Posted on 09/29/2007 11:21:54 PM PDT by givemELL
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.
LOL. Give each baby 5K, then when they grow up they can pay it back along with all the interest the government ran up since they borrowed the money to “give” it away.
“The scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you”-—Ronald Reagan
Or maybe a really hot car and some awesome tatoos.
Hillary must be taking advice from Russian presidential candidate Zhirinovsky who promised a liter of vodka and a kilo of sausage to everyone and from Putin’s administration who is giving a $10,000 stipend for each new baby. Crazy.
Why not $6000? or $8500?
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 “baby bond” from the government. Clinton 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 government bond 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 down payment on their first home,” Clinton said.
The plan would be funded by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. “Most taxpayers have more money than they need,” Clinton asserted. “When I’m president, the government will take this money away from them and put it to better use.”
Clinton said such a program “would help build a stronger economy by making an investment in America’s young people.”
The idea of encouraging savings that would grow over time is a key feature of President Bush’s proposal to permit private investment accounts as a way of rescuing the Social Security system from insolvency. Asked if her new enthusiasm for saving and growth meant she was reconsidering her opposition to Bush’s proposal for Social Security reform, Clinton said “No, the president’s plan is predicated on private accounts and individual decisions. He would allow people to choose their own investments. That is too much latitude. We need an approach aimed at the collective good. The government bond in my proposal will ensure that the funds remain securely in the government’s hands.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
All I see is more money for illegal immigrants. This incentive should only apply to Americans who have been here since before WW2. My folks got here in 1906
Of course, we’ll need to tax the parents an extra $10,000 to pay for it.
A Satirical Look...
It’s really becoming confusing if her comments are really that outlandish.
instead of “every” baby, it should only go to the poor kids. I don’t see how it makes sense to tax everyone only to give them their money back to their children when they certainly can do that themselves.
instead of putting it in a government bond, it should be put in a stock/MM/corporate bond index fund.
and instead of it being a new program, it should replace the subsidization of student loans.
We need to encourage savings over debt but the last thing we need is another welfare program on top of everything else.
What she really said:
“Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush’s] tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.
We’re going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
(Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in San Francisco; SFGate.com 6/28/2004.)
“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”
“God bless the America we are trying to create.”
I sometimes think that Dems must daydream of ways to bankrupt the country.
Sure, give each baby $5K, but then don’t bother me about Government scholarships, student loan guarantees, Headstart, Fannie Mae, or a host of other programs. And while you’re at it, how are you gonna keep Mom & Dad from using it to buy cigarettes and lottery tickets? Lastly, imagine the draw such a program will be to pregnant illegals—ay caramba!
Of course a 5K deduction for each child on your income tax is out of the question.
bump
The mothers and fathers of so-called “anchor babies” will thank Hillary with every birth they manage to accomplish on US soil.
Sounds like a page out of the FDR era, and look where that took us and shafted us. Happy days are here again. America is truly the home of the brave and the land of the free. At least it was at one time, long ago.
This appears to be the clincher by Hillary when asked if it was similar to the President’s individual Social Security account methods she responds, “No, the president’s plan is predicated on private accounts and individual decisions. He would allow people to choose their own investments. That is too much latitude. We need an approach aimed at the collective good. The government bond in my proposal will ensure that the funds remain securely in the government’s hands.”
Additionally, we have the proviso of not being able to claim the account until age 18 and graduating from high school.
At 5% APR compounded, that $5k only swells to $12k in 18 years, and by that time it isn’t going to be much of a down payment on a house. (A car down payment, perhaps)
IMHO, the larger risk is that the $5k will trip a 30% tax rate on income, which will probably get countered by a 20% deduction, but still raise the AGI of the average taxpayer, such that they actually pay 5% more in income taxes back to the government in annual cash in return for a 5% account gain, with fair risk of them ever actualizing.
In other words, it isn’t a gift, it’s a hook and those receiving it are losers.
The $5k deduction would save the gov’t more cost and give more value to the taxpayer, and less prone to abuse.
Three communist tyrants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.