October 01, 2007

WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING AND WHERE CAN THE REST OF US GET SOME?

I thought John Kerry's "Service for College" program was pretty silly. I thought John Edwards' "Get Ahead Accounts" were stepping over the line. But Hillary Clinton's Throwing Money Around Like We Can Just Print More plan is really infuriating.

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.

Obviously it would be irresponsible to suggest this to voters before she's had a chance to sit down and crunch the numbers, right?

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.

Oh. She's just speaking out of her ass then.

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."

The savings you remember as a child? Yeah, your parents did that. Not the government. Your parents made do without new SUVs and plasma TVs until they had a plan for their children's future. My parents put aside a little bit of money for us to have when we grew up -- heck, not nearly as much as Clinton suggests the government should give -- and never touched it, even when they desperately could've used it. They sacrificed so their children could have a good start as adults. All Hillary's crappy plan would do is prevent parents from doing any saving for their kids because the government would just do it for them. Why forego that ATV for the kids when the government's got their future covered?

There's nothin' like a Democrat plan to keep people hooked on government.

But there's really no point in getting worked up over this. Just like all those other stupid plans, this one will disappear. It just really irks me that she brings this up in public to get votes, knowing full well it will never happen.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:34 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

1 No joke . . . We heard this on the radio this morning. Someone brought up that the government would put it in an investment account for them (and only those who graduate high school would get the money -- so what happens to the money that doesn't get doled out???), at a rate of 2%. Oooh, in twenty years, kids would have a whole, whopping $7500. Housing prices can't have gone down in that time. Would that be a month's rent in D.C.? And who pays for this? Ultimately, the taxpayers. The poor, who don't pay taxes, will not be contributing. And the rich, who know how to invest their money in such a way that they don't pay as much taxes, but can afford the $5000, regardless, won't be contributing. Yay for the working middle class! The heart, soul, and pocketbook of America! Sorry, I'm also upset about this vote-buying plan.

Posted by: deltasierra at October 01, 2007 06:20 PM (r+3ie)

2 DS -- She also says that every baby gets this, so the rich babies are also getting $5000? The parents who can afford it also can invest that five grand at way better than 2%, so their kids will be *losing* money by doing this!

Posted by: Sarah at October 02, 2007 02:47 AM (TWet1)

3 Yeah, I forgot that part! Sounds a bit like the Social Security debates, doesn't it? Another thing I wondered was how that money would get to the kids. Given to the parents in the kids' names? Given directly to the kids? Either way, there's going to be some badly-handled money, and no changes to our "social problems". In fact, it might even exacerbate the problem our young people already have of taking money for granted and feeling entitled towards it.

Posted by: deltasierra at October 02, 2007 09:34 AM (r+3ie)

4 DS -- This soundbite that she gave is completely devoid of details. There are major implementation problems! Who does the money go to? What if you don't want college or to buy a house? Someone else pointed out: what if the kid dies young? What about illegals? But no need to worry...it's just for show.

Posted by: Sarah at October 02, 2007 10:14 AM (TWet1)

5 ooh hillary she wants to help people!!!!1!! what a bitch!!!1!!ONE!!!1!!! help us, rudy! or fat freddy! or ronpaul!!!1!!!ONE!!

Posted by: Sam Seborn at October 02, 2007 02:51 PM (1Xr9i)

6 Indeed, people trying to make society better makes me REALLY REALLY ANGRY. SMAAASH

Posted by: Simba B at October 02, 2007 03:22 PM (Ne591)

7 I doubt that any actual transfer of *money* would occur under this program during a Hillary administration. What would happen is that an entirely notional book entry for $5000 would be made for each child, representing a *debt* for which the government would be liable at some future time. Alternatively, the government could use tax money to buy bonds from itself and transfer those bonds to the children. But this use of tax money would probably lead to a gap somewhere else in the budget, which would be filled by issuing more debt, probably mostly to citizens and governments of other countries. So, one way or the other, it probably turns into deb, to be repaid during someone else's administration.

Posted by: david foster at October 02, 2007 06:02 PM (F+K3/)

8 you DO remember "math" don't you? 0.73% of our nat'l spending. that's what she's talking about. Golly, gee - how EVER could we afford it? ~oldphort

Posted by: oldphort at October 03, 2007 11:53 AM (Q7L9O)

9 Seriously? OMG, you just made my day by posting this. I hadn't heard about this yet. At least I got a good laugh out of it! All you hear about it how the Republicans drove us into debt- but this is okay somehow? Geesh... I think that woman is an idiot, by the way.

Posted by: Kasey at October 03, 2007 01:04 PM (tttDj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
47kb generated in CPU 0.06, elapsed 0.2823 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.244 seconds, 152 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.