White House proposes giving out $5,000 checks to address falling birthrates amid growing ‘pronatalist’ movement

One of Donald Trump’s priorities for his second term is getting Americans to have more babies – and the White House has a new proposal to encourage them to do so: a $5,000 “baby bonus”.

The plan to give cash payments to mothers after delivery shows the growing influence of the “pronatalist” movement in the US, which, citing falling US birthrates, calls for “traditional” family values and for women – particularly white women – to have more children.

But experts say $5,000 checks won’t lead to a baby boom. Between unaffordable health care, soaring housing costs, inaccessible childcare and a lack of federal parental leave mandates, Americans face a swath of expensive hurdles that disincentivize them from having large families – or families at all – and that will require a much larger government investment to overcome.

  • adm@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Just birthing the damn thing is like $50,000. He can shove the $5,000 right up his ass and I hope he gets paper cuts up there too.

  • opus86@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    10 hours ago

    This is how you get Idiocracy. The people that would take advantage of this would be the people you don’t want to over-breed.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      In any case this combined with his dismantling of public education will certainly not help.

    • BlackSheep@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 hours ago

      The people that would take advantage of this would be the people completely lacking in critical thinking.

      • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Thats mostly what happned in Australia back in the day when we tried it. Mu friends wife was a social worker, she said coercion to have babies was endemic and the money taken off the mother by the asshat father when said money arrived. Not really a lack of critical thinking per se, just desperate :(

        What a debacle.

      • opus86@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        The people that would take advantage of this wouldn’t have the ability for critical thinking skills. I doubt the kids would be much better.

  • Formfiller@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 hours ago

    He’s making everything more expensive, gutting medicade to nothing (50% of babies are born on medicade), taking away food stamps, getting rid of the department of education, gutting hud, gutting head start, getting rid of free lunches in schools, sending us into a Great Depression, stripping worker protections and removing any hope for a future….but yeah 5k sure that will cover your first 15 minutes of delivery. What a joke this man is

    • The_Caretaker@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      There is no housing shortage, just an abundance of greed. There are 14,000,000 empty homes in the USA and most are owned by corporations who hold them as part of a financial portfolio or hedge funds. Ban corporations from owning residential properties and the housing shortage will vanish without cutting down more trees and burning more fossil fuels.

      • MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        Idk man, around me it’s sprawling single family homes for miles, when it should be blocks and blocks of condos and town homes. The NIMBYs have prevented construction for decades and now a house costs $1.5m. There is a housing shortage. I think corporations recently taking an interest in buying houses is because the shortage makes their value appreciate so quickly. They’re like parasites taking advantage of the situation, not the root cause.

        • BlackSheep@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          The corporations buying houses, and property, is exactly the root cause. If they own it all, they set the prices. It’s a cash cow. You pay, or you’re homeless. You pay $2500/month rent, but they won’t give you a mortgage where you would be paying $2000/month.

          • ILoveUnions@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 hours ago

            The root cause is a lack of multi family housing. Corpos buying houses is not the primary issue with housing, though it is also a serious concern.

            • BlackSheep@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 hours ago

              https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/federal-social-housing-1.6946376 The Canadian government used to build social housing. We have a real problem with homeless people in Canada. There are only a few places left like this where I live. They are very well run complexes. My Son-in-law’s retired Mom lives in one. She worked hard all her life, but through a divorce and buying a “leaky condo”, she was left without a lot of resources. She was lucky enough to find a placement in one of these places. The rent is a percentage of her income. We need more places like this…

    • angrystego@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Do we really need a baby boom though? I agree we need affordable housing, everything you mentioned and more. At the same time I don’t think the population should grow forever (so education and available birth control).

      • MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        I don’t disagree. I was just clarifying what would spur one.

        Truthfully, we are fucked either way. The truth is having a baby boom would help the economy, but accelerate environmental degradation and the consequences of climate change, which will be extremely destabilizing to society and possibly lead to collapse.

        But, if we don’t continue to grow the population, the capitalist world, based on a need for endless growth will falter. We will see less productivity and consumption, which will also be destabilizing to society as the economy shrinks or becomes stagnant. This is also destabilizing to society and could also create a collapse.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 hours ago

    $5k when having a kid costs $3k in insurance copays with a normal birth and average insurance. So you’re down to $2k before even leaving the hospital. This dude has all the intellectual depth and forethought of a mushroom.

  • Mallspice@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Yeah girls don’t really wanna fuck like they do where/when abortions are an option and there’s no chance of legally being sentenced to death because of a still birth I’m shocked conservatives are too stupid to get this.

    • BlackSheep@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Maybe sperm donors should also be held accountable because of a still birth. Maybe men who commit incest and rape should be held accountable.

  • matdave@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Literally cost us $11k in medical bills to have a baby. That doesn’t include the cost of actually maintaining it either. $5k is a JOKE

  • toastmeister@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    If hes following the century initiative he will cap money supply growth at 3% or so, which will drastically bring down home prices.

    • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      None of the developed countries have a replacement birth rate. Higher quality of life has lead to lower birth rate in all cases.

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    We don’t even have to ask the experts. Just look at Japan that tried something similar in the past. Of course it was a complete failure… This is basic reality, right? Families that don’t have money simply can’t afford to raise a child even if they get a bit of cash at the start. Pay them more than a living wage if you want them to have kids.

  • The_Caretaker@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    How about $5000 per month per child with adjustments for cost of living and inflation until the child is or children turn 18? I bet some women would have babies for that.

  • PancakeTrebuchet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    My wife and I would consider another kid if the fed wanted to kick us an extra $25k per year.

    A one time fee of $5K is hilarious. You’d maybe be able to cover the hospital bill from having the kid with that sum.

    • 5too@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      You’d maybe be able to cover the hospital bill from having the kid with that sum.

      If there’s no complications.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      19 hours ago

      It’s not even his idea.

      https://taxfoundation.org/blog/hillary-clintons-proposal-5000-baby-bond-essentially-already-here/

      Sen. Hillary Clinton’s plan to give every newborn a $5,000 bond, money meant to defray college costs when the kids hit 18, continued to draw criticism yesterday from her right-wing rivals.

      “It’s a quick way of trying to buy votes, which is irresponsible when it comes to the economic future of the nation,” said New York Conservative Party chief Mike Long, adding that the White House would have to raise taxes to finance the plan.

      The bonds would cost about $20 billion a year, based on the 4million American babies born annually, according to Time magazine, which last month proposed a similar plan.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Not even cash, but healthcare, childcare, preschool, more tuition assistance (WTF, FAFSA no longer considers if you have multiple kids in college? Let’s start by fixing that), excessive housing and vehicle cost. Plus give us some hope for the future with investments in the environment and renewable energy, making the world a better place. $5k probably covers first year food, clothes, diapers but not much more

      • andros_rex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        14 hours ago

        FAFSA calculations have been bullshit for years.

        “Oh, your family was extremely abusive and they aren’t giving you a dime? Well, your stepfather still makes too much for you to get anything other than unsubsidized loans.”

        Like, fuck, my mom stole thousands of dollars from me. I should have had a negative EFC.