Have a kid? Hillary wants to give you $5,000

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.
Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

Clinton said such an account program would help people get back to the tradition of savings that she remembers as a child, and has become harder to accomplish in the face of rising college and housing costs.

One way of building a stronger economy, she said, is "more savings, starting with the so-called baby bonds idea where every person born in this country would be given that kind of account because we want to make an investment in America's young people."

She argued that wealthy people "get to have all kinds of tax incentives to save, but most people can't afford to do that."

The proposal was met with enthusiastic applause at an event aimed to encourage young people to excel and engage in politics.

"I think it's a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, an Ohio Democrat who attended the event and has already endorsed Clinton. "Every child born in the United States today owes $27,000 on the national debt, why not let them come get $5,000 to grow until their 18?"

Blake Zeff, a spokesman for the senator's campaign, said a baby bonds program "is not a firm policy proposal but an idea under consideration."

Britain launched a similar program in January 2005, handing out vouchers worth hundreds of dollars each to parents with children born after Sept. 1, 2002.

Earlier this month, Time magazine proposed a $5,000 baby bond program.

Ok, can somebody explain to me why the govt is even thinking of this? How does she plan on paying for it? Why are they wanting to stick there nose so deep into out lives? All I want is to be left the hell from the govt!

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[vortexring 0]

She's copying what the British Prime Minister done over here. Except his was to the tune of around $500 dollars.

Gordon told her where to get the money - and who gives a fuck anyway - it gets the votes!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Ok, can somebody explain to me why the govt is even thinking of this? How does she plan on paying for it? Why are they wanting to stick there nose so deep into out lives? All I want is to be left the hell from the govt!

I imagine she'll get the money the same way Bush is paying for the war.

[vortexring 0]

And what 'war' is that?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[quade 4]

50% of people will love this and 50% of people will hate this. I have no f'in' idea how she thinks this is going to gain her votes in the long view.

She may yet win the nomination, but between this and her ideas on health insurance she's pretty much giving herself the automatic loss in the general election.

Of course, I've been saying she can't win that for months now anyway.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

And what 'war' is that?

The one he didn't bother asking congress to declare in Iraq.

[vortexring 0]

I'd expect the bag to be a bit on the empty side...

Not that anybody would really know the exact status of the thing.

Edit: I was going to go off on one in regards to the so called 'war.' But I won't. As well as it being entirely unecessary I can't be arsed. We all know the idiocy shown by Bush/Cheyney/Rumsfield.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[1969912 0]

What's going to keep the hubba-ho mamas from spending it on crack?

Really, though, it's just another handout. Pandering for votes.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[masterrig 1]

Quote

What's going to keep the hubba-ho mamas from spending it on crack?

Really, though, it's just another handout. Pandering for votes.

...and there's a large number of folks out there, who will fall for it, too!


Chuck

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

50% of people will love this and 50% of people will hate this. I have no f'in' idea how she thinks this is going to gain her votes in the long view.

She may yet win the nomination, but between this and her ideas on health insurance she's pretty much giving herself the automatic loss in the general election.

Her thinking is - 'people like free money and many of my potential voters are too stupid with money to understand how meaningless this is.' It might help in the primary; it has no value in the main election.

A fairly well paid bond will collect 7% and double in 10 years, so let's be real nice with the math and say it will be 20k when they go to college. Even now that barely pays for one year at a public university.

It's as bad as Bush (Sr) marveling at the amazing grocery checkout stand price scanner in 1992. Totally out of touch with Americans.

I give her more credit for the health care talk. Not a vote winner, but something that will have to be fixed at some point. At least she fronted some suggestions.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

And what 'war' is that?

The one he didn't bother asking congress to declare in Iraq.

Quote

The vote on Joint Resolution 114 was taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[billvon 3,120]

Call it a tax refund and the republicans will love it. Bad idea in either case. Stop spending so much FIRST then start giving people money back.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Stop spending so much FIRST then start giving people money back.

I second that.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[billvon 3,120]

>The vote on Joint Resolution 114 was taken on October 11, 2002.

Joint Resolution 114 was the authorization to use force (which he already has) not a declaration of war (which is a separate act called out in the constitution.)

The equivalent would be passing a resolution in the Texas legislature that Texas has the right to execute prisoners of capital crimes, and the governor using that as a reason to execute a dozen people without a trial. "But . . but . . . you voted to execute them!" wouldn't fly.

[joedirt 0]

Quote

The equivalent would be passing a resolution in the Texas legislature that Texas has the right to execute prisoners of capital crimes, and the governor using that as a reason to execute a dozen people without a trial. "But . . but . . . you voted to execute them!" wouldn't fly.

No... the equivalent would be this:

A judge authorizing the use of the death penalty for a specific individual, and the jury giving it to him.

It was specific against Iraq. Nice spin though.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Hillary's so generous with other people's money.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Royd 0]

Here's a thought. She could put our hard earned Social Security money into interest bearing accounts and at retirement, give us full access.

Oh, wait. They voted against giving us even2% for personal investment.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

The equivalent would be passing a resolution in the Texas legislature that Texas has the right to execute prisoners of capital crimes, and the governor using that as a reason to execute a dozen people without a trial. "But . . but . . . you voted to execute them!" wouldn't fly.

No... the equivalent would be this:

A judge authorizing the use of the death penalty for a specific individual, and the jury giving it to him.

It was specific against Iraq. Nice spin though.

You can debate what it WAS until you turn blue. What it was NOT was a formal declaration of war as called for in the Constitution.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Here's a thought. She could put our hard earned Social Security money into interest bearing accounts and at retirement, give us full access.

Oh, wait. They voted against giving us even2% for personal investment.

But, but... fixing Social Security was GWB's "number one priority" before the election.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

***WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

It's a bad idea, BUT it's still a lot less than the money US taxpayers are paying per child born in Iraq to fix up the mess we made of their country.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Anvilbrother 0]

You know what "50%" she is after. The ones that have 14 kids and already live off us. The other 50% work and dont need it.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

You know what "50%" she is after. The ones that have 14 kids and already live off us. The other 50% work and dont need it.

And here I thought it was the part that buys new cars every couple of years, owns more house than they can afford or need, spends what remains of the discretionary income on dining out and then complains about the high price of college and how they make too much money to qualify for financial aid (and there's NO WAY that my little angel should go to a community college or state school instead - he/she simply must go to a private college or university).

Yep, those are the ones that will love this stuff. Because then they won't have to ratchet their lifestyle back to pay for the stuff that's really important.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[Derekbox 0]

I dont think many people would be willing to have kids to get an 18 year payoff. Itll cost them so much more than that raise the kid for the first 18 years...

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

You know what "50%" she is after. The ones that have 14 kids and already live off us. The other 50% work and dont need it.

And here I thought it was the part that buys new cars every couple of years, owns more house than they can afford or need, spends what remains of the discretionary income on dining out and then complains about the high price of college and how they make too much money to qualify for financial aid (and there's NO WAY that my little angel should go to a community college or state school instead - he/she simply must go to a private college or university).

Yep, those are the ones that will love this stuff. Because then they won't have to ratchet their lifestyle back to pay for the stuff that's really important.

A one-time $5k bond to cover an 18+ year committment to raise a child won't go very far in covering the costs of new cars or dining out over that period.

Compared to the taxpayer money the government wastes on things like bridges to nowhere and corporate welfare, this is peanuts and it just might help a bunch of needy citizens (although I'm not actually in favor because there are better ways).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>A judge authorizing the use of the death penalty for a specific
>individual, and the jury giving it to him.

Nope! See, the constitution gives that power to our courts - so our courts condemning a man to death is a constitutional use of power. The governor shooting people in the back of the head because he thinks they are terrorists is NOT constitutional - even if the courts tell him that he has the power to enforce law within the state via a police force.

The constitution gives the power to declare war to the legislature alone. So the president declaring war is NOT constitutional.

Annoying thing, that constitution, but some of us think it's important to respect it - even if you're very, very scared of terrorists.

>It was specific against Iraq.

Sorry again. The resolution reads, in part:
--------
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
-------