1
   

Clinton Proposes $5000 "baby bonds".

 
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 06:34 am
I like the thought...paying for our future now...it's a much better philosophy than the Bush administration has implemented where we are FINANCING tax cuts.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 06:59 am
Cyclps does math reall good.

I don't think the point should be to pay for all of the education. That it wouldn't is actually good. There has to be some effort and financial commitment from the student. Builds character and makes them appreciate it more, just like adults that have to work for what they receive.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 07:06 am
Something that Cycloptichorn said:
Quote:
I think we could find the money, especially if we cut back on other forms of federal student aid.

triggered this thought:

If Hilary Clinton thinks that every child born in the US needs and should be able to go to college- just as she believes that every child born in the US should be covered by health insurance and have access to appropriate preventitive and palliative medical treatment- this seems like a pretty half-assed and impractical attempt to try to make that happen.

For alot of parents- $5,000 dollars handed to them when they just have their baby would be incredibly gratefully received but probably not banked anywhere- it would go toward diapers and formula and equipment like highchairs and cribs, and maybe a washing machine...and I'm not talking only "poor, minority parents". If someone had given me $5,000 when my son was born- I would have had to spend it- my husband was a fulltime student and I was working two jobs...I would have spent it on day to day living expenses until my son was about ten years old as a matter of fact- which is when we finally finished paying off student loans.

This speaks to the fact that something deemed increasingly "necessary" for any type of professional success and/or even achievement of a moderate standard of living in the US, is priced so that only the top strata can even attain it- and that's often with an inordinate amount of struggle.

In England- there's a tuition cap- 3,000 pounds a year. Any British student can go to any British university for 3,000 pounds a year- that's approx. $6,000 a year. And it won't be more than that no matter who you are or where you go. That's a society which is serious about making higher education accessible to all people.

I'm surprised at this from Hilary. I thought she was smarter and clearer thinking than this...this to me smacks of pandering for votes- from the less advantaged folks who have dreams for their children. But at the same time she's exposed herself by indicating she's be out of touch with the reality of their (less advantaged normal people- as well as downright poor people) day to day lives.
Sure, someone with her life would have taken the money and banked it when Chelsea was born- but there are a hell of alot of Americans who live in a totally different world. She's just proven she has no real idea....

Miller also makes an interesting point about the realities of highschool graduation rates. Maybe she should worry about fixing that first.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 07:09 am
Something that Cycloptichorn said:
Quote:
I think we could find the money, especially if we cut back on other forms of federal student aid.

triggered this thought:

If Hilary Clinton thinks that every child born in the US needs and should be able to go to college- just as she believes that every child born in the US should be covered by health insurance and have access to appropriate preventitive and palliative medical treatment- this seems like a pretty half-assed and impractical attempt to try to make that happen.

For alot of parents- $5,000 dollars handed to them when they just have their baby would be incredibly gratefully received but probably not banked anywhere- it would go toward diapers and formula and equipment like highchairs and cribs, and maybe a washing machine...and I'm not talking only "poor, minority parents". If someone had given me $5,000 when my son was born- I would have had to spend it- my husband was a fulltime student and I was working two jobs...I would have spent it on day to day living expenses until my son was about ten years old as a matter of fact- which is when we finally finished paying off student loans.

This speaks to the fact that something deemed increasingly "necessary" for any type of professional success and/or even achievement of a moderate standard of living in the US, is priced so that only the top strata can even attain it- and that's often with an inordinate amount of struggle.

In England- there's a tuition cap- 3,000 pounds a year. Any British student can go to any British university for 3,000 pounds a year- that's approx. $6,000 a year. And it won't be more than that no matter who you are or where you go. That's a society which is serious about making higher education accessible to all people.

I'm surprised at this from Hilary. I thought she was smarter and clearer thinking than this...this to me smacks of pandering for votes- from the less advantaged folks who have dreams for their children. But at the same time she's exposed herself by indicating she's be out of touch with the reality of their (less advantaged normal people- as well as downright poor people) day to day lives.
Sure, someone with her life would have taken the money and banked it when Chelsea was born- but there are a hell of alot of Americans who live in a totally different world. She's just proven she has no real idea....

Miller also makes an interesting point about the realities of highschool graduation rates. Maybe she should worry about fixing that first.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 07:10 am
Something that Cycloptichorn said:
Quote:
I think we could find the money, especially if we cut back on other forms of federal student aid.

triggered this thought:

If Hilary Clinton thinks that every child born in the US needs and should be able to go to college- just as she believes that every child born in the US should be covered by health insurance and have access to appropriate preventitive and palliative medical treatment- this seems like a pretty half-assed and impractical attempt to try to make that happen.

For alot of parents- $5,000 dollars handed to them when they just have their baby would be incredibly gratefully received but probably not banked anywhere- it would go toward diapers and formula and equipment like highchairs and cribs, and maybe a washing machine...and I'm not talking only "poor, minority parents". If someone had given me $5,000 when my son was born- I would have had to spend it- my husband was a fulltime student and I was working two jobs...I would have spent it on day to day living expenses until my son was about ten years old as a matter of fact- which is when we finally finished paying off student loans.

This speaks to the fact that something deemed increasingly "necessary" for any type of professional success and/or even achievement of a moderate standard of living in the US, is priced so that only the top strata can even attain it- and that's often with an inordinate amount of struggle.

In England- there's a tuition cap- 3,000 pounds a year. Any British student can go to any British university for 3,000 pounds a year- that's approx. $6,000 a year. And it won't be more than that no matter who you are or where you go. That's a society which is serious about making higher education accessible to all people.

I'm surprised at this from Hilary. I thought she was smarter and clearer thinking than this...this to me smacks of pandering for votes- from the less advantaged folks who have dreams for their children. But at the same time she's exposed herself by indicating she's be out of touch with the reality of their (less advantaged normal people- as well as downright poor people) day to day lives.
Sure, someone with her life would have taken the money and banked it when Chelsea was born- but there are a hell of alot of Americans who live in a totally different world. She's just proven she has no real idea....

Miller also makes an interesting point about the realities of highschool graduation rates. Maybe she should worry about fixing that first.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 07:19 am
A couple of points..

Having money to go to college is an incentive to graduate from HS.

If the child does NOT go to college then the money goes back into the program and pays for the $5000 of the kids born that year.

2 year community colleges are not near the cost of major institutions
(It seems 41% of college students attend 2 year colleges at an annual cost of $2,272.)

Miller, your numbers are all wrong...
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/pay/add-it-up/4494.html
From your cost to attend - you include room and board. Most students end up with some part time job to help defer costs.
to the rate of increase - it was only 4-6% last year increase
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 07:27 am
(sorry about my triple post- this satellite internet just isn't what it's cracked up to be).

Who'll police what the parents do with the money though? I mean- will there now be some kind of watchdog organization which will check what's done with the money after it's handed to the parents on the birth of their baby?

I find that incredibly insulting to even think about. And if parents need that money to feed and clothe their child- do you think it's wrong for them to spend it on that instead of having it sit in some account in a bank for eighteen years while their child lives an impoverished and hungry life in the meantime?

It's just impractical- and it's a band-aid. There are other more practical and efficacious ways to approach this issue.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 08:30 am
aidan wrote:
(sorry about my triple post- this satellite internet just isn't what it's cracked up to be).

Who'll police what the parents do with the money though? I mean- will there now be some kind of watchdog organization which will check what's done with the money after it's handed to the parents on the birth of their baby?

I find that incredibly insulting to even think about. And if parents need that money to feed and clothe their child- do you think it's wrong for them to spend it on that instead of having it sit in some account in a bank for eighteen years while their child lives an impoverished and hungry life in the meantime?

It's just impractical- and it's a band-aid. There are other more practical and efficacious ways to approach this issue.



I don't think she's suggesting that the money be given directly to the parents (i.e. 'here's a check') but rather that it be placed in a trust for that child that will mature when the child reaches college age. I doubt very highly that she's suggesting that the parents be given free access to that 5k.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 09:16 am
Laughing Laughing
Yeah, I thought of that after I posted. Sometimes I amaze myself with my literal thinking as well as the fact that because I'm trusting- I think everyone else (even the US government) would be too- enough to treat parents like parents and enable them to make decisions for their own children.

But the concept behind and the core of what I meant remain the same whether that money is handed to the parents or put in some government trust (which for me- given the state of the social security fund- is somewhat of an oxymoron) for each child's future.

On top of which, wouldn't we just be creating another area of governmental no man's land-more beauracracy, red tape, and disappearing funds, etc. etc. Hell, the more I think about it, the more I'd rather hand it to the parents myself.

I just think this is a backward way to approach the problem. If higher education is deemed as necessary in our society- make it accessible to the members of our society. Don't hand out peanuts (which we don't have to hand out as it is) in an effort to pretend to be "solving" the problem.
And I believe Hillary is too smart to even pretend to think this is a viable answer to the problem. She never had my vote- only because I don't think she can win- she's too divisive- but if she had had it- this is just too obviously disingenuous on her part- and this is where she would have lost my vote.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 11:13 am
parados wrote:

From your cost to attend - you include room and board.

Only in one of the final comments.

My first calculation based on tuition at a private college, such as Tufts , Harvard, Brandeis is based on $40,000/year tuition, not including room and board.
When room and board are included with other expenses, the total is closer to $60,000/year.

Most students ar private colleges don't work. It is however, common for kids at community colleges to work. As far as state schools, it really depends on the specific school and major, whether a student works while in school.

I don't think many kids today, work their way through either dental or medical school, unless they do so in the Summer.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 11:15 am
maporsche wrote:
I like the thought...paying for our future now...


If you're paying for the future now, than you'll have to factor in the effect of inflation on the price of a good education.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 03:05 am
Miller wrote:
maporsche wrote:
I like the thought...paying for our future now...


If you're paying for the future now, than you'll have to factor in the effect of inflation on the price of a good education.


And the illegal immigrant factor.

They ought to pay people not to have children.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 07:14 am
Miller wrote:
parados wrote:

From your cost to attend - you include room and board.

Only in one of the final comments.

My first calculation based on tuition at a private college, such as Tufts , Harvard, Brandeis is based on $40,000/year tuition, not including room and board.
When room and board are included with other expenses, the total is closer to $60,000/year.
LOL.. but the actual average tuition at a private college is 22,218. A far cry from your 40,000.
Quote:

Most students ar private colleges don't work.
Because most of them have rich parents that are paying for their schooling.
Quote:
It is however, common for kids at community colleges to work. As far as state schools, it really depends on the specific school and major, whether a student works while in school.
The school and major don't have nearly as much to do with it as the amount of money available to go to school. Even some student atheletes get jobs.
Quote:

I don't think many kids today, work their way through either dental or medical school, unless they do so in the Summer.
No one claimed the $5000 would get them into any school in the US.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 07:15 am
Miller wrote:
maporsche wrote:
I like the thought...paying for our future now...


If you're paying for the future now, than you'll have to factor in the effect of inflation on the price of a good education.


You will have to factor it in at a reasonable rate. Not some made up 8% for 20 years.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 07:46 am
parados wrote:
Miller wrote:
maporsche wrote:
I like the thought...paying for our future now...


If you're paying for the future now, than you'll have to factor in the effect of inflation on the price of a good education.


You will have to factor it in at a reasonable rate. Not some made up 8% for 20 years.



College tuition from 1993-2004
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/CollegeTuitionsUsAverage1993to2004.png



The last 10 years have averaged a 4% annual increase in tuition for public schools.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 08:29 am
Each baby born in the US in 2007 owes much more than $5000 in his or her share of the national debt so it's only fair that we give part of that back.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 09:13 am
Why only a $5000 bond? Why not a $50,000 bond? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 09:16 am
Then if you have 10 kids, all getting ready for college, the net "gift" from the Federal Government would be 10 X $50,000 =
$500,000...

That's a tidy little sum, isn't it?


Confused
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 09:18 am
CerealKiller wrote:
Miller wrote:
maporsche wrote:
I like the thought...paying for our future now...


If you're paying for the future now, than you'll have to factor in the effect of inflation on the price of a good education.


And the illegal immigrant factor.

They ought to pay people not to have children.


But if they did that, who'd vote the slime balls back into office?
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 09:19 am
maporsche wrote:
parados wrote:
Miller wrote:
maporsche wrote:
I like the thought...paying for our future now...


If you're paying for the future now, than you'll have to factor in the effect of inflation on the price of a good education.


You will have to factor it in at a reasonable rate. Not some made up 8% for 20 years.



College tuition from 1993-2004
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/CollegeTuitionsUsAverage1993to2004.png



The last 10 years have averaged a 4% annual increase in tuition for public schools.


Why don't I see a reference to this scholarly presentation? Embarrassedl
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/03/2022 at 05:11:31