The problem is that people aren’t educated on how to save money and many don’t want to learn. Did anyone else see that 60 minutes special where they talked about the millionaire football players who are in debt b/c they don’t know how to follow a budget? The NFL setup a financial training seminar/class and ONE player showed up! (Granted, football players aren’t representative of the whole of society – but it still says something.)

One more thing don’t you dare compare this to my privatized SS. I’m being taxed for my supposed benefit, I’d just as soon keep it in my own account thank you very much. I don’t want my SS retirement funding government healthcare just like you don’t want your’s funding the war. So let’s agree to keep government out of our lives.

First, it will cost much more than the $4Billion because we need to pay for the account management as well.

What’s worse is this would have unintended consequences. If families can access this money in any way, then I envision people having children so they can get this extra $1,000 dollars.

I agree with Esmond. Teaching kids about financial management will have a bigger impact.

What good would it do to give each baby $500 while increasing the national debt to pay for it? They would just own $500 more.

The country is broke. We are already swimming in debt. This idea is just another popular social idea. If this was a good idea, then why not just give everyone $5000 at birth?

I read this article too when it came out and thought “how stupid” – and my political leanings are usually to the left. Makes no sense to me. The question is why? Giving people money doesn’t make them fiscally responsible. Think about lottery winners – many of them end up blowing it all.

It would be virtually impossible to keep that money out of the hands of fiscally irresponsible parents. I’m not saying all poor people are fically irresponsible, but there is a direct co-relation between the two. This money might help children, but probably less than half would ever see the money.

But yes, adding MORE deficit spending just doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. And I don’t trust people being able to manage it right. It’d stimulate the fancy baby carriage industry. Unless the government managed it for all children until the age of 18. But I can’t see them handling it well either. Pretty soon it’d be pillaged for something new.

I’m neutral and open minded on this until I actually see the plan. The comments above seem to assume the parents are being cut a check; that, of course would be bad.

But what if it were put in custodial account (kind of like what the selfish neocons want to do with social security) that couldn’t be touched until the person is, say, 26. If the person doesn’t live until 26, it all (plus interest generated) goes right back to the govt. At, say 8% after 26 years it turns into ~$4,000

This has the potential to show, by example, the power of compounding for a fairly small cost. Turning the $ over at 26 (or what ever age) would be accompanied with educational materials on the power of compounding and saving. The person could then do whatever he/she wanted to do with it – spend it on education, roll it over into a new account, put it towards starting a business, or even spend it frivolously. Whatever. This would be one of the cheapest ways to teach this lesson.