Clinton Proposes $5,000 ‘Baby Bonds’

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 29, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should receive a $5,000 “baby bond” from the government to help pay for college or buying a house.

“I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time,” she said, “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 down payment on their first home.”

Mrs. Clinton did not estimate the cost of such a program or how it would be financed. Four million babies a year are born in the United States

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/us/politics/29bond.html?ex=1348718400&en=872069b680e471d2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


This is one of those ideas that at first blush seems wonderful but that upon a closer look is revealed for what it is, mere political pandering.

A few questions for Ms. Clinton:

Where would the money come from? Are the taxpayers to be expected to help defray the cost of someone buying a house in the future?

Who is to decide what the money is used for? Can it be used only for college or purchasing a house? Can the person simply take the money and blow it on a huge drinking binge? Are the taxpayers to be expected to simply give away money with no guarantee of how it will be spent?

Who does the investing of the initial $5,000? Does the government decide where the money is invested thereby giving a benefit to the companies it decides to invest in as opposed to those it does not decide to invest in and making itself a major player in the economic market? Does the government allow the parents to decide how the money is invested? If so, what if the parents make really bad investments and lose all the money? What happens to that child's nestegg?

What happens if a child is born too handicapped to ever go to college or buy a house? Does the state take the money to help care for the child once he/she is grown?

What happens if a child dies? Does the money revert to the state? Do the parents keep the money? Do siblings split the money?



This is a silly plan and should be seen for what it is, a cheap way to try to garner votes.

I considered doing a thead on this,but seeing you have no matter:
I have a few questions:
1.How much does it cost on average to go to college in US?
2.Do you have to pay your fees yourself?
3.Does the Government aid students in any way,ie grants?

The Education system in America is totally alien to me,thanks.

Mrs. Clinton did not estimate the cost of such a program or how it would be financed. Four million babies a year are born in the United States


I agree with you that this maybe a silly idea- further questions/contemplation is needed.

But why do so called Conservatives always ask how "social" programs are going to be paid for, but never ask how the war is being paid for - as if that money is just coming out of thin air.

Even this social program would cost less than this war and would do MORE for this country.

The cost of college varies greatly. Some colleges cost as little as $5,000 a year. Some cost much, much more. My one son went to a division of the State University of New York and his tuition was in the teens. My youngest son's cost at Cornell Law School were $42,000 a year.

Unless you get a scholarship you are expected to pay your fees yourself. In most cases this means, not you but your parents are expected to pay the fees.

There are many grants, both government and private that can help defray the cost of college.

Hmm,I would have thought then that investment in the education of the youth of America would take a more priority stance,and maybe,education fees should be judged in a household income,by that I mean,kids from poorer background,dont pay anything,wheras kids from affluent homes pay more.Either that or the Government pay all fees.
These people,the Borg's and Dark Fantasy's of America,are the future of America and should get all the aid and financial help the US Government can afford them.

Paul,

I have no problem with free, universal education up to and including four years of college. I agree that our youth are our future and the better educated they are the better off we all are.

A few questions for Ms. Clinton:

Where would the money come from? .

Perhaps she's planning on holding an auction of the stuff she accidentally forgot wasn't hers--stuff like James Madison's inkwell, Jefferson's chess set, and Jackie Kennedy's pearls....remember, it takes the White House artifacts to raise a child.

Perhaps she's planning on holding an auction of the stuff she accidentally forgot wasn't hers--stuff like James Madison's inkwell, Jefferson's chess set, and Jackie Kennedy's pearls....remember, it takes the White House artifacts to raise a child.

Ren, you've made all sorts of allegations that the Clinton's stole historical artifacts when they left the White House. Do you have any documentary evidence that this is true to share with us? The White House usher specifically said they took no historical artifacts, and that point has been made before.

Haha, that was good, Ren.

I agree with Frogger, this is a stupid plan, horrendously unwieldy, and just plain dumb. Hillary is just pandering for votes with this. Still though, it's not as bad as some of the things Bush did.

But at the same time, it appalls me to think that we think absolutely nothing of inflating the war budget with billion after billion, but we penny pinch the peace budget every single chance we get. Our cities look like shit, our transportation is inefficient, our primary education substandard, our health care system is broken, our welfare state is non-existent. If this is how the free market manages these things, perhaps it would be better off under government control, or at least heavily regulated.

Take the money from anyone with over $5 million in assets. There are a great many in that category in the U.S. who probably spend that much or more on entertainment. They'll not miss $5K each.

Ren, you've made all sorts of allegations that the Clinton's stole historical artifacts when they left the White House. Do you have any documentary evidence that this is true to share with us? The White House usher specifically said they took no historical artifacts, and that point has been made before.

Vile,
It's true i have no documentation proving she lifted Woodrow Wilson's pince-nez and then wore them to a White House tea---i'm just having a bit of fun at the expense of the pompous old biddy--the one who conveniently forgot to make a simple check to see if donated items were, in fact, registered with the National Park Service.....so it's really not that far of a jump to say that yes, Martin Van Buren's long johns are indeed now adorning her handsome hubby's chubby bod.

I'm an equal-opportunity basher but lord knows this couple has given me plenty of ammo over the years...and of course nothing tops the front page pic of Bill taken shortly after the Lewinsky scandal--the one of him emerging from a church with a smarmy look and clutching (most likely) Warren G. Harding's Bible in his hands.

We laughed about that for WEEKS.

Clinton Proposes $5,000 ‘Baby Bonds’

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 29, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should receive a $5,000 “baby bond” from the government to help pay for college or buying a house.

“I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time,” she said, “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 down payment on their first home.”

Mrs. Clinton did not estimate the cost of such a program or how it would be financed. Four million babies a year are born in the United States

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/us/politics/29bond.html?ex=1348718400&en=872069b680e471d2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


This is one of those ideas that at first blush seems wonderful but that upon a closer look is revealed for what it is, mere political pandering.

A few questions for Ms. Clinton:

Where would the money come from? Are the taxpayers to be expected to help defray the cost of someone buying a house in the future?

Who is to decide what the money is used for? Can it be used only for college or purchasing a house? Can the person simply take the money and blow it on a huge drinking binge? Are the taxpayers to be expected to simply give away money with no guarantee of how it will be spent?

Who does the investing of the initial $5,000? Does the government decide where the money is invested thereby giving a benefit to the companies it decides to invest in as opposed to those it does not decide to invest in and making itself a major player in the economic market? Does the government allow the parents to decide how the money is invested? If so, what if the parents make really bad investments and lose all the money? What happens to that child's nestegg?

What happens if a child is born too handicapped to ever go to college or buy a house? Does the state take the money to help care for the child once he/she is grown?

What happens if a child dies? Does the money revert to the state? Do the parents keep the money? Do siblings split the money?



This is a silly plan and should be seen for what it is, a cheap way to try to garner votes.


Did the person who wrote this article ask these same questions about how the money would be spent when Bush increased the Child Tax Credit? How do we know that money was spent on children?

Did the person who wrote this article ask these same questions about how the money would be spent when Bush increased the Child Tax Credit? How do we know that money was spent on children?



The very same way we know child support is really spent on the child(ren).

It's interesting; most people think that the War is the greatest drain on the budget. While it is certainly expensive, its costs are well under those of other social programs. In fact, the most draining effect on the budget is old people. The older generations are living longer and their medicines (which keep them living longer) are costing more. In fact, the cost of supporting the elderly is growing at a faster rate than the economy can support it. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

Just my 3 cents.

It's interesting; most people think that the War is the greatest drain on the budget. While it is certainly expensive, its costs are well under those of other social programs. In fact, the most draining effect on the budget is old people. The older generations are living longer and their medicines (which keep them living longer) are costing more. In fact, the cost of supporting the elderly is growing at a faster rate than the economy can support it. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

Just my 3 cents.


Yeah, lets just take these old bastards out.........and shoot them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070929/ap_on_re_us/aging_prisoners_1 :eek:

Did the person who wrote this article ask these same questions about how the money would be spent when Bush increased the Child Tax Credit? How do we know that money was spent on children?


Its impossible to know such things. The revamp the current in place system so it guarantees monies collected would go to young children would be monumental and near impossible.

Ren, you've made all sorts of allegations that the Clinton's stole historical artifacts when they left the White House. Do you have any documentary evidence that this is true to share with us?

I think it got away in Sandy Burglar's underwear.

LOL.


A few questions for Ms. Clinton:

Where would the money come from? Are the taxpayers to be expected to help defray the cost of someone buying a house in the future?

Who is to decide what the money is used for? Can it be used only for college or purchasing a house? Can the person simply take the money and blow it on a huge drinking binge? Are the taxpayers to be expected to simply give away money with no guarantee of how it will be spent?

Who does the investing of the initial $5,000? Does the government decide where the money is invested thereby giving a benefit to the companies it decides to invest in as opposed to those it does not decide to invest in and making itself a major player in the economic market? Does the government allow the parents to decide how the money is invested? If so, what if the parents make really bad investments and lose all the money? What happens to that child's nestegg?

What happens if a child is born too handicapped to ever go to college or buy a house? Does the state take the money to help care for the child once he/she is grown?

What happens if a child dies? Does the money revert to the state? Do the parents keep the money? Do siblings split the money?

The author of this piece asks 16 questions about the plan, indicating that he knows almost nothing about it or the particulars of it...........yet the conclusion that directly follows these questions is.......

This is a silly plan

How does the author conclusively state that --"This is a silly plan"-- when he knows virtually nothing about it?

:confused:

Personally, I feel that anything that would see tax monies being spent for something that will possibly BENEFIT the citizenry of this country is 100 times more preferable than seeing hundreds of billions of taxdollars (estimates run into the trillions) thrown away on a foreign war that this nation had no business waging.

I think it got away in Sandy Burglar's underwear.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/trousergate/april_fools.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/trousergate/april_fools.Par.0007.ImageFile.jpg

Freethinker,

As the author of the post to which you referred I will tell you why I think it is a silly plan. It is a silly plan because it has not been thought out in the least. Even Ms. Clinton's people have admitted that it is not even a real proposal but just something she tossed out there.

Giving every baby born in the United States $5,000 at birth is silly for a couple of reasons. It would be nothing but another entitlement program but in this case it would be every child born in America who was entitled. The plan would not generate enough money for college unless it earned interest around the 20% range and even then it might not generate enough. There is no statement as to what the money would be spent on. Ms. Clinton said it might be spent on college or it might be spent on buying a house. What she didn't say was that it might just as readily be spent on buying a motorcycle, or going on a vacation or buying top shelf liquor. I don't think the taxpayers should be taxed to the tune of over twenty billion dollars a year so that eighteen year olds get a couple of grand on their birthday. There are over four million children born in this country every year. Giving them five grand each for over ten years would cost over two hundred billion dollars.

This is simply an attempt to buy the votes of the poor by promising them something that will be footed by the taxpayers. If Ms. Clinton was serious about helping young people she would be talking about improving education or doing something to keep the family intact rather than trying to buy votes for five thousand dollars a child.

Giving every baby born in the United States $5,000 at birth is silly for a couple of reasons. It would be nothing but another entitlement program but in this case it would be every child born in America who was entitled.

Ok.

Leaving aside for the moment where the money will come from (which i will address in a minute) what's wrong with every child recieving an entitlement?

The plan would not generate enough money for college unless it earned interest around the 20% range ....

Ok, but it could be added to whatever money they already have, from whatever source, and paid toward college tuition.

There is no statement as to what the money would be spent on. Ms. Clinton said it might be spent on college or it might be spent on buying a house. What she didn't say was that it might just as readily be spent on buying a motorcycle, or going on a vacation or buying top shelf liquor.

Since there is no statement as to exactly what the money could be spent on, and since none of us know if there will be (which I would say is a virtual certainty) some provision put in place to insure the money is not spent for something frivolous, I don't see how the plan can be deemed --"silly"-- before the particulars are known.

I don't think the taxpayers should be taxed to the tune of over twenty billion dollars a year so that eighteen year olds get a couple of grand on their birthday. There are over four million children born in this country every year. Giving them five grand each for over ten years would cost over two hundred billion dollars.

Ok, 200 billion dollars.

IOW, it could be done for the same amount of money that the leaders of this country are throwing away in Iraq every 21 months or so.

This is simply an attempt to buy the votes of the poor by promising them something that will be footed by the taxpayers.

I think you may be right. But then, many, many things are done by both Parties that are for no other reason than to buy votes. It is wrong when either side does it.....but at least in the case of THIS proposal, it would be something of actual benefit to people in the U.S., instead of a huge giveaway (like so many others when it comes to the military/Industrial complex) that serves no purpose but to line the pockets of huge multi-million dollar Defense contracting companies.

If Ms. Clinton was serious about helping young people she would be talking about improving education or doing something to keep the family intact rather than trying to buy votes for five thousand dollars a child.

Good point.

I wish she would do that.

But I think it is the utmost in hypocrisy for so many people in this country to take a --""Rah rah USA, we have to fight the evil Muslims in the Middle East and bring democracy to Iraq!" -- posture and in so doing lend support to an illegal and unethical and unwarranted "war" effort which wastes taxdollars approching the trillions, yet when a proposal comes along that might provide great benefit to the common people, their first complaint is -- "But we can't afford that!.....Where will the tax money come from to pay for it?!?!"

Let's cut out the useless and illegal pre-emptive wars of foreign aggression, and there will be much more money available to help the People.

Freethinker,

As the author of the post to which you referred I will tell you why I think it is a silly plan. It is a silly plan because it has not been thought out in the least. Even Ms. Clinton's people have admitted that it is not even a real proposal but just something she tossed out there.

Giving every baby born in the United States $5,000 at birth is silly for a couple of reasons. It would be nothing but another entitlement program but in this case it would be every child born in America who was entitled. The plan would not generate enough money for college unless it earned interest around the 20% range and even then it might not generate enough. There is no statement as to what the money would be spent on. Ms. Clinton said it might be spent on college or it might be spent on buying a house. What she didn't say was that it might just as readily be spent on buying a motorcycle, or going on a vacation or buying top shelf liquor. I don't think the taxpayers should be taxed to the tune of over twenty billion dollars a year so that eighteen year olds get a couple of grand on their birthday. There are over four million children born in this country every year. Giving them five grand each for over ten years would cost over two hundred billion dollars.

This is simply an attempt to buy the votes of the poor by promising them something that will be footed by the taxpayers. If Ms. Clinton was serious about helping young people she would be talking about improving education or doing something to keep the family intact rather than trying to buy votes for five thousand dollars a child.

Now this post makes more sense. But, its ok to "throw" out ideas.

On a DIFFERENT note, I really do hate it when we say "how do we pay for that?" But we never ask "how are we paying for this war?". If you think that the cost of this war won't catch up to us in the next Admin, think again. The war money is NOT coming from Jesus out of the sky so Bush can do the lords work.

Since there is no statement as to exactly what the money could be spent on, and since none of us know if there will be (which I would say is a virtual certainty) some provision put in place to insure the money is not spent for something frivolous

I would have a real problem with this, even more of a problem than I do with the initial plan of giving each child born in the United States $5,000. I don't want the government deciding what is frivolous in my life and what is not. Would there be a ministry of frivolousness sort of like the Monty Python Ministry of Silly Walks? Once the money is given to the child it is the child's and no longer the government's.

I have a lot of problems with this proposal besides where the money will come from. I don't think it is a workable program. There have been charts showing how much money there would be at age 18 at 3% interest, at age 18 at 5% interest, how much there would be if the parents kicked in $5,000 at ages four, eight, twelve and sixteen. Who would decide how the money was invested or even if it was invested rather than being tucked into a mattress or spent by the parents? If the government decides how it is invested or if it even provides a list of acceptable investments it would be intruding too much into the economic market. If it doesn't parents might lose all the money on risky investments. What then? Do we give the kid another $5,000.

I am serious when I ask what happens if the child dies before reaching the age of eighteen. Does the money go to the parents? Does it go to his/her siblings if there are any? Does it revert to the government? If it reverts to the government does only the initial $5,000 revert or does all the acrued interest also revert?

In my opinion this is an unworkable program and Ms. Clinton knows it is unworkable and only proposed it in order to garner votes from the poor. It is another examply of a politician promising something they know cannot be delivered in an attempt to fool the people into voting for them.

I agree that it's unworkable, although for a different reason. How do you start this program? Do you say "If you're born on 1 January 2009 you get the $5000 but if you're born on 31 December 2008 you don't?" You'll have kids receiving the money in the same class with kids who don't -- it's patently unfair.

Also, it's a stupid move politically. It's way too reminiscent of McGovern's much-ridiculed plan to give every American $1000 back in the 1972 election. If Hillary is serious about winning she should stop giving free ammo to the Republicans,

It would be cool though, if every child was given the $5000. as a voucher and it was pooled together in a fund. When they reached 17 they could turn that voucher in and have the original $5000 thou plus whatever interest had accummulated and it could be directed to any school or trade training that they chose.

If you drop out it would stay in the pool and be divided amoung those who would use it.

In my opinion this is an unworkable program ....

The more i think about it, the more i think you're right.

- and Ms. Clinton...only proposed it in order to garner votes from the poor.

Of course she did. She's a politician. She spins yarns in order to garner votes. It's what they do. That's why I despise the system so much.

It is another examply of a politician promising something they know cannot be delivered in an attempt to fool the people into voting for them.

Ok.

But my point is still that when it comes to something totally useless, like an illegal pre-emptive war, the masses in this country --mind numbed drones that they are-- can always be counted on to cheer and wave their fucking little flags and yell "Go U.S.A.!!!" and to never think of or complain about the costs..........but when it comes to a proposal with the potential to benefit the populace they begin immediately to think of every reason in the world why it won't work/it is a bad idea/it will cost too much/we'll not be able to find the money to pay for it.

A sad commentary on the Public's intelligence.

What about those who choose to not go to college or a trade school? What about the kid who goes into the family business and begins working in his Mom and Dad's hardware store? What about the kid who works on the family farm? What about the kid who decides to work with the poor or handicapped instead of going to college or trade school, or the kid who wants to be a lumberjack?

Do we take their money and throw it back into the pool because they haven't fullfilled our elitist dream for them?

It's interesting; most people think that the War is the greatest drain on the budget. While it is certainly expensive, its costs are well under those of other social programs. In fact, the most draining effect on the budget is old people. The older generations are living longer and their medicines (which keep them living longer) are costing more. In fact, the cost of supporting the elderly is growing at a faster rate than the economy can support it. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

Just my 3 cents.

And, at what age are you personally willing to terminate.

What about those who choose to not go to college or a trade school? What about the kid who goes into the family business and begins working in his Mom and Dad's hardware store? What about the kid who works on the family farm? What about the kid who decides to work with the poor or handicapped instead of going to college or trade school, or the kid who wants to be a lumberjack?

Do we take their money and throw it back into the pool because they haven't fullfilled our elitist dream for them?

Hm, no guess that it wouldn't work. Would just be nice if kids who do not have the means would have easy access instead of having to work their guts out. In my day I had access to some grants and a loan and did not have to pay back all of the loan. I could not have done it otherwise. So I guess I always wonder how kids who have it really tough like ghetto tough are ever going to be able to break the cycle.

There needs to be a better way to break the cycle so that more kids can do it. It would have such a huge societal impact on crime etc.

And, at what age are you personally willing to terminate.
How old is Frogger?

What about those who choose to not go to college or a trade school? What about the kid who goes into the family business and begins working in his Mom and Dad's hardware store? What about the kid who works on the family farm? What about the kid who decides to work with the poor or handicapped instead of going to college or trade school, or the kid who wants to be a lumberjack?

Do we take their money and throw it back into the pool because they haven't fullfilled our elitist dream for them?

Nobody is arguing that the plan is good. What everyone seems to be saying is that why do people question the costs of social programs, but not the costs of a war.

How old is Frogger?

I'm 64. Any time you wish to come and try to terminate me feel welcome. Of course I am not worried because I know you. You would start and soon get distracted. You have never managed to finish anything you started.

I'm 64. Any time you wish to come and try to terminate me feel welcome. Of course I am not worried because I know you. You would start and soon get distracted.
Just call me Arnold.

As in Arnold Stang.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1421/1449274917_f0db3f393a_m.jpg

That's Arnold in the center of the picture.

Now you're just reaching...

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you mean this Arnold?


http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/images/arnold_t.jpg

-_- The wheel is spinning, but the hamster's dead.

Another liberal nimwit. What a retard. I wonder how much this would raise our federal taxes? I am flabergasted by this idiotic idea. Wait.....Hilary Clinton wants this??? OK, so maybe it doesn't surprise me too much.

Wow, so you're like, conservative and stuff? I never would have guessed! So do you, like, hate liberals? OMG me too! We should like, have a beer sometime! Cause you're so original, and fresh! I've never met anyone like you before!

Wow, so you're like, conservative and stuff? I never would have guessed! So do you, like, hate liberals? OMG me too! We should like, have a beer sometime! Cause you're so original, and fresh! I've never met anyone like you before!

This from the person who posted the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.

What are you talking about? I'm serious! He's the most creative person I've ever met! I really hope he sticks around and shines his bright light on all of us!

I concur with Frogger on this one.

It just isn't the business of the federal government to give people money for no reason other than the fact that they were born. Frankly, I don't think the federal government should ever be in the business of giving people money except for services rendered.

Wow, so you're like, conservative and stuff? I never would have guessed! So do you, like, hate liberals?.....you're so original, and fresh!

LOL.

What is truly "fresh" is his use of non-existant words.

Like "nimwit".

Nimwit is a portmanteau of nimrod and dimwit. He has coined a new word just as Lewis Caroll used to do.

As in Arnold Stang.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1421/1449274917_f0db3f393a_m.jpg

That's Arnold in the center of the picture.

The CHUNKY guy.
BTW,President Bush proffered the idea of what Hillary Now is
touting with the Child credit of $5,ooo.
It was when Bush was spending his Political capital on
defending his Privitazation of Social Security plan.
However,as Greenspan told Russert on - Meet the Press -
Medicare is VERY troubling.Greenspan seemes genunely concerned
that medicare will run short,and is only a matter of time.
Too many Boomers will need it,and the system ain't flush.
Greendspan dint say { ain't }.
I added dat,all by meself,I did.

He has coined a new word ......

:lolhit:

Translation;

He was too ignorant to come up with the correct usage of either of the two existing words.

You coin new words all the time Freethinker.

Giving every baby born in the United States $5,000 at birth is silly for a couple of reasons. It would be nothing but another entitlement program but in this case it would be every child born in America who was entitled. The plan would not generate enough money for college unless it earned interest around the 20% range and even then it might not generate enough.

If $5,000 earned 10% interest you would have over $27,000 in 18 years. That pays for a pretty damn good education at many colleges. Not that I agree with Hillary's plan.

Nimwit is a portmanteau of nimrod and dimwit. He has coined a new word just as Lewis Caroll used to do.
I swear he'll be the next Douglas Adams!