Sec Bessent on new $1K Accounts: Every child born 1/1/2025; Fetterman shockwaves: poisonous=FAR LEFT

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced details on new “Trump Accounts” — every child born retroactively to January 1, 2025 (and for the next three years) will receive a $1,000 account invested in the U.S. stock market. It’s effectively a universal child savings program funded via tariff revenue. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman delivered a shockwave statement about political venom: he has “drunk deeply of the venom of both the left and the right” and confirms “the most poisonous, the bitterest is from the far left.” Fetterman’s digital team confirmed Bluesky (progressive alternative to X) is demonstrably more vicious than X, with users “cheering for your next stroke,” posting stroke GIFs to Fetterman’s head, and tweeting “why couldn’t your depression [have] won” and “I want him to die.” Democratic Rep. Sam Liccardo got called out by a caller for lying about Democrats’ shutdown responsibility. Democratic Senators Hickenlooper and Jack Reed explicitly said the shutdown — that deprived Americans of paychecks and SNAP — was “worth it” to “get people to pay attention.” Bessent: “Every child born retroactively to January 1, but for the next three years, is going to get a $1,000 account that’s gonna be invested in the US stock market. So that’s another $1,000 for working families.” Fetterman: “The most poisonous, the bitterest is from the far left … they want me to die or that we’re cheering for your next stroke.”

Trump Accounts

Treasury Secretary Bessent announced details on the new “Trump Accounts” program. “And then the other thing you’re gonna see in the middle of the year are these Trump accounts. Every child born retroactively to January 1, but for the next three years, is going to get a $1,000 account that’s gonna be invested in the US stock market.”

The structure:

Eligible: Every child born after January 1, 2025
Program runs: Next three years (2025, 2026, 2027)
Amount: $1,000 per child
Investment: U.S. stock market
Funding: Tariff revenue (and other sources)

“So that’s another $1,000 for working families.”

For working families, this is substantial. A child born in 2025 with $1,000 invested in the S&P 500 would likely grow to $5,000-15,000+ by age 18, providing college funding, first home down payment assistance, or business startup capital.

The universal nature matters:

Every child qualifies regardless of income
No application required (opt-out structure)
Invested automatically in broad market fund
Grows tax-deferred (likely via dedicated account structure)

Total scale:

~3.6 million U.S. births annually
$3.6 billion annual program cost
Over 3 years: ~10 million children, $10 billion investment
18-year projected value: $50-150 billion in assets held by young adults

Fetterman Shockwave

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) delivered extraordinary framework. “So yes, right about that in your book. You said, quote, I’ve drunk deeply of the venom of both the left and the right as a connoisseur. I can confirm that the most poisonous, the bitterest is from the far left.”

The context: Fetterman published a book discussing political venom online. His framework: having experienced attacks from both sides, the far left is more vicious than the right.

“That is pretty remarkable to hear you say that as an elected Democrat. Why?”

The interviewer recognized the significance. Democratic senator publicly stating his party’s base is more toxic than the opposing party’s base is unusual.

Personal Experience

“It’s just been my personal experience on this thing. And when I asked my digital team, I said, you know, you’re, we’re on all the platforms, you know, really what’s, what’s kind of the harshest, what’s kind of the most personal? And the answer was immediate. They said, oh, blue sky, it’s blue sky.”

Bluesky is the progressive alternative to X (formerly Twitter), widely adopted by left-leaning users who left X after Elon Musk’s acquisition. Fetterman’s digital team — having access across all platforms — identified Bluesky as uniquely toxic.

Right vs Left Venom

“And the difference is, I mean, the right would say really rough things and names. You know, some names I won’t repeat on TV, but on the left, it was like they want me to die or that we’re cheering for your next stroke.”

Fetterman’s distinction:

Right-wing venom: name-calling, rough language
Left-wing venom: death wishes, medical emergency cheering

Fetterman suffered a stroke in May 2022 during his Senate campaign. He has continued to face medical recovery challenges. Left-wing users were:

Cheering for another stroke
Hoping he dies
Posting graphic stroke GIFs to his messages

”Depression Won”

“Or that’s terrible, that depression, why couldn’t it depression one?”

Whisper garbled the phrasing. Fetterman was quoting: “why couldn’t your depression [have] won” — meaning users were wishing Fetterman had died by suicide during his 2023 depression treatment.

Fetterman had been hospitalized for major depression in February 2023, for approximately six weeks. Recovery was substantial but difficult. Left-wing critics responded with messages essentially wishing his depression had killed him.

“And I hope your kids find you. They even have like the graphic, a gift there.”

Users hoping Fetterman’s children “find” him — i.e., find his dead body. Paired with graphic GIFs of strokes happening in his head.

”The Doctor Let Us Down”

“They have like a stroke, you know, in, you know, in your head, you know, cheering. Yeah. And, and they said that, I remember one, they claimed, oh, the doctor let us down and why did they have to save his life?”

The extraordinary viciousness: users literally complaining that Fetterman’s doctors saved his life during his stroke. “The doctor let us down” means “how dare the doctor successfully treat him.”

“I mean, just really like, I just can’t imagine. People are, are wishing, you know, you, I wish he dies or I want him to die, you know, literally cheering for, for a stroke.”

Fetterman’s genuine bewilderment. The pattern — Democratic constituents hoping a Democratic senator dies — is genuinely hard to understand from outside.

“And I don’t know what the kind of a place where that comes from. I mean, that’s much different than just calling me a name. That’s really been consistent, you know, in that community online.”

Liccardo Called Out

Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-CA, new congressman) had a town hall moment captured. A caller pressed him directly. “Good morning, good morning, Representative. Thanks for taking all questions. I have one quick question which requires a yes or no.”

Straightforward framing.

“Who shut down the government? And I, you don’t have to answer it because I know who it is, it was the Democrats. So let’s put that to bed.”

The caller bypassed the rhetorical dodge by answering his own question: Democrats shut it down. Liccardo can’t pretend otherwise.

ACA Subsidies Concern

“Well, now let me ask you another question. I agree with Democrats on this. Public sentiment is in favor, probably in their, on their side, when it comes to subsidies for the ACA, for the lower income people. I’m a retiree, I don’t have ACA, but I have a hard time paying more taxes. I do well, but paying more taxes to subsidize people who are making more money than I am.”

The caller’s substantive point:

Generally supports ACA subsidies for low-income
Retired himself (on Medicare)
Does “well” financially
Pays federal taxes
Objects to those taxes funding ACA subsidies for people “making more money than I am”

This is the Paul argument restated by a constituent. The enhanced ACA subsidies (the specific Democratic demand) flow to households earning $100K-$500K. The caller — a retiree on fixed income — was asked to subsidize wealthier working households.

Liccardo’s Deflection

“All right, Tony, let’s get a response. Go ahead, Congressman. Well, Tony, a response to your first question. Last I checked, the Republicans have a majority in the House. The Republicans have a majority in the Senate. The Republicans are in the White House. So who is running the government, the Republicans?”

Liccardo’s deflection: Republicans control everything, therefore Republicans own the shutdown. Standard Democratic framework.

The caller had already refuted this — Republicans proposed the clean CR, Democrats blocked it with filibuster. Liccardo’s “Republicans run government” framework ignores the 60-vote threshold.

Hickenlooper and Reed

The transcript then captured two Democratic senators celebrating the shutdown.

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO): “Shut down and worth it? Yeah, I think so. I hate it, but yeah, it was worth it. Definitely, we got people to pay attention to the fact that this is a traumatic, in many cases, life-or-death situation for people all over this country.”

Hickenlooper’s framework:

Shutdown was “worth it”
Even though he “hates” it
Value was getting “people to pay attention”
To “life-or-death situation”

The inversion: the shutdown itself was the life-or-death situation. Cancer patients missing treatments. Workers missing paychecks. SNAP recipients facing hunger. Hickenlooper framed the shutdown as valuable for drawing attention to healthcare issues — while causing the actual crisis.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI): “Was the shutdown worth it? I think it was because I think the perception we made it clear that this, not just the healthcare issue, but the whole issue.”

Reed’s framework: shutdown was worth the cost because it made perception “clear.” Democrats publicly celebrating the shutdown’s value after millions of Americans suffered.

Significance

The day’s items highlighted Democratic Party disarray:

Fetterman’s admission: Democratic senator acknowledging far-left toxicity exceeds right-wing. Unprecedented internal criticism.
Liccardo’s deflection: Democratic congressman unable to take responsibility for shutdown, using “Republicans in control” framework that ignores 60-vote reality.
Hickenlooper/Reed celebration: Democratic senators publicly celebrating shutdown they voted to maintain. Political malpractice given ongoing Democratic loss in blame war.
Trump’s $1,000 accounts: Meanwhile, Trump administration launching universal child investment program. Positive populist policy while Democrats defended past losses.

The asymmetry:

Trump administration: proactive policy (Trump Accounts, fentanyl precursors, drug pricing)
Democrats: reactive criticism and internal fighting

Fetterman’s testimony about Bluesky is particularly damaging for Democrats. The progressive platform that was supposed to be the healthy alternative to X has become a cesspool of death wishes toward Democratic politicians. The revealed toxicity undermines Democratic rhetorical framework about “safe spaces” and “healthy discourse.”

Hickenlooper and Reed celebrating the shutdown while Fetterman tells the truth about progressive toxicity captures the Democratic Party’s actual state. Those in leadership celebrate losses; those in the trenches describe how ugly things have gotten.

Key Takeaways

Bessent on Trump Accounts: “Every child born retroactively to January 1, but for the next three years, is going to get a $1,000 account that’s gonna be invested in the US stock market. So that’s another $1,000 for working families.”
Fetterman on progressive toxicity: “I’ve drunk deeply of the venom of both the left and the right as a connoisseur. I can confirm that the most poisonous, the bitterest is from the far left.”
Fetterman on specific threats: “They want me to die or that we’re cheering for your next stroke or that’s terrible, that depression, why couldn’t it depression one? … I remember one, they claimed, oh, the doctor let us down and why did they have to save his life?”
Liccardo’s dodge: Caller: “Who shut down the government? I know who it is, it was the Democrats. So let’s put that to bed.” Liccardo: “Last I checked, the Republicans have a majority in the House. The Republicans have a majority in the Senate. The Republicans are in the White House.”
Hickenlooper and Reed celebrating shutdown: Hickenlooper: “Shut down and worth it? Yeah, I think so. I hate it, but yeah, it was worth it.” Reed: “Was the shutdown worth it? I think it was because I think the perception we made it clear.”