View Full Version : Clinton: Give every newborn $5,000
Saguaro
09-29-2007, 08:55 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) – Democratic presidential candidate Hillary 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 Americans 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.
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 Stubbs 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?"
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.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/29/clinton-give-every-newborn-5k/#more-2242
quiet man
09-29-2007, 09:12 PM
but would this growing 5000 dollars keep a rate of growth that would make it worth having at age eighteen to spend on something worth while.
Saguaro
09-29-2007, 09:16 PM
Not the way it is going now !
Ka-Weenie
09-29-2007, 09:28 PM
Hummmm....sounds good at first. But, where would this money be coming from? Higher taxes?
Lone Laugher
09-29-2007, 09:31 PM
Given a modest 7% compounded return, the money will just about double every every 10 years. So...at age 20, the fund would be worth about $20,000. At 60....$320,000.
I'd take it.
Just another way to make government larger and more in control.
bbrown
09-29-2007, 10:36 PM
Hummmm....sounds good at first. But, where would this money be coming from? Higher taxes?
Somewhere. Who cares where? It's a gift from the government. And it definitely wouldn't create an incentive for babymaking. No sirree.
It looks like Clinton is pulling out all the promises in an effort to continue the presidential pattern of the last 20 years. Blech.
Bill
bbrown
09-29-2007, 10:43 PM
Oh and I can already see how it's going to work out: the money will be in a lockbox controlled by the government that mysteriously gets commingled with the general revenues. I guess it's really different from Social Security and other Ponzi schemes in that the "money" is "granted" upfront instead of over time.
Bill
patriotsblade
09-30-2007, 01:35 AM
We are spending 2 billion dollars a week in Iraq, we can afford that but we cant afford a nest egg for the next generation?
We are spending 2 billion dollars a week in Iraq, we can afford that but we cant afford a nest egg for the next generation?
It is not the governments job to provide a nest egg.
Semantics
09-30-2007, 08:01 AM
Hillary is smart- extremely so.
Think about:
Where she said it and who she was addressing. Congressional Black Caucus.
Who might criticize her for the proposal. Republicans
And what her comeback will be. There are approximately 4 million babies born in the USA each year, so we are talking about a figure of about 20 billion per year. Two decades of this program could have been funded with the money we have spent (borrowed) in Iraq destroying and rebuilding their infrastructure while our own is failing.
Personally, I don't necessarily support ideas like this, but I think Hillary Clinton has a good strategy.
patriotsblade
09-30-2007, 08:52 AM
It is not the governments job to provide a nest egg.
It's not the governments job to invade sovereign countries that haven't attacked us either.
It's not the governments job to invade sovereign countries that haven't attacked us either.
It is the governments job to protect its citizens from countries and people that can and will do us harm.
It is the citizens responsibility to provide for itself, witch includes healthcare, nest-eggs, college funds and retirement.
Saguaro
09-30-2007, 09:32 PM
It is the governments job to protect its citizens from countries and people that can and will do us harm.
It is the citizens responsibility to provide for itself, witch includes healthcare, nest-eggs, college funds and retirement.
Then please explain what Iraq did to us
issac the dragon
09-30-2007, 09:44 PM
Yes, what day did Iraq attack the US, justifying the deaths of 1.2 million people in that besieged country? Not to mention 4000 US soldiers.
Then please explain what Iraq did to us
Yes, what day did Iraq attack the US, justifying the deaths of 1.2 million people in that besieged country? Not to mention 4000 US soldiers.
We went into Iraq for the SAME reasons that Clinton bombed them, not to mention they FAILED to follow the UN's Resolutions.
Also let just say that Iraq is wrong and going there was wrong (which would make Clinton and most of the Democrats wrong as well) but lets say it is wrong.
That does not make what Clinton is proposing right. One wrong action does not justify several other wrong actions.
IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE FOR US.
cassandra
09-30-2007, 10:06 PM
This is absolutely ridiculous. Did the US government somehow get out of debt? How could it afford this????? It can barely afford to stand on it's own. :roll
This is absolutely ridiculous. Did the US government somehow get out of debt? How could it afford this????? It can barely afford to stand on it's own. :roll
Just wait if a Dem gets into office and somehow gets this and government healthcare and all the other socialist programs going you can expect to see 50% or more of you earnings going to taxes.
cassandra
09-30-2007, 10:14 PM
Just wait if a Dem gets into office and somehow gets this and government healthcare and all the other socialist programs going you can expect to see 50% or more of you earnings going to taxes.
No Kidding! So SCARY!!!!!!!!! :scared
bluedog
09-30-2007, 10:24 PM
Just how much "arrogance" does one have to possess to even make such a suggestion, with the physical responsibility of today's government already beyond control? Can you image what a "carrot" of entitlement that this would present to the many illegals that wish to enter our country? Come to America and claim your 5 grand simply by having a child.....yes this something that I could endorse, letting the government into my back pocket once again to gain political power with the entitlement option.....why not just go to Texas, NM and California and pass out hundred dollar bills to hang on the border crossings? BD
Lone Laugher
10-01-2007, 07:00 AM
Just how much "arrogance" does one have to possess to even make such a suggestion, with the physical responsibility of today's government already beyond control? Can you image what a "carrot" of entitlement that this would present to the many illegals that wish to enter our country? Come to America and claim your 5 grand simply by having a child.....yes this something that I could endorse, letting the government into my back pocket once again to gain political power with the entitlement option.....why not just go to Texas, NM and California and pass out hundred dollar bills to hang on the border crossings? BD
Yeah...I agree, our government gets needs to get more exercise!
Can you image what a "carrot" of entitlement that this would present to the many illegals that wish to enter our country? Come to America and claim your 5 grand simply by having a child.....handout hundred dollar bills to hang on the border crossings? BD
I never even thought about that - good point!
I see other issues . . . what if the child dies at a young age . . who gets the money then? Would this bring about an overpopulation? Would there be a "hardship" clause? And where is this money coming from?????
Partyless
10-01-2007, 02:34 PM
Can you image what a "carrot" of entitlement that this would present to the many illegals that wish to enter our country? Come to America and claim your 5 grand simply by having a child.....
Not just illegals. There are some trueblue born and bred Americans who'd start cranking out kids to get 5K a pop.
My questions is how is that money protected from low life parents who start breeding for profit?
chinacat
10-01-2007, 02:45 PM
I dunno. Having a kid for $5K that you don't get to spend seems pretty stupid to me. It costs a lot more than that to raise a kid & welfare doesn't pay for much.
cassandra
10-01-2007, 03:11 PM
I dunno. Having a kid for $5K that you don't get to spend seems pretty stupid to me. It costs a lot more than that to raise a kid & welfare doesn't pay for much.
They are talking about people who would have kids for profit to begin with. These are not your normal smart Americans.
There just isn't money for it. Plain and simple. Socialized healthcare and now this. Perhaps the Clinton's should finance this with their own bankroll. :roll
Sassafras
10-01-2007, 07:02 PM
The Australian government recently introduced a similar thing - but you get the money, free and clear, when the baby is born.
I can't say whether it is encouraging people to pop out kids, but last I looked, $5K doesn't exactly cover the cost of a kid. But, at least they're not pissing away billions of dollars a week on a war. I prefer our kids get it, not Haliburton and others.
Sassafras
10-01-2007, 07:04 PM
There just isn't money for it. Plain and simple. Socialized healthcare and now this. Perhaps the Clinton's should finance this with their own bankroll. :roll
How can you say that, when billions of dollars a week are being spent on a war that most people of this country don't want to participate in???
Socialized healthcare can actually work pretty well. I've lived it. It's gotta be better than the wasteful, overpriced, inefficient system we currently have.
bluedog
10-01-2007, 07:43 PM
I just want to know where the funding is going to come from, just what demography of voters are going to foot the bill for this? 4 million children born a year, by the time the original child that was granted the birth bonus becomes of age to "collect' the funds.....just where is it coming from? There is but 3 sources...more taxes, more taxes, and more taxes, with Social Security standing on the brink of falling over the edge....all this funding will be due about the time that Generation X goes to dip into a "non-funded" social security account. This is but an "empty" campaign promise that shows the status of she that presented it with and the type of "management" that can be expected in the future. After "reviewing" her statement, she today just recently made another statement concerning this topic...."It was just an Idea, and is not an actual policy objective". BD
I just love how everything that a Democrat proposes is justified because of the war.
Saguaro
10-01-2007, 08:26 PM
Something has to justify this war !!
Something has to justify this war !!
Using one wrong to justify other wrong does not make it right
issac the dragon
10-01-2007, 08:54 PM
No it doesn't. She said she was just talking off the top of her head. So why make such a big deal about it. Now, Bush has people all over this country telling us today that we are going to bomb Iran any minute now. That is important. Why aren't we discussing that?
cassandra
10-01-2007, 10:45 PM
How can you say that, when billions of dollars a week are being spent on a war that most people of this country don't want to participate in???
Socialized healthcare can actually work pretty well. I've lived it. It's gotta be better than the wasteful, overpriced, inefficient system we currently have.
Do you think that there will be a SSA when you reach retirement age? I file this under that kind of thing. Course by the time it comes to pay for this she will not be around so I guess that will be for someone else to figure out later. :no
patriotsblade
10-01-2007, 11:10 PM
Using one wrong to justify other wrong does not make it right
Tell that to Bush.
Tell that to Bush.
This isn't about Bush who is a Lame Duck President. This is about Hillary's stupid and financially disaterous plan.
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 08:37 AM
Oh and I can already see how it's going to work out: the money will be in a lockbox controlled by the government that mysteriously gets commingled with the general revenues. I guess it's really different from Social Security and other Ponzi schemes in that the "money" is "granted" upfront instead of over time.
Bill
There's nothing mysterious about it. What are you talking about.
Hillary is smart- extremely so.
Think about:
Where she said it and who she was addressing. Congressional Black Caucus.
Who might criticize her for the proposal. Republicans
And what her comeback will be. There are approximately 4 million babies born in the USA each year, so we are talking about a figure of about 20 billion per year. Two decades of this program could have been funded with the money we have spent (borrowed) in Iraq destroying and rebuilding their infrastructure while our own is failing.
Personally, I don't necessarily support ideas like this, but I think Hillary Clinton has a good strategy.
I don't agree with the proposal either, but you nailed the point.
We went into Iraq for the SAME reasons that Clinton bombed them, not to mention they FAILED to follow the UN's Resolutions.
Also let just say that Iraq is wrong and going there was wrong (which would make Clinton and most of the Democrats wrong as well) but lets say it is wrong.
That does not make what Clinton is proposing right. One wrong action does not justify several other wrong actions.
IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE FOR US.
The US DEFIED the UN when it invaded Iraq. To say that we were enforcing UN resolutions is a right-wing radio talking point not backed up by facts. There are many UN resolutions that are not being followed right now, btw. You wanna invade all of those countries?
To compare this war with the bombing during the Clinton administration is nonsensical, for obvious reasons.
Just wait if a Dem gets into office and somehow gets this and government healthcare and all the other socialist programs going you can expect to see 50% or more of you earnings going to taxes.
I want my tax dollars to stop going to pay for military hardware. :mad
They are talking about people who would have kids for profit to begin with. These are not your normal smart Americans.
There just isn't money for it. Plain and simple. Socialized healthcare and now this. Perhaps the Clinton's should finance this with their own bankroll. :roll
Cassandra, do you really believe that there are a bunch of people who have a baby for this reason alone?
The Australian government recently introduced a similar thing - but you get the money, free and clear, when the baby is born.
I can't say whether it is encouraging people to pop out kids, but last I looked, $5K doesn't exactly cover the cost of a kid. But, at least they're not pissing away billions of dollars a week on a war. I prefer our kids get it, not Haliburton and others.
:clap
cassandra
10-02-2007, 11:57 AM
True Blue I am not sure what motivates some to have children. What I do know is that there are plenty of people who have children who didn't have them to love and support them so I am thinking they must have some sort of other motivation. While I doubt this would be the case, if even one is born for this reason that is a disgrace.
The US DEFIED the UN when it invaded Iraq. To say that we were enforcing UN resolutions is a right-wing radio talking point not backed up by facts. There are many UN resolutions that are not being followed right now, btw. You wanna invade all of those countries?
To compare this war with the bombing during the Clinton administration is nonsensical, for obvious reasons. It seems really funny then that the UN wants us to stay now. And no comparing it to what Clinton did make perfect sense, same intel same reasons.
I want my tax dollars to stop going to pay for military hardware. :mad
:clap
Not going to happen. The military is one of the actual responsibilities of the Federal Government and one of the only good reasons we pay taxes.
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 05:48 PM
True Blue I am not sure what motivates some to have children. What I do know is that there are plenty of people who have children who didn't have them to love and support them so I am thinking they must have some sort of other motivation. While I doubt this would be the case, if even one is born for this reason that is a disgrace.
I understand your statement, but the money really is pretty pitiful. Most people just think they want kids, IMO. They just aren't competent.
It seems really funny then that the UN wants us to stay now. And no comparing it to what Clinton did make perfect sense, same intel same reasons.
No, it doesn't, because the action taken is radically different.
Not going to happen. The military is one of the actual responsibilities of the Federal Government and one of the only good reasons we pay taxes.
I didn't say to abolish the military. We just don't need to spend so damn much.
I
No, it doesn't, because the action taken is radically different.
Bush just did what Clinton talked about doing. That is the only difference.
I didn't say to abolish the military. We just don't need to spend so damn much.
I have to disagree with you here. Protecting our Military and out Country is the HIGHEST priority
bluedog
10-02-2007, 06:03 PM
Bush just did what Clinton talked about doing. That is the only difference.
I have to disagree with you here. Protecting our Military and out Country is the HIGHEST priority
Its not only a priority it is a "constitutional" mandate, that the defense of our nation should always be the first "bird" to dip its beak in the coffers of Federal taxation. BD
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 06:14 PM
Bush just did what Clinton talked about doing. That is the only difference.
Oh, come on. Clinton NEVER talked about occupying Iraq for a couple of decades. :(
I have to disagree with you here. Protecting our Military and out Country is the HIGHEST priority
I don't see where I said that protecting the nation wasn't the highest priority. I simply said that we are spending too much to do it. It's a huge waste of money, and it warps the nation.
Oh, come on. Clinton NEVER talked about occupying Iraq for a couple of decades. :(
I don't see where I said that protecting the nation wasn't the highest priority. I simply said that we are spending too much to do it. It's a huge waste of money, and it warps the nation.
Clinton DID talk about invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam and it is not a huge waste of money. There are plenty of government things that are a waste of money but funding the Military is not one of them.
Saguaro
10-02-2007, 07:52 PM
The big difference was Clinton cared about the law
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 07:54 PM
Clinton DID talk about invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam and it is not a huge waste of money. There are plenty of government things that are a waste of money but funding the Military is not one of them.
Clinton did not talk about what Bush has done.
And your deliberate misrepresentation of what I've said about funding the military is pissing me off. :( Cut it out, please, now.
Let me rephrase then. I do not think that our current funding of the military is a waste. I know what you are saying and I believe that cutting back on military funding is a very bad idea
As for Clinton
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/who_duped_bill_clinton_on_saddams_wmds
Bill was just too weak to do what needed to be done.
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 08:09 PM
Let me rephrase then. I do not think that our current funding of the military is a waste. I know what you are saying and I believe that cutting back on military funding is a very bad idea
At last. Thank you.
We are currently spending a much larger percentage of our taxes on war hardware than any other nation on Earth.
The current (2005) United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next fourteen biggest spenders combined, and over eight times larger than the official military budget of China. The United States and its close allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of all military spending on Earth (of which, in turn, the US is responsible for the majority). Military spending accounts for more than half of the United States' federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. government's money that is not used for pre-existing obligations.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Who are we fighting? I am NOT talking about cutting military salary or benefits. I'm talking about hardware, primarily.
As for Clinton
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/who_duped_bill_clinton_on_saddams_wmds
Bill was just too weak to do what needed to be done.
You can't possibly believe what you are saying. Since when is weakness a synonym for wise? Please tell me that you are joking.
Bill said that Saddam needed to be removed (which I also believe) but did nothing at all to achieve that goal, all talk and no action.
Bush is all action without any thought, which is why we are mired the way we are. If he had listened to the experts to begin with it would be over by now but he was too cocky and pig headed to do that.
At last. Thank you.
We are currently spending a much larger percentage of our taxes on war hardware than any other nation on Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
So, that IMO is not a bad thing.
Who are we fighting? I am NOT talking about cutting military salary or benefits. I'm talking about hardware, primarily.
Hardware is what protects out troops.
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 08:27 PM
Bill said that Saddam needed to be removed (which I also believe) but did nothing at all to achieve that goal, all talk and no action.
Bush is all action without any thought, which is why we are mired the way we are. If he had listened to the experts to begin with it would be over by now but he was too cocky and pig headed to do that.
All talk means diplomacy, which is a better way to go than war if at all possible to every rational person. Only ideologues prefer what you advocate. Basically, a number of experts said that invading was a bad idea, they were right. There wasn't a reason for the invasion.
So, that IMO is not a bad thing.
Hardware is what protects out troops.
Why in the hell is it not a bad thing to spend more than the next fourteen countries combined?
I am not going to keep pretending that I need to explain to you that I am not talking about taking guns away from soldiers.
All talk means diplomacy, which is a better way to go than war if at all possible to every rational person. Only ideologues prefer what you advocate. Basically, a number of experts said that invading was a bad idea, they were right. There wasn't a reason for the invasion.
Why in the hell is it not a bad thing to spend more than the next fourteen countries combined?
I am not going to keep pretending that I need to explain to you that I am not talking about taking guns away from soldiers.
Why is it a bad think that we spend more?
Hardware is not only guns but jets, armored vehicles and etc ALL protect out troops.
It was not the invasion that was a bad idea it was the way it was carried out.
Saguaro
10-02-2007, 08:30 PM
Let me rephrase then. I do not think that our current funding of the military is a waste. I know what you are saying and I believe that cutting back on military funding is a very bad idea
As for Clinton
http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/who_duped_bill_clinton_on_saddams_wmds
Bill was just too weak to do what needed to be done.
I don't consider blogs as news or the truth.
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 08:35 PM
Why is it a bad think that we spend more?
Hardware is not only guns but jets, armored vehicles and etc ALL protect out troops.
It was not the invasion that was a bad idea it was the way it was carried out.
Is it a bad thing that we spend so much more.
Read Ike's speech about the military-industrial complex. That is why it is bad that we have a war machine.
I fully understand what hardware is.
You can have the opinion that Iraq would have been a big success if only we'd used a different strategy, but you still must contend with the facts that: the intell used to justify the invasion was twisted, and that the US has historically not invaded other nations. That means that there was NO right way to wage this war.
Is it a bad thing that we spend so much more.
Read Ike's speech about the military-industrial complex. That is why it is bad that we have a war machine.
I fully understand what hardware is.
You can have the opinion that Iraq would have been a big success if only we'd used a different strategy, but you still must contend with the facts that: the intell used to justify the invasion was twisted, and that the US has historically not invaded other nations. That means that there was NO right way to wage this war.
I will agree wht the intell was incorrect and that we have not invaded others nations oh wait there was Vietnam, Germany, Japan, and Italy.
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 08:39 PM
I will agree wht the intell was incorrect and that we have not invaded others nations oh wait there was Vietnam, Germany, Japan, and Italy.
Not incorrect. Twisted. As in manipulated to manipulate us.
US policy has been against preemptive war. You might make your point with Vietnam, but never with the Axis powers in WWII.
Not incorrect. Twisted. As in manipulated to manipulate us.
US policy has been against preemptive war. You might make your point with Vietnam, but never with the Axis powers in WWII.
The intel was the same that Bill Clinton had. Was it twisted then as well?
Trueblue
10-02-2007, 08:47 PM
The intel was the same that Bill Clinton had. Was it twisted then as well?
Oh, geeze. You know perfectly well that Bush and Cheney told partial truths to us, about yellow cake, and aluminum tubes, to mention two prominent examples. I know you know because I've given you the links before. You are just slumming at this point, and I don't find it interesting to reprove the same stuff over and over.
bbrown
10-02-2007, 09:54 PM
I've read some additional good points out in the much-maligned blogosphere about this inane plan:
1) It will likely decrease abortion rates.
2) There will inevitably be some means by which companies will buy these bonds for pennies on the dollar now and hold them almost as annuities.
Bill
patriotsblade
10-03-2007, 12:32 AM
I will agree wht the intell was incorrect and that we have not invaded others nations oh wait there was Vietnam, Germany, Japan, and Italy.
Are you fucking kidding? Are you putting Vietnam in the same breath with the Third Reich?:cuckoo
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.