It says in no uncertain terms “we don’t trust you parents, we only trust your baby”.. if you even have one? I prefer to start from a position of trust instead of undermining that trust, so why not give people the basic monthly economic security they need first and let THEM decide if they are ready to introduce a new child to the world?

It says “you only have value if you procreate”, whereas I feel all humans have intrinsic value, even if they choose not to have children. So the incentive is now to have lots of babies for the money.. pay to play? Is that want we want?

It ties up a sum of money for 18-23 years so only banks benefit from sitting on that money, which is meanwhile doing absolutely nothing to help anyone, or make the world better, for two decades.

The “lottery effect” of suddenly dumping a sizable sum of money on a young adult doesn’t tend to work well, compared to the safety of having a reliable, regular, consistent monthly income for a reasonable period of time, so the parents have time to raise their child with love and affection, and guide their child without having to work 4 different jobs at once.

Having a child is exactly the time you would need extra financial support… not in 18-23 years, but RIGHT NOW, when the baby arrives, when the need is most urgent -- not “one and done” but regular consistent monthly safety knowing you can have at least a year of reliable income, a predictable future where you can do more than be in constant survival mode.

Why would a policy that mostly benefits banks and “funds” be something that people want to support rather than disbursing the money now to those most in need of it? The incentives seem perverse.

Not only do baby bonds not trust the parents, they don’t even trust the babies — the funds at age 18+ can only be used for certain “correct” things, well who exactly determines that? How does this “program” know their lives better than they do?