Page 1 of 1

Hillary has a great idea!

Posted: September 29th, 2007, 8:44 am
by 01LUGrad
...Give every newborn $5,000. Wow. What an idiot.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
"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?"
Allow me to answer her question. $27,000+$5,000= $32,000 debt. Way to think outside the box!

Posted: September 29th, 2007, 8:49 am
by Fumblerooskies
Great idea...
...so every welfare crack family can have an extra 5 grand to blow!

Posted: September 29th, 2007, 10:40 am
by SumItUp
Maybe she was not aware that there is already a child tax credit in place. It was previously at $700.00 but was increased through 2010 to $1,000.00 per child. If her best interest was to benefit the American people (in this particular area), she would suggest making the current level of the child tax credit permanent. The Child Tax Credit benefits citizens that are economically productive. If you don't owe any taxes, you don't receive the tax credit (except in certain unique circumstances). However, one change that should be made to the current system is to remove the phase out limits for families that have an Adjust Gross Income in excess of $110,000. Tax incentives should not be removed for individuals or corporations due to high income or profit thresholds being met. This statement by Hillary to provide $5,000 per child is strictly political. Surprise, surprise.

Posted: September 29th, 2007, 4:17 pm
by adam42381
Apparently the idea was to put the money in the fund for the child to receive at age 18. I don't see that this is such a bad thing. The parents won't have access to it and it will give a headstart to everyone at age 18. Funding it is another story.

Posted: September 29th, 2007, 4:22 pm
by PeterParker
SumItUp wrote: This statement by Hillary to provide $5,000 per child is strictly socialist. Surprise, surprise.

Fixed it for ya. 8)

Posted: September 29th, 2007, 5:12 pm
by belcherboy
Not only should we give people money when they retire (social security....most take WAY more out than they pay in..medicare/medicaid), but we should now give them money for being born??

Sounds great! I would love to see some of the kids who are 18 right now with $15,000+ to blow at their high school graduation parties. I live in the automotive capital of the world, and we would love to see how many kids buy a brand new car when they turned 18.

Last year there were 4.1 million babies born in the U.S., so this would cost $20.5 billion a year - to say nothing of the cost of administering the program.

Posted: September 29th, 2007, 5:37 pm
by SumItUp
PeterParker wrote:
SumItUp wrote: This statement by Hillary to provide $5,000 per child is strictly socialist. Surprise, surprise.

Fixed it for ya. 8)
agreed

Posted: September 29th, 2007, 5:39 pm
by SumItUp
belcherboy wrote:Last year there were 4.1 million babies born in the U.S., so this would cost $20.5 billion a year - to say nothing of the cost of administering the program.
Administration cost shouldn't be more than 80 or 81 billion dollars.

Posted: September 29th, 2007, 11:31 pm
by jmdickens
I hate effing politics.......I am just going to stay away from this.......


One thing I do want to say is........I am more liberal than most all of those on the board and I cannot stand Hilary, but I do UNDERSTAND the power of the Clinton machine.......there is such a thing. She more than likely will be the next president unless something drastic happens.......come on Ron Paul

Posted: September 30th, 2007, 1:48 pm
by LUconn
adam42381 wrote:I don't see that this is such a bad thing. The parents won't have access to it and it will give a headstart to everyone at age 18.
What? How is me, as a taxpayer, being forced to cough up 5 grand some somebody who's done nothing to deserve it, not a bad thing? And how is it a head start when everybody has it? The market will eventually adjust to negate it. That's capitalism. I know we like to exaggerate here, but this is nothing but the first step towards socialism.

Posted: September 30th, 2007, 2:19 pm
by adam42381
LUconn wrote:
adam42381 wrote:I don't see that this is such a bad thing. The parents won't have access to it and it will give a headstart to everyone at age 18.
What? How is me, as a taxpayer, being forced to cough up 5 grand some somebody who's done nothing to deserve it, not a bad thing? And how is it a head start when everybody has it? The market will eventually adjust to negate it. That's capitalism. I know we like to exaggerate here, but this is nothing but the first step towards socialism.
Very good point about the market. I hadn't thought about that. I was just looking at it as a way for kids to pay for their college or get a good jump start into adult life. The fact that it would go to everybody, as you point out, wouldn't make it that big of a deal in all likelihood. Point taken.

Posted: September 30th, 2007, 2:23 pm
by RagingTireFire
adam42381 wrote:Apparently the idea was to put the money in the fund for the child to receive at age 18. I don't see that this is such a bad thing. The parents won't have access to it and it will give a headstart to everyone at age 18. Funding it is another story.
Well, there's also the fact that money doesn't appear out of thin air. It has to come from somewhere and, in this case, that would be the taxpayers. In essence, the gubmint will tax $5,000 (minimum) out of the parents in order for their child to get the money. That number would probably be much higher considering that government is greedy and some families (gasp) have more than one kid.

I've got a better idea. It would be simpler, more efficient and more effective for the parents to just save up the money in some sort of private account (I've heard that they do exist) that the kid can then use to pay for college or whatever. Somebody should invent something like that. Oh, wait.

Posted: October 1st, 2007, 7:39 am
by ATrain
I've got a better idea...how about reducing the national debt since everyone owes over $27,000 anyway?

Posted: October 1st, 2007, 11:46 am
by jmdickens
if someone brought the idea of trying to reduce that $27,000 debt, they would never make it to the primary......

Fact: Only President Nixon lowered the national deficit


Fact: Hilary is going to tax the hell out of everyone.......

Myth: Republicans are so much better :D

Posted: October 1st, 2007, 12:08 pm
by kel varson
I'm for the 10 percent inheritance tax, collected when children turn 18 to help them start their life out right.

Posted: October 1st, 2007, 12:58 pm
by LUconn
I just do not get why giving people money for no reason could be viewed as good. Except to those who are receiving it, obviously.

Posted: October 1st, 2007, 1:03 pm
by jmdickens
the only good that comes from the program is to people who were elected for introducing the program

Posted: October 1st, 2007, 1:51 pm
by El Scorcho
I think we should start a Federal Housing Jump Start program that will subsidize the cost of rent for those fresh out of high school. It's pretty hard to pay your own rent right out of high school. Or, as an alternate solution, we could mandate that every American homeowner, at least once in their life, has to house an unrelated 18 year old for one year. We should also eventually expand the Federal Jump Start program to subsidize their transportation, clothing, food and utilities when they turn 18. I mean, not everyone starts out on the same level, and that's just not fair.

Life, Liberty and Happiness*.


*Formerly the pursuit of happiness.

Posted: October 1st, 2007, 1:57 pm
by LUconn
the main problem with these ideas is that I am left out of receiving this money.

Posted: October 1st, 2007, 2:46 pm
by ALUmnus
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... abies.html
On Just One Minute, the commenters have been having fun with Hillary's proposal that each child born in American be given a $5,000 bond at birth. As is often the case, Cathyf has the best post:

All kidding aside, focus on the word bond. And I'm sure that Clinton does not mean corporate bonds, she means the government variety. A government bond is a particular form of government debt -- the government debt that every child born is liable for.

This is like giving your kid $20 so that the kid can buy you a birthday present -- of course everyone understands that you are paying for your own present. The point about financing your own gift is that it's the thought that counts and your child is still doing the shopping and choosing, etc. This would be more like if the kid then gave you a $20 bill -- no card, no envelope, just the bill -- as the present.

If you really want to give every child born the equivalent of a $5000 bond, reduce the government deficit for the year by $5000 for every child born in that year. Something George Bush seems to already be accomplishing by all those "tax cuts".

Posted: October 1st, 2007, 4:11 pm
by Rocketfan
LUconn wrote:the main problem with these ideas is that I am left out of receiving this money.
The tone of that just screams "TO"