NationStates Jolt Archive

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

I don't like it but I can respect Hillary. At least she's honest. Whereas most politicians hide the fact that they use the public treasury to buy votes, she goes out there and advertises. Seeing as how so many millions of Americans probably plan on giving birth at some time in their lives, it's genius.

Wasn't it some ancient Greek that once said (and I paraphrase) "Democracy only works until the majority learns to vote themselves money from the public coffers"

Beats the Shrubya method. Give every infant -$250,000.

Reminds me of the "keep America rolling" days of $300 bucks back from our illustrious government .... only how long ago?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27931

Its not like tax cuts are a way to bribe the elctorate. :rolleyes:

I think it was Plutarch: "The greatest destroyer of liberties of the people is he who spreads undeserved bounties and gifts among them."

Something like that anyway.

Once poor people realize they have us rich folk by the balls via-our government, I'm off to my 6th home in the Bahamas.

Its not like tax cuts are a way to bribe the elctorate. :rolleyes:

I surely wouldn't disagree with you there. Why do you think there are so many freaking lobbyists in DC? And why are politicians, both Republican and Democrat, so enamored by the current fiasco for a tax system we currently have?

The ability to buy votes, be it through handouts or through taxcuts, puts enormous amounts of power into the hands of politicians. They have a vested interest NOT to bring about necessary reform to the convoluted tax code.

Even if you don't agree with the solution, reading the first few chapters of "The Fair Tax Book" by Neal Boortz and John Linder can be a real eye-opener. The answer isn't electing politicians who will be responsible and answer to constituents. The answer is for a Constitutional amendment to come up through the states which entirely eliminates the ability of Congress to treat ANY group favorably through tax incentives.

Even if you don't agree with the solution, reading the first few chapters of "The Fair Tax Book" by Neal Boortz and John Linder can be a real eye-opener. The answer isn't electing politicians who will be responsible and answer to constituents. The answer is for a Constitutional amendment to come up through the states which entirely eliminates the ability of Congress to treat ANY group favorably through tax incentives.

What kind of tax system would that be? The Fair Tax lets a the amount of consumption to the poverty line be untaxed. Then all consumption is taxed at a flat rate. This gives favorable rates to the poor, who are close to the poverty line in income, and the upper-class, who save at higher rate than the middle class. It doesn't tax education subsidizing those who really like eductation.

What kind of tax system would that be? The Fair Tax lets a the amount of consumption to the poverty line be untaxed. Then all consumption is taxed at a flat rate. This gives favorable rates to the poor, who are close to the poverty line in income, and the upper-class, who save at higher rate than the middle class. It doesn't tax education subsidizing those who really like eductation.

Perhaps an entirely flat income tax rate with ZERO exemptions. That way it doesn't subsidize having children, doesn't subsidize education, doesn't subsidize buying a home, or anything else you can think of. Or you can remove the 'prebate' of the Fair Tax and have it apply to services as well as goods, thus taxing all consumption.


How does the Fair Tax, in its current form, favor the upper-class? I can see where you might say it subsidizes personal savings, but the upper-class. If one middle class worker consumes the bare minimum and saves the rest of his wages, he will pay less in tax than another middle class worker who puts all of his wages to consumption. And eventually, the saving worker is going to spend that money. Maybe he saved it to buy a boat. Or maybe he saved it to buy a new home. Either way, it gets spent and thus taxed eventually.

Are you worried that all the rich will just stop spending money and save it all if this goes into effect? Then what the hell use is there to being rich? People who try to acquire lots of money also try to spend lots of money.

Why give $5000 when you can give $1 million. And a 95% tax cut!

Perhaps an entirely flat income tax rate with ZERO exemptions. That way it doesn't subsidize having children, doesn't subsidize education, doesn't subsidize buying a home, or anything else you can think of. Or you can remove the 'prebate' of the Fair Tax and have it apply to services as well as goods, thus taxing all consumption.

Without the prebate you're fucking over those in or near the the poverty line. My point being that all tax systems favor some groups over others.


How does the Fair Tax, in its current form, favor the upper-class? I can see where you might say it subsidizes personal savings, but the upper-class. If one middle class worker consumes the bare minimum and saves the rest of his wages, he will pay less in tax than another middle class worker who puts all of his wages to consumption. And eventually, the saving worker is going to spend that money. Maybe he saved it to buy a boat. Or maybe he saved it to buy a new home. Either way, it gets spent and thus taxed eventually.

Are you worried that all the rich will just stop spending money and save it all if this goes into effect? Then what the hell use is there to being rich? People who try to acquire lots of money also try to spend lots of money.

The upper class generally saves more than the middle class meaning on average on any givern year the middle class will be taxed at a higher rate in percentage of anual income.

More like give every newborn massive price inflation and erode the value of their future income.

Why give $5000 when you can give $1 million. And a 95% tax cut!

And make it retroactive! Say, 36 years or so.

For the children, how wonderful.

:rolleyes:

It sure is going to be hard to bite the bullet come nov. 08.

Why do all these plans sound like the campaign promises of the villains in "It Can't Happen Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here)"?

Hmm... that'd probably be better was a government matched, tax free, college fund.

Money doesn't go to the parents, but is held in trust until the child is ready for college and is then paid direct to the college. Enables more people access to education, and encourage fiscal responsibility.

Better idea: Pay 5000 dollars for every newborn, and use them as a renewable fuel source.

I guess she is now trying to buy votes or she has lost her ever loving mind. Clinton has proposed that every child born in the US be given a $5,000.00 savings bond to use to help pay for college or buy a house.

The estimated cost to the US taxpayers is $20 billion a year. I think she has lost it.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3668781&page=1

Here is my vote
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/defeat.gif

On the bright side, any children you might have could put that money to good use to correct the severe inherited vision problems:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=539451

Fuck that. Babies don't need money, and if you give it to them they'll only spend it lacing their formula with cocaine and powdered sugar. It's not as if getting born was all that difficult in the first place, so why should we be rewarding them for that?
If someone really wanted to help America, they'd give $5000 to every College student. Or, they could just give $1 million to everyone who is me, such as myself.

So, she wants to make it possible for a child to have a bright future instead of squandering funds on the blackhole that is the Iraq War? I don't see what's so bad about it. This baby bond has the spirit of what is truly American, equal opportunity from the cradle. Why shouldn't all newborns have the same equal chance in life?

There are plenty of good ways for money to be spent, and this is one of those better ways. After all, aren't we always told "children are the future"? So, why not invest in that future?

If it went long enough the people you gave the money to would end up paying much more and probably wouldn't have gotten anything from 5000 anyways. Kind of like a high interest forced loan.

$20 Billion is how much is spent on the Iraq War every 71 days.

I read that article and it didn't necessarily sound like it was an actual policy, at least not yet, just some normative mental masturbation. And damn fine masturbation it is, too.

As long as it was somehow regulated to make sure that the money was used for a "constructive" purpose such as paying off college fees, buying a house etc it would be a great idea. Instead of merely subsidising individual costs slightly across the board, each person can use that money more effectively for whatever suits them.

As far as where the money comes from, so far about $450 billion has been spent on the Iraq war since 2003. It would cost considerably less than this to pay for the policy. Getting out of there will free up some otherwise post-marked money for a few years. Really, in the context of the US' budget it will not be that big a chunk.

So, she wants to make it possible for a child to have a bright future instead of squandering funds on the blackhole that is the Iraq War? I don't see what's so bad about it. This baby bond has the spirit of what is truly American, equal opportunity from the cradle. Why shouldn't all newborns have the same equal chance in life?

There are plenty of good ways for money to be spent, and this is one of those better ways. After all, aren't we always told "children are the future"? So, why not invest in that future?
If you want to "invest in the future," "think of the children," "give every American born an equal shot at the American dream," and such platitudes, then you'd be best off using the money to improve public schools, expand health care options for low-income families or enact some European-style reforms to higher education.
Simply chucking a few thousand dollars at every baby to successfully slide out of its mother's flaring, slime-coated vagina isn't going to make things better.

So, she wants to make it possible for a child to have a bright future instead of squandering funds on the blackhole that is the Iraq War? I don't see what's so bad about it. This baby bond has the spirit of what is truly American, equal opportunity from the cradle. Why shouldn't all newborns have the same equal chance in life?

There are plenty of good ways for money to be spent, and this is one of those better ways. After all, aren't we always told "children are the future"? So, why not invest in that future?

She wants to take my money and give it to someone else and that isn't "truly American" it's a form of socialism. Millions of parents have raised millions of kids and sent them to college or helped them buy a house without a government baby bond.

We have loans and grants for college kids and we have programs through the FHA and others to help people get their first home. We don't need to raise taxes for another government give away program. If you damn well need to raise taxes you might try doing it to lower the national debt. That will help people more in the future than $5,000.00.

I guess she is now trying to buy votes or she has lost her ever loving mind. Clinton has proposed that every child born in the US be given a $5,000.00 savings bond to use to help pay for college or buy a house.

The estimated cost to the US taxpayers is $20 billion a year. I think she has lost it.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3668781&page=1

Here is my vote
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/defeat.gif
Hell, it isn't her money. Why should she worry about how much it will cost?

She wants to take my money and give it to someone else and that isn't "truly American" it's a form of socialism.
Obviously, the only thing that is "truly America" is taking my money and using it to project the US' will on other nations by force.

Obviously, the only thing that is "truly America" is taking my money and using it to project the US' will on other nations by force.
At a cost of $100 Billion a year.

But OMG! A Dem wants to spend $20 Bill a year on giving the next US generation a headstart! Communism that's what it is! Communism, Socialism and - worst of all - a waste of ma' tax dollars.


Also putting aside the fact that this $5k would no doubt be wrapped up in low-yielding US treasury bonds for those 18 yrs, while the money would be lent out at a much higher rate. Thus, after a few years it'd could well become self-sustaining.

Obviously, the only thing that is "truly America" is taking my money and using it to project the US' will on other nations by force.

See? Now you've got it. Anything else is socialism.:rolleyes:

At a cost of $100 Billion a year.
Wow, you're right. The fact that somebody is wasting government money totally justifies another persons plans to waste still more money.
And the fact that Ted Bundy killed 30+ people means that I have the right to take an ax to my neighbor the next time he looks at me funny.

I guess she is now trying to buy votes or she has lost her ever loving mind. Clinton has proposed that every child born in the US be given a $5,000.00 savings bond to use to help pay for college or buy a house.

The estimated cost to the US taxpayers is $20 billion a year. I think she has lost it.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3668781&page=1

Here is my vote
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/defeat.gif

Well, it's cheaper than going to war for the oil industry.

If you want to "invest in the future," "think of the children," "give every American born an equal shot at the American dream," and such platitudes, then you'd be best off using the money to improve public schools, expand health care options for low-income families or enact some European-style reforms to higher education.
Simply chucking a few thousand dollars at every baby to successfully slide out of its mother's flaring, slime-coated vagina isn't going to make things better.

Yes there should be a proper reinvestment in the public system.

However, I'm comment on the general idea. The bond would mature over the years and for a family living from paycheque to paycheque, something like this would help in the end for helping their child(ren) to go beyond the secondary school level and attend a post-secondary institution without having the family worry about borrowing beyond their means in order to give their child the same chance that someone with money has.

The public system is in need of money. But even if it does get it, the cost of a post-secondary education for some would still be out of reach. Not everyone would be able to qualify for a scholarship, and most people fear the burden that is a student loan. What kind of life is it to start out with a massive debt?

You are right though about the general state of education in the US.

Euro-style reforms would be ideal, but one step at a time would help. It seems that the average American taxpayer doesn't favour massive social reforms. Taking smaller step would ease the pain of the immediate cost, though the future result would negate the present cost.

There are many good social reforms worth investing in. The money that could be used is being wasted on an unpopular war that has yielded few if any returns.

Remember, even if a child has access to a good school, unless their post-secondary education is state-funded they (and/or their family) would still have to pay.

Once people see it working they may welcome other more high-cost ventures that may not directly benefit them.

She wants to take my money and give it to someone else and that isn't "truly American" it's a form of socialism. Millions of parents have raised millions of kids and sent them to college or helped them buy a house without a government baby bond.

We have loans and grants for college kids and we have programs through the FHA and others to help people get their first home. We don't need to raise taxes for another government give away program. If you damn well need to raise taxes you might try doing it to lower the national debt. That will help people more in the future than $5,000.00.

Lowering debt, what a bloody joke. Running a surplus and paying down the debt often comes at a great cost.

Sure the Canadian government is running a surplus; it looks good on the paper but the average tax payer is feeling the pain as many people still remain in poverty and our civil infrastructure crumbles while our schools remain underfunded, while there are not nearly enough childcare spaces.

A surplus means nothing when the nation's largest city struggles under the burden of services that were previously provincial jurisdiction that were downloaded onto the city without the city getting a budget increase.

True many parents have managed to send their children to a post-secondary institution but at what cost? They have incurred greater debts. The students themselves when the parents were unable to help have incurred debts that they carry with them into the next stage of their life.

That debt takes a large chunk out of their income. That debt gains interest because it cannot be paid down in one simple payment because the grad would likely be on their own with other expenses. Even if they live at home, the parents would likely start asking for help and for their child to help pay for household expenses.

Further, isn't America supposed to be the land of opportunity?

If you want to "invest in the future," "think of the children," "give every American born an equal shot at the American dream," and such platitudes, then you'd be best off using the money to improve public schools, expand health care options for low-income families or enact some European-style reforms to higher education.
Simply chucking a few thousand dollars at every baby to successfully slide out of its mother's flaring, slime-coated vagina isn't going to make things better.

We don't have time for rational solutions. :p

At a cost of $100 Billion a year.

But OMG! A Dem wants to spend $20 Bill a year on giving the next US generation a headstart! Communism that's what it is! Communism, Socialism and - worst of all - a waste of ma' tax dollars.


Also putting aside the fact that this $5k would no doubt be wrapped up in low-yielding US treasury bonds for those 18 yrs, while the money would be lent out at a much higher rate. Thus, after a few years it'd could well become self-sustaining.

The government doesn't lend out bond money, it "borrows" it. Something called deficit spending. It would be just like Social Security, just open the vault and look at all the IOUs. :mad:

Hilary's Dean Scream, perhaps?

Wow, you're right. The fact that somebody is wasting government money totally justifies another persons plans to waste still more money.
And the fact that Ted Bundy killed 30+ people means that I have the right to take an ax to my neighbor the next time he looks at me funny.
Getting away from your marvellously crafted strawman, care to explain why Clinton's idea is put forward as wasteful and justification for voting for the side that is happy to waste, to date, 455 billion with another 100 bill a year until lord-knows-when.

And of course, giving every new-born US citizen an education fund is exactly the same as spending billions blowing Arabs up. How silly of me not to see that.

If you start with $5,000 and assume 5% interest for 18 years, you end up with $12,000 (approximately). Assuming 10% gives you a little under $28,000. That's without factoring in inflation. Hardly enough for a college education.

If you start with $5,000 and assume 5% interest for 18 years, you end up with $12,000 (approximately). Assuming 10% gives you a little under $28,000. That's without factoring in inflation. Hardly enough for a college education.
It's not meant to fully pay for their college education - just give those who wouldn't normally go the opportunity to attend and lessen the pain of the first year's fees.

It was also mentioned that it could be used as a deposit. A young couple would have $24000 - which is more than 10% deposit.

SNIP..something like this would help in the end for helping their child(ren) to go beyond the secondary school level and attend a post-secondary institution without having the family worry about borrowing beyond their means in order to give their child the same chance that someone with money has.

Even in a public secondary institution such as a Community College, $5,000.00 wouldn't pay for any more than a year of school if that. If they elect to use the money to buy a house, it might, just might, pay the closing cost. This program would help no one while raising taxes for everyone and adding to the national debt.

If you start with $5,000 and assume 5% interest for 18 years, you end up with $12,000 (approximately). Assuming 10% gives you a little under $28,000. That's without factoring in inflation. Hardly enough for a college education.

Worse. A $5000.00 bond is the face value at maturity. I think savings bonds mature in seven years, so it would continue to collect interest for only 11 years.
Also, current interest rates rates range from 1.5% to 3.74%. So the total yield at age 18 would be a lot less than $28k.

http://www.savingsbonds.com/rates.cfm

Is this the part where the Republicans pretend to be fiscal conservatives? 'Cause I don't think anyone is going to buy that line of shit anymore.

If you start with $5,000 and assume 5% interest for 18 years, you end up with $12,000 (approximately). Assuming 10% gives you a little under $28,000. That's without factoring in inflation. Hardly enough for a college education.

No it wouldn't see post above.

Is this the part where the Republicans pretend to be fiscal conservatives? 'Cause I don't think anyone is going to buy that line of shit anymore.
All the other dipshit conservatives believe it.

So, she wants to make it possible for a child to have a bright future instead of squandering funds on the blackhole that is the Iraq War? I don't see what's so bad about it. This baby bond has the spirit of what is truly American, equal opportunity from the cradle. Why shouldn't all newborns have the same equal chance in life?

There are plenty of good ways for money to be spent, and this is one of those better ways. After all, aren't we always told "children are the future"? So, why not invest in that future?


Exactly! Very Good Idea! I wish it was law when I was a kid. Not to mention for the children born since.

Is this the part where the Republicans pretend to be fiscal conservatives? 'Cause I don't think anyone is going to buy that line of shit anymore.
Prepare to be surprised (or should I say disappointed).
Considering a 1/3 of Americans still - after all this time - believe GWB is doing a good job, methinks that it's going to be (unfortunately) pretty easy to convince a goodly proportion of the US that this is a BAD IDEA and that GOP would never do this because GOP is good with money.

I'd also like to point out that a $5000 birth bond isn't going to mystically convey these children with the ability to succeed in a dysfunctional school system nor will a down payment on a house mystically convey them with the ability to make their mortgage payments while working at Taco Bell. *nod*

In simpler terms, if the soda machine is jammed and eats your dollar, it's not necessarily wise to keep feeding it dollars in the hopes it'll start working.

Worse. A $5000.00 bond is the face value at maturity. I think savings bonds mature in seven years, so it would continue to collect interest for only 11 years.
Also, current interest rates rates range from 1.5% to 3.74%. So the total yield at age 18 would be a lot less than $28k.

http://www.savingsbonds.com/rates.cfm


That is better then NO MONEY, $28,000 would make a good down payment om a house.

Exactly! Very Good Idea! I wish it was law when I was a kid. Not to mention for the children born since.

Hmmmm! If they don't want to go to college or buy a house, what happens to the money? If they were allowed to keep it, most kids would probably spend it on a car. It might be enough for a down payment. :rolleyes:

Worse. A $5000.00 bond is the face value at maturity. I think savings bonds mature in seven years, so it would continue to collect interest for only 11 years.
Also, current interest rates rates range from 1.5% to 3.74%. So the total yield at age 18 would be a lot less than $28k.

http://www.savingsbonds.com/rates.cfm
That's only if they go that way.
If they set it up as an massive investment portfolio, underwritten by the US govt to guarantee a certain % return, and then invested in stocks, bonds, etc (a mixture of low-risk long-term and medium risk short-term investments) it could well pay for itself after a few years - and help to keep the US economy rolling.

All the other dipshit conservatives believe it.

OMG She's going to spend $20 billion dollars!!

Clearly the small government fiscally responsible Republicans will save us from this huge waste of taxpayer money that's intended only to buy votes! Just ask Halliburton!

It sure as hell beats Dubya's idea of splitting the money among people who are already multimillionaires.

At a cost of $100 Billion a year.

But OMG! A Dem wants to spend $20 Bill a year on giving the next US generation a headstart! Communism that's what it is! Communism, Socialism and - worst of all - a waste of ma' tax dollars.


Also putting aside the fact that this $5k would no doubt be wrapped up in low-yielding US treasury bonds for those 18 yrs, while the money would be lent out at a much higher rate. Thus, after a few years it'd could well become self-sustaining.

seems like they said the same thing about social security. Now my generation is stuck with a bill paying for you old people who aren't even getting enough from it to pay the bills on their own.

I guess she is now trying to buy votes or she has lost her ever loving mind. Clinton has proposed that every child born in the US be given a $5,000.00 savings bond to use to help pay for college or buy a house.

The estimated cost to the US taxpayers is $20 billion a year. I think she has lost it.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3668781&page=1

Here is my vote
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/defeat.gif

That doesn't sound so bad. And here's a corollary to Godwin's law. Invoking communism to describe one's political opponents = fail.

Yeah, let's encourage population growth in the most wasteful country in the world. :rolleyes:

Hmmmm! If they don't want to go to college or buy a house, what happens to the money? If they were allowed to keep it, most kids would probably spend it on a car. It might be enough for a down payment. :rolleyes:

Who doesn't need a place to live? You think they would rather pay rent all their lives? And people who attend college make more money then those who don't, who doesn't want to make more money? Also cars are no longer a luxury, you need transportation! Come on Oklatex.

That's only if they go that way.
If they set it up as an massive investment portfolio, underwritten by the US govt to guarantee a certain % return, and then invested in stocks, bonds, etc (a mixture of low-risk long-term and medium risk short-term investments) it could well pay for itself after a few years - and help to keep the US economy rolling.

That's asking a lot of our government. You can count on it to stuff a box with IOUs just like they did Social Security no matter which party is in the majority. The federal government only invests money in itself. I would have done a hell of a lot better if SS had been set up that way or privatized from the start. :(

Who doesn't need a place to live? You think they would rather pay rent all their lives? And people who attend college make more money then those who don't, who doesn't want to make more money? Also cars are no longer a luxury, you need transportation! Come on Oklatex.

Plenty of people make it without Uncle Sam's help.

Yeah, let's encourage population growth in the most wasteful country in the world. :rolleyes:

Amen.

Now my generation is stuck with a bill paying for you old people who aren't even getting enough from it to pay the bills on their own.

I resemble that. When I retire in about 2 years at age 66, I'm projected to get about $1,500.00 a month. If I didn't have my military retirement I'd be screwed.

Yeah, let's encourage population growth in the most wasteful country in the world. :rolleyes:


I don't think that is something that requires encouragement anywhere. And by the way if you are speaking of the US .... there are folks here that doesn't waste anything because it takes every last thing we can muster just to survive in this world based economy.

That doesn't sound so bad. And here's a corollary to Godwin's law. Invoking communism to describe one's political opponents = fail.

No one is invoking communism. I even cut it off the picture just for you. :eek:

That doesn't sound so bad. And here's a corollary to Godwin's law. Invoking communism to describe one's political opponents = fail.

Its an investment in the children! The country would recieve more taxes back when those children grow up because they would have the ability to make more money. What is so hard to understand about that?

Getting away from your marvellously crafted strawman, care to explain why Clinton's idea is put forward as wasteful and justification for voting for the side that is happy to waste, to date, 455 billion with another 100 bill a year until lord-knows-when.
I don't have to justify other people to you, I am saying that both are huge, irresponsible wastes of money. The fact that one stupid, immoral thing is being done doesn't at all justify other (unrelated) stupid, immoral things being done. This is the sort of thing you were supposed to have figured out in Kindergarten.
And of course, giving every new-born US citizen an education fund is exactly the same as spending billions blowing Arabs up. How silly of me not to see that.
The amount of money they're getting won't cover a single year's worth of tuition by the time they come of age, and that assumes that the money won't just be blown on something frivolous.
And you're the one who started comparing the plan to Iraq in the first place, so why don't you justify the comparison?

Who doesn't need a place to live? You think they would rather pay rent all their lives? And people who attend college make more money then those who don't, who doesn't want to make more money? Also cars are no longer a luxury, you need transportation! Come on Oklatex.

There are millions of kids that don't go to college or a trade school. Why they don't I don't know.

Most people who turn 18 do not go out an buy a house. Most wait until they are much older and married or living with someone.

As for a car, depends on where you live. If you live in NY or Boston, it's a luxury and an expensive one at that.

We have paid into social security all our lives. So why are you any better then we were? Stop crying to me and go after the people who stole the money out of the fund to begin with.

You trusted them with it and we are are stuck with the bill. Not to metion that the dems still defend it so I can be ripped off just like you! What's not to be pissed about?

seems like they said the same thing about social security. Now my generation is stuck with a bill paying for you old people who aren't even getting enough from it to pay the bills on their own.


We have paid into social security all our lives. So why are you any better then we were? Stop crying to me and go after the people who stole the money out of the fund to begin with.

Plenty of people make it without Uncle Sam's help. Amen.


Thats according to what your description of making it is.

Its an investment in the children! The country would recieve more taxes back when those children grow up because they would have the ability to make more money. What is so hard to understand about that?

They would only make more money if they complete their education. A very high % of them don't complete their education and a very high number of them don't even go to college or technical school.

Thats according to what your description of making it is.

Pardon me if I don't need $100,000 a year. Jesus H. Christ, my mom makes do on $10,000 a year with me around. Now I hardly intend to make that little, so I work hard in school, to get a job that pays a bit more. I don't need nor want the gov.'s financial help or advice thank you. I also think that thinking they will change and do something "gasps" responsible with our money is a foolhardy idea.

While I voted no, since this would only result in the government taking away more people's money, at least this policy would increase national fertility.

There are millions of kids that don't go to college or a trade school. Why they don't I don't know.

Most I know don't go because they can't afford too, not because they don't want too. This money would change that.

Most people who turn 18 do not go out an buy a house. Most wait until they are much older and married or living with someone.

Kids now days are much more educated about the advantages of owning a house then we were when I graduated from school. No one wants to throw away money to rent all there lives.

As for a car, depends on where you live. If you live in NY or Boston, it's a luxury and an expensive one at that.

Cars are not a luxury! I don't care where you live. Have you ever rode a bus to get to work? Four hrs to go across town and thats IF your town has bus service. What about subways, I have been chased and attacked by hoodlums in the subways that think its there turf. Give it a rest!

Most I know don't go because they can't afford too, not because they don't want too. This money would change that.



Kids now days are much more educated about the advantages of owning a house then we were when I graduated from school. No one wants to throw away money to rent all there lives.



Cars are not a luxury! I don't care where you live. Have you ever rode a bus to get to work? Four hrs to go across town and thats IF your town has bus service. What about subways, I have been chased and attacked by hoodlums in the subways that think its there turf. Give it a rest!

I don't know where you are but you need a major reailty check. Speaking of course as a junior in hs who comes from a poor family but whos sister is going through college and myself having financial aid, and scolarships set up. And how the fuck is 5000 bucks going to help pay for a house at bargin price,( don't know about where ur from but here in ca a bargin price two bedroom 40 year old trailer is around $110,000; and thats cheap) or a car (assuming the car is new it will cost $20,000 but if one is willing to get off thier ass and work you can get a used car before you get your licence to drive the damn thing)

Ironically enough if you gave every person in the US a free downpayment to a home, id make a WAG that home loan defaults would increase 500%. People dont tend to respect or treat things well that they are given for free. Dont believe me, ask any landlord who has tenants on welfare and deal with enough of them to sort of establish a baseline average of behavior and lifestyle.
I suspect same goes for education. It would make an interesting study to determine who gets better grades, students who pay thier own way, or students that have thier parents or the government pay for college.
Handing people money is not an automatic solution to all problems.

While I voted no, since this would only result in the government taking away more people's money, at least this policy would increase national fertility.

I don't know is fertility is the word you're after, but indeed. Here in Australia our government gives $4187 for each baby that is born to help cover whatever costs the parent/s wish to use it on. They call it a baby bonus (http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/maternity.htm). It has apparently been working to some degree with more people being born here. It is a nice gesture but completely useless, as we have more than enough (skilled or unskilled) immigrants we could let in if our birth rates kept dropping. I'd much prefer a baby bond rather than a baby bonus.

Even in a public secondary institution such as a Community College, $5,000.00 wouldn't pay for any more than a year of school if that. If they elect to use the money to buy a house, it might, just might, pay the closing cost. This program would help no one while raising taxes for everyone and adding to the national debt.

And paying down the national debt is a futile venture because even if the interest that may be accrued isn't that great, the overall amount is so great that the money used to pay it down would be diverted from programmes that would otherwise serve to benefit the population.

Even if it paid for just a single year, that is one year less that the prospective student would have to have a loan for. It would allow them to save up if they held a job while in school. The money saved would then be worth something because it would have been immediately used for the cost of education.

Cars are not a luxury! I don't care where you live. Have you ever rode a bus to get to work? Four hrs to go across town and thats IF your town has bus service. What about subways, I have been chased and attacked by hoodlums in the subways that think its there turf. Give it a rest!

When I worked in Boston and lived in Belmont I walked one block to the buss, took buss the subway, got off the subway, and walked one block to work. I would have taken me longer and been a hell of a lot more expensive to drive to downtown Boston. Parking is very expensive.

Most people why live in NY City don't even own a car because of the traffic, parking, insurance, etc. They take the buss, subway, cabs, and walk.

Its an investment in the children! The country would recieve more taxes back when those children grow up because they would have the ability to make more money. What is so hard to understand about that?

Immediate increase in current cost offset by future taxes collected by people who have been given a shot.

Studies done have shown the benefit of a post-secondary education versus that of a mere secondary education. People who have received a post-secondary education on average tend to earn more than their peers who simply have a high school diploma. Yes that diploma can get you some work but for people on the lower end, you're only aiding in the continuation, through no fault of your own, the cycle of poverty.

Ironically enough if you gave every person in the US a free downpayment to a home, id make a WAG that home loan defaults would increase 500%. People dont tend to respect or treat things well that they are given for free. Dont believe me, ask any landlord who has tenants on welfare and deal with enough of them to sort of establish a baseline average of behavior and lifestyle.
I suspect same goes for education. It would make an interesting study to determine who gets better grades, students who pay thier own way, or students that have thier parents or the government pay for college.
Handing people money is not an automatic solution to all problems.

No, it's not an automatic solution but it is one way of allowing everyone the same equal footing in life. Through this each person can succeed or fail on their own merits rather than because their parents are rich or poor.

Some people are ingrateful but others may not be.

Until education is completely funded to the point where there is equal access, means by which to help those with less money succeed on their own merits is important. In many aspects it is also not balanced for those who want to pursue a non-academic education. The system favours those bound for academic advancement rather than those who want to engage in apprenticeships.

The bond could be used for more than university or college but for apprentice training.

The whole system does need to be changed. Either way, with post-secondary education costing money, there are people who are left out for many reasons.

Here in Ontario, there was a proposed scholarship. It was geared towards children of families who never went to a post-secondary school. It is to serve as incentive for those students to be the first in their families to go to a post-secondary institution.

When I worked in Boston and lived in Belmont I walked one block to the buss, took buss the subway, got off the subway, and walked one block to work. I would have taken me longer and been a hell of a lot more expensive to drive to downtown Boston. Parking is very expensive.

Most people why live in NY City don't even own a car because of the traffic, parking, insurance, etc. They take the buss, subway, cabs, and walk.

Really?
Then why is it so impossible to find parking?
I know households here with two and three cars apiece.
54% of households not having a car is "most" the way that 51% of the voting public is a "mandate". It's "very slightly more than half".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_City
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=539451&page=2

Is the transit system good? Indeed. But 34% of the population uses it, with 25% of the population driving to work alone...

When I worked in Boston and lived in Belmont I walked one block to the buss, took buss the subway, got off the subway, and walked one block to work. I would have taken me longer and been a hell of a lot more expensive to drive to downtown Boston. Parking is very expensive.

Most people why live in NY City don't even own a car because of the traffic, parking, insurance, etc. They take the buss, subway, cabs, and walk.
Outside of massive cities on the coasts, cars are not a luxury. I live half an hour from anything - driving 50mph.

't like it but I can respect Hillary. At least she's honest. Whereas most

I don't respect honest politicians.

no because i do not believe in bonds.


except for Barry Bonds and the haters in the media who don't like uppity folks unless they are
what sport does he play?
it doesn't matter. they all suck anyway.
especially the one he plays that seems to attract the biggest jerks of all sports, hands down, bar none.
that's not to say all those interested in competition are bad people,
it's just in my experience the biggest jerks were the players of baseballs.

Its an investment in the children! The country would recieve more taxes back when those children grow up because they would have the ability to make more money. What is so hard to understand about that?

Actually, no, it would probably decrease their income thanks to increased inflation and lower economic growth (those are going to have to be paid for at some point). This is no different than simply throwing money at people, even if they're waiting for a while to get it. This is just bad economics in action, and it's even worse because they're willing to abuse the economy for political gain. If you want to help these kids, create a fund for college tuition or similar higher education; just throwing money away won't do a damn thing and it'll just worsen the situation.

You'd think that a potential president would have at least a basic grasp on economics.

:rolleyes:

I wonder if this will have unintended consequences...

I wonder if this will have unintended consequences...

Everything has unintended consequences. :rolleyes: Woman who gave birth to 15 children indited for killing them for the $5,000.00 bond.

Everything has unintended consequences. :rolleyes: Woman who gave birth to 15 children indited for killing them for the $5,000.00 bond.

Unlikely, unless the $5,000 is given to the parents.

Unlikely, unless the $5,000 is given to the parents.

Well, the bond would presumably be cashed in at some point immediately after maturity.

Its an investment in the children! The country would recieve more taxes back when those children grow up because they would have the ability to make more money. What is so hard to understand about that?

Dude, you're acting like I disagreed with you.

No one is invoking communism. I even cut it off the picture just for you. :eek:

Well, I know you meant it. I might be a lot younger than you, but I'm smarter than I look.

Well, the bond would presumably be cashed in at some point immediately after maturity.

Just where will the money be?

Just where will the money be?

Government program. Government bond. Money = spent by government. :(

Government program. Government bond. Money = spent by government. :(

So the money will be held by the government until it is given to the child? So there will be a large amount of money in circulation that does basically nothing?

So the money will be held by the government until it is given to the child? So there will be a large amount of money in circulation that does basically nothing?

Same as Social Security. A lot of money collected by the government then spent by the government and the government leaves an IOU. With Baby Bonds it would be a lot worse because the government gives you a bond no one paid for. Then they say, "Oh look Cathy Smith has a $5,000.00 bond. Let's borrow that money and pay it back when Cathy is 18 years old."

It is all smoke and mirrors. No money is there for Cathy, so the money comes out of the General Fund when Cathy is 18 and the national debt goes up by $5,000.00. For all the Cathy's that translates to an increase in the national debt of $20 billion a year.

Well, it's cheaper than going to war for the oil industry.

At the risk of sounding like an a@@hole.

Has there been any studies done to determine whether spending money on wars for oil have had returns in the form of more economic prosperity as a result of an higher oil supply?

Nah, FDR still wins with his "Happy Days are Here Again" surrounding an overflowing glass of beer.

Edit: I found my picture (http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5263/imgp1859ix6.jpg) of the banner from the Smithsonian.