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.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

 

I LOL'd

 

$5,000 x 4 million = $20,000,000,000

 

This almost makes me want to puke, not just the idea but where she made the comments, despite having no idea how to do it. Talk about pandering and in a twisted way 'buying' votes.

 

God help us all if she gets elected.

 

Holy sh*t.

The Lunactic fringe? Don't you get on other people's cases for posting articles with loaded lead ins? Don't you say there is no point in responding to posts because nobody is going to change their mind and people just post rhetoric? How does making text 10x bigger, labeling the title with the lunatic fringe, and whatnot going to actually create a discussion.

 

If anybody else had posted an article on Fred Thompson, and did exactly what you did, what would you have done?

 

The approach to this thread was not necessay.

If Fred Thompson proposes a 5K trust for every baby in this country, he'd get the same treatment.

 

Also, this is the 2nd in a series of lunatic fringe articles. I guess you missed the first involving John Edwards mandatory medical plan. :lol

 

I post that there is no point in discussing the war in the way it was being discussed a while back. I don't say that for everything.

Fred Thompson floated the idea of reforming automatic citizenship to children born in American but whose parents were illegal immigrants, which has effectively pissed off a lot of Florida Republicans:

 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politi...0,2373301.story

 

I thought about posting it, but I avoided it because I know how people like to accuse the bullpen of being a liberal driven hit job. I'd prefer actual discussion.

 

As far as the 5k proposal, it isn't necessarily a handout. One has to graduate from HS, one has to use it for towards the purchase of a home(which drives government tax dollars back into the economy) or spending it on college(why is that different than the post-WW2 education bond?)

 

The 5k would also be in savings so it would be reinvested for the 18 years. It would earn interest so it would give more and would be infuse government dollars into the economy.

 

And we spend $20 billion a year on other massively wasteful programs. $20 billion is not a back breaker for our federal spending.

 

If she had framed it as a tax credit of 5k, would it make it easier to swallow? People have proposed tax credits for home and education investment before.

 

Is it a policy that is universally applauded? No. In fact I understand that it will have significant opposition and is a pretty off base approach.

 

But is it a LUNACTIC FRINGE using bold and 10x size lettering policy? No.

The Lunactic fringe? Don't you get on other people's cases for posting articles with loaded lead ins? Don't you say there is no point in responding to posts because nobody is going to change their mind and people just post rhetoric? How does making text 10x bigger, labeling the title with the lunatic fringe, and whatnot going to actually create a discussion.

 

If anybody else had posted an article on Fred Thompson, and did exactly what you did, what would you have done?

 

The approach to this thread was not necessay.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Umm, just for the sake of being mathematically correct, you're going to want to reread the article and change the 4 billion to 4 million.

 

 

$20 million sounds a whole lot better than $20 billion.

 

 

 

As for me, I have no viewpoint.

Umm, just for the sake of being mathematically correct, you're going to want to reread the article and change the 4 billion to 4 million.

 

 

$20 million sounds a whole lot better than $20 billion.

 

 

 

As for me, I have no viewpoint.

He typed million wrong but it's still 20 billion.

 

This plan is absolutely retarded. I can't believe Hillary is actually the frontrunner for the Dems. We don't need a f***ing socialist as president.

Umm, just for the sake of being mathematically correct, you're going to want to reread the article and change the 4 billion to 4 million.

 

 

$20 million sounds a whole lot better than $20 billion.

 

 

 

As for me, I have no viewpoint.

It's still $20,000,000,000 billion. He messed up putting 4 billion X $5000 instead of 4 million X $5000 but it is still $20,000,000,000.

Umm, just for the sake of being mathematically correct, you're going to want to reread the article and change the 4 billion to 4 million.

 

 

$20 million sounds a whole lot better than $20 billion.

 

 

 

As for me, I have no viewpoint.

He typed million wrong but it's still 20 billion.

 

This plan is absolutely retarded. I can't believe Hillary is actually the frontrunner for the Dems. We don't need a f***ing socialist as president.

Of course. I need to check my own math sometimes too. :mischief

Umm, just for the sake of being mathematically correct, you're going to want to reread the article and change the 4 billion to 4 million.

 

 

$20 million sounds a whole lot better than $20 billion.

 

 

 

As for me, I have no viewpoint.

He typed million wrong but it's still 20 billion.

 

This plan is absolutely retarded. I can't believe Hillary is actually the frontrunner for the Dems. We don't need a f***ing socialist as president.

Seriously, this sounds like socialist propaganda from South American presidential hopefuls. How does Chavez get re-elected by offering citizens money. It's funny how she is trying to buy her vote now.

Again, how is it different than giving a $5000 dollar tax credit for college tuition assistance or for the purchase of a new home. Federal government assistance towards the purchase of a home or towards education is not South American level socialism. We already have the pell grant in education.

 

Btw, I think this an idea she is just floating. She has previously said $500. TIME magazine suggested the same thing with a tie in to national service.

 

The specifics of this have not even remotely been laid out and it is being called socialism with the sky falling around all of us.

 

I also think it is a great way for her to distinguish Republican policy with Iraq and Democrat policy towards our own people:

 

SO HOW MUCH WOULD ALL THIS COST? THERE ARE about 4 million babies born each year, and if each receives a $5,000 baby bond, that would be about $20 billion a year; that is, roughly two months of funding for the Iraq war and about half what the government spends per year on the federal prison system. The government would get $1 billion in dividends from the investment and would be able to cash in the bonds that people don't use.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...57799-3,00.html

 

Yep, keep telling America we should spend all this money on making sure Sunnies and Shiites stop killing each other and taking vacations when they need to fix their country....but tell Americans we shouldn't be spending this on investing in our own kids.

I really think we could do worse than a program like this. At least it will pay more dividends than $500 tax cuts.

If Fred Thompson proposes a 5K trust for every baby in this country, he'd get the same treatment.

 

Also, this is the 2nd in a series of lunatic fringe articles. I guess you missed the first involving John Edwards mandatory medical plan. :lol

 

I post that there is no point in discussing the war in the way it was being discussed a while back. I don't say that for everything.

 

This is actually not the lunatic fringe. This idea has been discussed and debated by policy wonks and academics in the United States and Europe for decades. Usually, the idea is to create an account like that while simultaneously severely limiting or altogether eliminating most forms of welfare. It's another way of addressing the same problems.

 

And, as Flying_Mollusk pointed out, we already give huge tax credits to people under a certain income level who have children. And pell grants. And welfare.

 

Don't make this sound all lunatic. It's not.

Umm, just for the sake of being mathematically correct, you're going to want to reread the article and change the 4 billion to 4 million.

 

 

$20 million sounds a whole lot better than $20 billion.

 

 

 

As for me, I have no viewpoint.

He typed million wrong but it's still 20 billion.

 

This plan is absolutely retarded. I can't believe Hillary is actually the frontrunner for the Dems. We don't need a f***ing socialist as president.

Seriously, this sounds like socialist propaganda from South American presidential hopefuls. How does Chavez get re-elected by offering citizens money. It's funny how she is trying to buy her vote now.

 

Get over yourself.

 

She's not trying to buy her votes. She's stirring up debate. Her proposal is legit.

Making another generation of government dependent adults. AWESOME.

 

We don't already have apatehtic parenting as it is in this country so lets make it even more apathetic by throwing money at their kids. AWESOME.

 

It isn't as if we don't have enough of those as is. I'm glad to know that graduating high school is such a crowning achivement that you deserve $5,000 for it. I always thought getting to go to college which in turn can help you earn a living for yourself was reward enough.

 

It isn't though! I should have to pay for Johnny down the street for graduating from high school (which he is only doing so his parents don't kick him out of the house) even though he is going to start his own rock band out of high school and do loads of hard drugs in his spare time. AWESOME.

 

Why stop at 5K? College is expensive now, we should bump it up to 10 or even 20K.

 

I don't even buy in to the money for college thing. If you put yourself in to a position to get in to college after graduating high school you can get there. With all the financial aid and scholarships out there and possibly some hard work (GASP!) you can pay for college.

 

My dad went to Ohio State in the 70s, as a black man, and coming from out of state with not a single cent his family could provide for him. Oh mai gawd, he DID get through 4 years there without free governement cheese. Now he is a part of the suppossed evil rich that Hilary mentions above that get all those mean and dirty tax cuts.

 

But, but, but, but, but I thought black people had no chance to succeed without the government's hand. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE????!!!!11

 

I love the party of apathy and handouts. Retarding our culture even more then it already is.

What does race have to do with it? Nobody else even mentioned race.

 

But it sounds like you're against government assistance programs all together. That's fine. But don't frame anything that goes against that as somehow being the lunactic fringe.

 

And this is a debate that can be had without resorting to broad generalizations and rhetoric like rich people want to destory America or Jimmy Bobb down the street just wants government cheese so he can use drugs and rape your pretty little daughter.

What does race have to do with it? Nobody else even mentioned race.

 

But it sounds like you're against government assistance programs all together. That's fine. But don't frame anything that goes against that as somehow being the lunactic fringe.

 

And this is a debate that can be had without resorting to broad generalizations and rhetoric like rich people want to destory America or Jimmy Bobb down the street just wants government cheese so he can use drugs and rape your pretty little daughter.

I have no idea why Hilary waited until the Congressional Black Caucus to discuss this.

 

No idea, F_M. None.

 

 

You don't think my 'broad generalization' doesn't hold an ounce of truth to it? Out of 4 million babies a year, no bad apples? No people who won't be using the 5K+ for thing s other than the rosy, scenic, make believe picture Hilary is painting? Seriously?

I have no idea why Hilary waited until the Congressional Black Caucus to discuss thisNo idea, F_M. None.

Actually she has talked about before.

Democrats are such closet racists.

Also, can someone explain to me why I have to pay for someone else's kid?

 

I must have missed that lesson somewhere in my 23 years of life.

You don't think my 'broad generalization' doesn't hold an ounce of truth to it? Out of 4 million babies a year, no bad apples? No people who won't be using the 5K+ for thing s other than the rosy, scenic, make believe picture Hilary is painting? Seriously?

 

can someone explain to me why I have to pay for someone else's kid

 

 

Well first off, bad apples don't make policy. Other, we would outlaw Catholic priests for molesting children. Second, the money goes straight to college use or the purchase of a home, ie investment in society, so I don't see how they could use it for anything else. Third, we give Pell grants, subsidized loans, and other benefits to poor people all the time.

 

How is this different?

 

And how is it different when Republicans propose tax credits? Isn't that the same idea? Less tax burden, ie contribution, so in effect, you are paying for someone else's kid?

 

And how does this make someone part of the LUNACTIC FRINGE. Is this idea that new to you?

You don't think my 'broad generalization' doesn't hold an ounce of truth to it? Out of 4 million babies a year, no bad apples? No people who won't be using the 5K+ for thing s other than the rosy, scenic, make believe picture Hilary is painting? Seriously?

 

Well first off, bad apples don't make policy. Other, we would outlaw Catholic priests for molesting children. Second, the money goes straight to college use or the purchase of a home, ie investment in society, so I don't see how they could use it for anything else. Third, we give Pell grants, subsidized loans, and other benefits to poor people all the time. How is this different?

 

And how is it different when Republicans propose tax credits? Isn't that the same idea? Less tax burden, ie contribution, so in effect, you are paying for someone else's kid?

Nowhere in that article has it been said that you must use it for college or a payment on a house. She just gave a logical explanation for what a high school graduate would do if they had 5,000 dollars kicking around. She does not say there you only get the money if it is used exactly for that. You just graduate high school.

 

You talk about maturity in a debate or whatever and 'broad generalizations' and then use one yourself. Ok. :thumbup

 

Bad apples should dictate policy, to even begin with something like this you need more then just a blanket stipulation to qualify. Call me a jackass or whatever you want but to me graduating high school is not some crowning achievement.

And how does this make someone part of the LUNACTIC FRINGE. Is this idea that new to you?

Paying for someone else's kid just because they were born/graduated high school = lunacy.

You don't think my 'broad generalization' doesn't hold an ounce of truth to it? Out of 4 million babies a year, no bad apples? No people who won't be using the 5K+ for thing s other than the rosy, scenic, make believe picture Hilary is painting? Seriously?

 

Well first off, bad apples don't make policy. Other, we would outlaw Catholic priests for molesting children. Second, the money goes straight to college use or the purchase of a home, ie investment in society, so I don't see how they could use it for anything else. Third, we give Pell grants, subsidized loans, and other benefits to poor people all the time. How is this different?

 

And how is it different when Republicans propose tax credits? Isn't that the same idea? Less tax burden, ie contribution, so in effect, you are paying for someone else's kid?

Nowhere in that article has it been said that you must use it for college or a payment on a house. She just gave a logical explanation for what a high school graduate would do if they had 5,000 dollars kicking around. She does not say there you only get the money if it is used exactly for that. You just graduate high school.

 

You talk about maturity in a debate or whatever and 'broad generalizations' and then use one yourself. Ok. :thumbup

 

Bad apples should dictate policy, to even begin with something like this you need more then just a blanket stipulation to qualify. Call me a jackass or whatever you want but to me graduating high school is not some crowning achievement.

So now you would be ok if it was for college payment or a house? You just went off on why you don't want it to pay for Johnny drug user to go to college and how your dad didn't need an ounce of help for college.

 

And neither of us know the specifics of the policy. She just casually threw it out there and you are running to the cleaners with it. This mirros the GI Bill, which is why a lot of people are talking about it.

 

I'll tell you what, if this was a anything goes use it for whatever you want policy, I'll be totally against it. But if it is for college or home purchase, are you going to be for it? And if you aren't, tell me why that is different than Republican tax credits?

 

This idea has been floated around a lot. People are just discussing it. People want to tie it to national service and limit its use.

No, I said if there was some stipulaitons in it, I'd have less of a problem with it.

 

In my example, Johnny Drug user does not go to college. If you can use hard drugs and get through college. More power to you. My example was the deadbeat that can graduate from high school (which happens all the time) but isn't going to use the money in any sort of good way.

 

I won't be for it if it is just for home or collge use. I'm not for free money handouts for anyone in almost any situation. Ever. If you have a child it is your responsibility as a parent to be able to provide for that child from birth until high school graduation. After that is up to the parent and child.

 

As far as comparing this to other government programs - I don't see the point. Just because program A exists and is bad, doesn't mean that program B and all those after it that have similar properties are also a good idea or should be allowed to exist because of existing legislation.

 

I do not support the child tax credit that was introduced in the 90s. It's worthless. Just because I identify myself mostly as a republican doesn't mean I toe the line and support all of their legislation. I don't see my politics as a tug of war where I want anything and everything with a rubber stamped Elephant on it to go through nor do I believe it is automatically right.