Anonymous #2 11w

Brother, there are kids starving and they can only use the 1k for school in the future. And it can only go to private school. This is a stupid bill and funds would be way better spent.

10

Anonymous discotheque 11w

They’re not allowing the funds for anything other than future schooling.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

That’s just so factually wrong lmaooo

-3

Anonymous #2 11w

Oh. You’re right. It can’t be accessed until they’re 18 and is savings only. This is a stupid bill.

1

Anonymous discotheque 11w

My mistake. It’s savings only. And isn’t allowed to be touched til the kid is 18

1

Anonymous discotheque 11w

SNAP does cost 101 billion a year and 1k/child is 3.6 billion so yeah (3.6 million people born)

1

Anonymous OP 11w

But there is literally zero downside to this. Zero. You sign up and your kid gets a free $1000 when they’re born. The goal is give the child somewhat a good base when they’re 18. So even if the parents contribute $0 to it over the 18, when that child turns 18, they’ll have anywhere from $5,000-$7,000 sitting in there. And if you contribute the max $5k a year over 18 years, with historical market performance that’s about $230,000. Literally zero downside to this. Zero

0

Anonymous #2 11w

I’d rather feed the millions of hungry children

1

Anonymous OP 11w

Okay well go do that then

1

Anonymous #2 11w

Brother, you’re missing the whole point.

1

Anonymous OP 11w

No you are. You’re acting like this is a binary decision like either this or that.

0

Anonymous #2 11w

You’re missing the whole point.

1