income from previous year?)
It helps with daycare for working parents, true. But only a bit.
Would rather see targeted supplementals for dependent care that would go to the authorized dependent care centers.
At a much greater amount per month. It costs between $1500 and $3000 a month for quality day care per child.

Haele

[DLCWIdem]

49. But how about those parents who would like to stay home?

Many parents I know have a child care in their own home. They may work nights. I found childcare centers are not likely to be open at midnight hours. Also it might be just a little help with good. Your talking about targeting to only specific areas and I am not for telling people how to spend it. Especially when we are now talking so much about food security.

[haele]

68. If this is a stimulus payment to help parents with raising children, I am good with that.

However, the bill talks about a claw back at tax time, hitting parents and guardians with up to $15K a year added to the taxes? That's not a stimulus, that's a tax credit that is being refunded universally, not taking into effect the actual household taxable income, in monthly manner and eligibility will be determined at tax time for that year, similar to EIC. If the credit is based on EIC applicability, which it is sort of written as if it is, that means that any household with taxable income over $50K a year may be facing an additional $5K to $15K tax bill for that year.
My concern is that this is written so poorly that while it helps low income families, other families above the median income are going to have to hire a tax accountant to figure out how to set up their exemptions so they won't be stuck with a sudden nasty surprise they can't afford when they do their taxes, and that $150 per kid they would be getting as a tax credit will have to be offset by paying an extra $150 a month federal income tax per kid, so it would end up being both a paperwork burden and not providing any income benefit, even for household incomes under six figures annually - those households this is supposed to help.


It isn't clearly addressed as to what "Tax Brackets" this clawback would happen, nor how it would be determined. But that clawback is there, and won't help families making over the limits that are yet to be determined.

People need help. But is this the optimal way to help the most while adversely impacting the fewest, even if the impact is being pushed out to "at a later date"?

There needs to be more discussion than "Hell yeah, great idea" (which, to a point, this is...) and then just hand out that money without looking at the small print on how the program will actually work.

Forgive me if I don't trust anything from Mittens. He has a nasty habit of hiding some very sharp shivs behind his gravitas and earnest attempts at governance.

Haele

[LudwigPastorius]

53. "The Family Security Act "

That sounds so much better than the "You Non-Breeders Can Go Fuck Yourself Act".

[Bettie]

58. I trust Robert Reich's take on it

https://twitter.com/RBReich


Robert Reich
@RBReich
Normal
10%
Before anyone gets too excited about Mitt Romney's plan for child benefits, note it eliminates Temporary Assistance for Needy Families as well as child tax credit. So hardly clear that poor families and kids come out ahead.
11:59 AM · Feb 4, 2021·Twitter Web App

[DeminPennswoods]

115. TNAF and the child tax credit have been so demonized

by the rw and there are so many conditions put on recipients, maybe this change, even if it doesn't increase total benefits, would be a good thing.

[Bettie]

117. Looking at this post, for a lot of people

simply being a parent is demonized! And being a poor parent...well, that's apparently the worst thing one can be.

[StarfishSaver]

64. This sounds promising

[roamer65]

74. No subsidies for baby production.

We need less people in this planet, not more.

We should actually use the tax system to discourage any more than 2.

Adopted children or fosters would, of course, be exempt.

[StarfishSaver]

81. Wow

I can't believe I'm seeing this attitude on DU.

[roamer65]

84. Believe it.

8 billion is too many.

You will see what I mean in about 10-20 years.

500ppm and rising.

Overpopulation is the core problem.

[StarfishSaver]

86. I don't have a problem with your concern with population

I do have a problem with your paternalistic notion that people would have babies so they can get $250 per month - and would allow that belief to prevent millions of desperate families from getting much-needed assistance.

[roamer65]

91. I don't have a problem if it goes for adopted or foster children.

For them I am 100 percent behind such a scheme.

People need to think long and hard about the future before having their own children. I would support the use of the tax system to influence that decision.

This planet cannot handle it.

I am also for abortion on demand, OTC birth control and vasectomies. Those all should be free.

[Goodheart]

102. That's not what he said, and you know it.

[Goodheart]

101. Totally agree.

[themaguffin]

82. It's easy to spot non parents in this thread. JFC, the ignorance displayed here is sad.

[StarfishSaver]

94. Much of this thread reads like something we'd read on - well, let's just say -slightly less

Democratic-leaning websites.

[DLCWIdem]

103. I agree.

Last edited Fri Feb 5, 2021, 11:04 PM - Edit history (1)

I was thinking is this really DU. Not that I was fully supporting the plan. I am out of here.

[StarfishSaver]

105. Sometimes true colors shine through when least expected ...

[Goodheart]

99. Ignorance? I have one son, and had enough income to afford several more

but chose not to.

Believe it or not, some of us actually care about the world's population problems and strain on natural resources.

[roamer65]

108. ..

👍👍

[themaguffin]

109. Hold, I didn't say ignorance referring to having kids or not. FFS

My comment is referring to ignorance with comments suggesting that people would have kids because of the proposed money.

It sounds like something right of the Southern Strategy handbook.

[roamer65]

110. Ontario has a similar program.

$400 or so per month per child.

I once had a Canadian co-worker and he had his 4th child while I worked with him. One of his first comments was $400 a month more. While they may not have had the child for the money, he sure was looking forward to it.

[themaguffin]

111. Ok, just the scientific information that we are looking for, your co-worker.

[roamer65]

121. Since you love the idea so much, how do you propose to pay for it?

Please enlighten us on it.

[themaguffin]

130. JFC, where did I say my thoughts on the policy at all?

[Goodheart]

122. Yes, people would have kids because of the proposed money.

Sorry if that offends you, but that's reality.

Not so much people who see kids as a means to welfare checks, but people whose budgets for children are increased.

It's just like any other cost/affordability consideration. You might not be able to buy a $45000 car, given your current budget, but if the government kicks in part of that.... hey.

[StarfishSaver]

125. That's ridiculous

[Goodheart]

126. Not to people who understand money.

[roamer65]

127. Let's just keep creating money until we start a currency crisis.

Then we will all be equal...with zero.

[StarfishSaver]

128. It has nothing to do with understanding money

It's just ridiculous. And also extraordinarily paternalistic, elitist, and better suited to a different discussion board.

[Goodheart]

129. Oh, yeah? Which discussion board would that be?

Paternalistic? Do you even know what that means?

Elitist? How so? Because my opinion differs from yours? No, YOU'RE elitist. See?

[themaguffin]

131. Exactly. Some of the comments here are ignorant, both on policy & regarding parents

[DLCWIdem]

133. How is it not understanding money

Raising a child costs way more than $350/month. So I am going to add $350/month but pay out triple that with a new mouth to feed. A new body to clothe not to mention a huge medical bills. Then we have school supplies, I want those jeans, etc. Not to mention when the kid wants that car. The $350 may offset a few costs especially in lean times for poor families. It is by no means an extra for a budget as an incentive to go out and have babies. But those who already have children who are unemployed due to unforeseen circumstances such as a pandemic it could be a godsend.

[madinmaryland]

95. Paid for by social security. Once again, Republicans are trying to kill

Social security. Fuckers.

[BGBD]

112. I don't love it

I'd rather it be $500 per child of any age and capped at 3 kids instead of 5. That gives more families access to the top number, increases the top number by $3,000 a year, and doesn't hurt families bigger than 3 kids because they would still get more than under the plan as is.

Also, run payments for 18 year olds through graduation from HS or 19th birthday, whichever comes first.

We can debate upper income cutoffs, but that part isn't a big deal to me.

[egduj]

113. I hope this comes with backpay.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

120. There was a study that indicated having another child...

... created more carbon emissions than could be offset by NEVER driving a car, flying on a plane, etc.

Oh, well. Let's just make more babies and let them deal with the future problems, I guess.

[roamer65]

123. ...or we can use them for Soylent Green.

I agree with you. In 20 years, we will be telling people “I told you so.”

[JonLP24]

124. Romney can vote for the Democrats proposal

I prefer the Democrats plan.