amstalder 0 #1 October 7, 2009 I'll be honest, I dont really follow politics, and I rarely venture in here. However, this article caught my eye, and Im curious what yall think about it... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Coming-Soon-500-for-Every-usnews-3217986354.html?x=0&.v=1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2 October 7, 2009 QuoteI'll be honest, I dont really follow politics, and I rarely venture in here. However, this article caught my eye, and Im curious what yall think about it... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Coming-Soon-500-for-Every-usnews-3217986354.html?x=0&.v=1 borrow money at 4%, give kids savings accounts that pay 1% right now. Perfect use of deficit spending! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #3 October 7, 2009 Bad idea. Any 'free money' scheme generally is. It increases inflation and decreases the value of labor for people who make their money through working. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 October 7, 2009 When I was a kid going to elementary school, I remember a program we had where each week you'd bring in something like 25 cents and buy some sort of stamp. Then the stamp got placed into a book. When you filled up the book you traded it in for a (I dunno maybe) $25 savings bond that was supposed to be used for your education later. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever became of the savings bonds because I don't think I ever saw them after I got them, but the point is that a little each week ended up being a larger amount, it didn't come out of the tax payers pockets and taught kids to save for the future. I wonder if there is any program like that today?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amstalder 0 #5 October 7, 2009 Ok, yall are all echoing my thoughts. It seems silly to me that the govt is proposing this when are so far in debt as it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amstalder 0 #6 October 7, 2009 QuoteI wonder if there is any program like that today? I do not know of any program like that. My little brother is nine and goes to a Dept of Defense school, and I went to quite a few DoD schools over the years and we were never offered anything like that. My little brother does save up all his change, and every year we take him to the bank to trade it in. I think last year he had saved like $300. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 October 7, 2009 Here's a link I found that describes the earlier part/origin of the program. It continued until at least the mid-60s because that's when I remember it in my school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_savings_stampsquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amstalder 0 #8 October 7, 2009 Oh wow, that seems like a very neat idea. Id be interested to see a program like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #9 October 7, 2009 I think it's a load of crap, to make someone's constituents feel all warm and fuzzy.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #10 October 7, 2009 QuoteI think it's a load of crap, to make someone's constituents feel all warm and fuzzy. Agree. Anytime I hear "lawmakers are considering a bill", that's just fodder for the press, so they can float ideas to the public without any real backlash.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #11 October 7, 2009 we have a system like this in the uk introduced about seven years ago - my two kids have accounts and we put in money when we can (and some of their birthday money) for when they are eighteen...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #12 October 7, 2009 QuoteOk, yall are all echoing my thoughts. It seems silly to me that the govt is proposing this when are so far in debt as it is. Is "the govt" proposing it, or just one Congresscritter?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #13 October 7, 2009 i don't like it.... sounds like a 'reward' , for procreating..... if a person wants a 'trust fund' or savings plan for their offspring... LET them do it themselves.... How???? well Duh!!,,, WORK.... earn something.. and then ( here's the important part ) don't SPEND it all,, or spend MORE than what's earned... it's simple arithmetic... earn $$$ spend less than THAT amount, = savings.. any incentive for having more kids makes no sense at all..... and WHO is gonna oversee this idiocy???? The Government!!!!.. hahahah... sure... That'll work. ineptitude abounds, and it's getting the better of common sense... let 'em fix all the other screwy programs first,,, before "funding " this...... you'll wind up with parents who are poorer than their kids,,,, and kids, " cashing in",, when they are of age to "USE the funds,,," and figuring "whew,,, Now we have it made"... crazy idea..... jmy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #14 October 7, 2009 i don't think the kids will be corrupted onto the government teat for a lousy five hundred dollars - what it does is introduce youngsters to the simple value of saving.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #15 October 7, 2009 >what it does is introduce youngsters to the simple value of saving. And to the even simpler and easier value of free money from the government. Saving is hard; getting money is easy. All you have to do is be born, and everyone alive today has managed that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #16 October 7, 2009 the simplest value of course is free money from parents - if you're lucky. the idea here is to possibly bypass parents who aren't making the effort and introduce the concept of saving to children who otherwise might not ever 'get' it. think of it as seed money from which mighty savings accounts might be grown.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #17 October 7, 2009 >the simplest value of course is free money from parents - if you're lucky. Agreed. So now we're trying to replace that with free money from the government. Think of the possibilities! A whole new generation free from the worry of "who will give me money?" >think of it as seed money from which mighty savings accounts might be >grown. Or as free money from which dozens of burgers and beers can be bought. I wonder which one a typical 18 year old will choose? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #18 October 7, 2009 Quotethe simplest value of course is free money from parents - if you're lucky. the idea here is to possibly bypass parents who aren't making the effort and introduce the concept of saving to children who otherwise might not ever 'get' it. think of it as seed money from which mighty savings accounts might be grown. If the little ankle biters need "seed money", their parents should get off their ass and earn it. I was never taught the value of "free money" from my parents, because the concept is bullshit. My parents taught me the right value. That money isn't free, that they worked very hard for it, and that they expected me to do the same to share some of theirs. I think more could be taught to our youth by instituting a strenuous work for welfare program that made people bust their ass. You can walk, here is a shovel. Can't walk but your arms work, here is a stack of paper don't stop until it is all filed. If you can't find a job we will support you, but we will give you a real hard and crappy job in the mean time. Sure you can pop out a bunch of babies that you can't support, please drop them off at the state daycare office before you get back to your job of rock breaking. Little kids would think twice about not putting themselves in a better position in life."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #19 October 7, 2009 QuoteI think it's a load of crap, to make someone's constituents feel all warm and fuzzy. That's what its all about. Social Security and a long laundry list are going broke or are broke. This must be an exception?......... last paragraph....... How would this program be paid for? Over the first decade of its life, the program would cost around $37.5 billion, and would start at around $3.25 billion per year. Cramer argues that because the money would be invested through the savings account, it would help spur economic growth. Lawmakers sponsoring the bill have said they would pay for it by making other cuts, but the bill doesn't specify what those cuts would be. EDITED TO ADD: is this for illegal alien babies aka. anchor babies too?Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 October 7, 2009 Quotethe simplest value of course is free money from parents - if you're lucky. the idea here is to possibly bypass parents who aren't making the effort and introduce the concept of saving to children who otherwise might not ever 'get' it. think of it as seed money from which mighty savings accounts might be grown. If you really want to introduce the idea of saving, you have to make the participants actually save. So at the very least, you need to give the free money in the form of matching. Put in $3, get $1 added. But you give everyone $500 without them lifting a finger? The ones that will learn saving would have learned it anyway. The rest will buy a smart phone and a leather jacket with their windfall money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #21 October 7, 2009 You don't get owt f'nowt. Someone, somewhere is paying and why should anyone pay for other peoples kids? If you can't afford to have kids .. don't have them [Full Stop] (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #22 October 7, 2009 Quote >the simplest value of course is free money from parents - if you're lucky. Agreed. So now we're trying to replace that with free money from the government. Think of the possibilities! A whole new generation free from the worry of "who will give me money?" >think of it as seed money from which mighty savings accounts might be >grown. Or as free money from which dozens of burgers and beers can be bought. I wonder which one a typical 18 year old will choose? i don't think the kids will go wild with five hundred dollars stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #23 October 7, 2009 >i don't think the kids will go wild with five hundred dollars Agreed. They won't have too big a party; five hundred bucks doesn't go as far as it used to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #24 October 7, 2009 Quote i don't think the kids will be corrupted onto the government teat for a lousy five hundred dollars - what it does is introduce youngsters to the simple value of saving. right...but i wasn't worried about corrupting the kids... i was worried about the adults, using that as a 'reason' to have a child , or two, or a few and with, what THEY think , are good intentions..... so babies here, babies there, babies everywhere.... Which then need to be raised.. and educated, and housed and fed..... .where is the part of the program that realisticly 'warns' parents of the severity, the effort, the major responsibilities which such a job entails.... too much govt. "heartwarming optimism"... 500 bucks compounded at todays low interest rates, even over 10 or 15 years....still isn't enough... MAYBE the kids will follow the intended lead, and continue to add to the savings plan.... which could be good, but all the while the parents may be scrimping just to get by, and to raise their children... The parents may not "tap" those funds,,but they damn sure would WANT to... and it doesen't matter anyway... cause once the Dollars totals grow HIGH enough, accross the totals of the whole program, the Government WILL be "johnny on the spot" to be the ones to step in, to tap it, right quick !!! In order to finance social security...or medicare or some other damn thing... hahaha This from the same sorta financial experts, who wanted to put allll the social security money into the stock market,,,,,, oh back about 2 years before the whole financial world,,,,,, tanked.... damn...they should just give me back the actual dollars which i paid and which were paid on my behalf by my various employers, over the years,,,, and let me walk away... Even though the amounts i paid were low year to year, and based on wages of the times,,, I HAVE been paying Soc. sec TAX,,, for over 40 years now.....so it's a FEW dollars and HEY!!!! i was born...!!! what about a retroactive clause in this new idea.. Maybe then,, i could get behind it.....jmy A 3914 D 12122 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #25 October 7, 2009 Over the first decade of its life, the program would cost around $37.5 billion, and would start at around $3.25 billion per year. Cramer argues that because the money would be invested through the savings account, it would help spur economic growth. Lawmakers sponsoring the bill have said they would pay for it by making other cuts, but the bill doesn't specify what those cuts would be. Quote doesn't specify what those cuts would be? sounds like another program not getting paid for. the government never seems to tell us what " those cuts " are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
