Are these those welfare babies Republicans always screeeched about?
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
1506 points (98.8% liked)
People Twitter
6851 readers
2025 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Spending money on families hasn't been shown to help in any way whatsoever in increasing the birth rate. You have countries with close to free day care and generous monthly child subsidies with the same or even much lower fertility rate as countries that give just about nothing at all. I still support these kinds of policies just for the sake of helping families and their kids, but doing it for the only purpose of helping the fertility rate is futile. Honestly I don't think the government can do much at all to help the fertility rate. It's a cultural issue first and foremost. And the government can't (and I think shouldn't!) do much to change the culture of our society. You see people living in poverty with 9 kids just because they belong to a certain religious or ethnic group who values children above all else. That's the main issue. How important is children to the culture? Is it prestigious to be a dad or a mom? Is personal success measured in how you've built your family or is success measured in how much money you make?
It's a work culture issue. People need free time to socialise meaningfully. Notice how Iceland and France are as high or higher than Colombia?
Latin American countries have recently had a collapse in birth rate, even since that chart from 2017 was made. Colombia has dropped to 1,2 in 2023. Fertility rates are collapsing almost everywhere and I think it's because of how globalisation is spreading anti natalist culture around the globe. It's so drastic and so consistent in nearly every developed country.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not sure how exactly fertility rates are calculated but with countries like Japan the age of the population might play a role too.
Fertility rate is calculated by dividing every age group in the country into groups and multiplying them by how many children that age group are currently having to estimate how many children a woman is going to have during their lifetime. So if today's women have on average 1 kid in their 20s and 1 kid in their 30s, and none after, that will give a fertility rate of 2.0, no matter how many women are actually in their 20s or 30s. So there being a lot of old people does not change the results. Fertility rate is dependent on how many children women have during their reproductive years. Birth rate however is affected by their being a lot of old people because birth rate numbers are just the number of children born per year per a 1000 people. So the birth rate of Japan would look comparably much worse than the fertility rate. Fertility rate is therefore considered to be a fairer metric.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ironically, comically, higher education leads to more lefty leaning politics with more programmes, and you know higher education correlates with reduced family size.
So - and it's probably minor - the easier it is there to have and raise and educate a child, the less likely its people need as much help.
As an atheist baby-eater, sign me up. I could have a lovely dinner party for $5K on Hallowen every year and not have to find a main course.
That's the only way anyone would financially benefit from this bill. Infanticide. And only if they do a home birth.
I don't think babies are supposed to be profitable.
If you're already gonna have a baby anyway, the 5k is a bonus. Otherwise it won't do much for you.
Completely. And therefore this is an absolutely terrible way to "boost the U.S. population".
as always, trump's face is in it.
they should have plated the purse in gold to complete the package.
I sometimes joke with my kids and call them Lamborghini 1 and 2, because that's how much money it was suggested you would need for each kid, and I'm sure that has doubled or tripled by now.
instead of DEPENDING on GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS new parents should be GRATEFUL someone is WILLING to be GENEROUS and provide them with such GOODWILL. America is WINNING again under PRESIDENT TRUMP
@BigMacHole@lemm.ee am I doing it right?
I mean I like the direction, but this is far cry from other countries.
Give us UHC, improve working rights, guaranteed housing for parents, daycare.
But Its good they at least bringing it up.
Well, in a couple of years, some countries more than 50% of the population will be retired. Even a perfect democracy would not pass a law to improve young people’s lives so they can have time and money to have kids.
Just like in a perfect democracy, no affordable housing law will be approved because 66% of the population are homeowners.
Its unsolvable.
load more comments
(3 replies)
hospital bill will likely be 10x that
Considering also, how much they all complained about handing out checks during the pandemic...this just makes no sense. Now they're fine handing out even bigger checks, just to replace the people they're obsessed with deporting?
They are good with proposing a thing that sounds good to a portion of their voting base, not with following through.
Add an extra zero to that. Then we might consider
This is such a classic fascist play, get your bingo cards out ladies
This is a great summary of exactly why I won't have kids. I don't want to spend all my waking hours working so a billionaire can afford a private island.
The USA should copy the Swedish maternity leave.
USA should probably copy a lot of Swedish things, but we won't
Let them get braces.
The government giving people stuff they didn't earn? Sounds kind of progressive. Is that really the image pure fucking evil vile narcissistic scum really want?
(frantically waves hands in the air) b-but WE NEED BABIES
Putin did the same thing, he aware 16k equivalent for having 10+ children .
Nobody can afford health care and they want us in the office no remote work making it even more difficult. It's almost like they want to run us all into the ground while they sit on gold toilets and enrich themselves beyond all measure of reason. Oh and they're building bunkers in New Zealand, the billionares pulling the strings so when they get us into a nuclear war you won't hear from them again.
We don't have a population shortage so I'm confused? The only reasoning I can see is to use as meat on some front lines somewhere he can use in his 7th term in office.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Honestly... This is kind of on the right track.
It costs way more than $5k to birth and raise a child. This is only going to be incentive for the exceptionally poor and extremely stupid, which is likely to be the point because those people and their children are what continues to feed our exploitation model.
I'm not sure what you mean, but if you mean giving people cash, yes I agree. It's just far too small an amount to make a difference. People have a variety of needs, and while some might benefit from daycare, others would benefit from diapers, while still others could use a decent car seat. Cash is fungible, and people can spend it how they like.
We spend more on preventing fraud and administering social services than we would spend it we simply gave everyone money. A negative tax rate on a sliding scale would do the most good for everyone. Yes, some people would spend the money on drugs or alcohol or other addictive vices, but the effort to stop that costs more than just letting it happen. It's like we have a swat team at the Dollar Store to prevent shoplifting.
But $5,000 is insultingly ineffective.
Oh yeah, I agree it isn't enough and agree with all your points.