1
   

Clinton Proposes $5000 "baby bonds".

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 09:29 am
Miller wrote:

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

That is funny Miller...

After the way you made up numbers you want others to give us a reference for theirs?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 09:50 am
parados wrote:
Miller wrote:

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

That is funny Miller...

After the way you made up numbers you want others to give us a reference for theirs?


Old girl, why not? Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 06:15 pm
Miller wrote:
parados wrote:
Miller wrote:

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

That is funny Miller...

After the way you made up numbers you want others to give us a reference for theirs?


Old girl, why not? Laughing Laughing Laughing


grabbed it off of wikipedia.

you could have went to properties on the picture (right click, scroll donw to 'properties', etc) and found this url

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/CollegeTuitionsUsAverage1993to2004.png






and please, show me a similar scholarly document showing inflation adjusted figures for public colleges in the US that give you your 8% number.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 10:37 pm
I'll go with the post that decried the whole notion as a "Cam-pain (sic-mine) Promise". A will of the wisp.

As for who would pay for it..... "the rich", which, my experience over time has shown, is Governmentally defined as those who make just enough money NOT to be able to qualify for any of the previous Government give away programs. Razz

Halfback
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 06:37 am
Did anyone ask WHY the taxpayers should give 5K to anyone who has a child?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 07:05 am
woiyo wrote:
Did anyone ask WHY the taxpayers should give 5K to anyone who has a child?


Exactly. IMO, it is one of the more stupid ideas that has come across the campaign pike. Then again, "A chicken in every pot" got a lot of good political mileage. And you know what happened to THAT presidency! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 07:31 am
woiyo wrote:
Did anyone ask WHY the taxpayers should give 5K to anyone who has a child?

Who suggested that everyone that has a child gets $5000?

Why don't you try asking questions about the proposed program?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 07:35 am
parados wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Did anyone ask WHY the taxpayers should give 5K to anyone who has a child?

Who suggested that everyone that has a child gets $5000?

Why don't you try asking questions about the proposed program?


Might have something to do with this...

Quote:
"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so when that young person turns 18, if they have finished high school, they will be able to access it to go to college," Clinton said.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 07:48 am
McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Did anyone ask WHY the taxpayers should give 5K to anyone who has a child?

Who suggested that everyone that has a child gets $5000?

Why don't you try asking questions about the proposed program?


Might have something to do with this...

Quote:
"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so when that young person turns 18, if they have finished high school, they will be able to access it to go to college," Clinton said.

And where does it say the parent gets $5000?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 08:09 am
Thanks for the help Mr. Literal. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 08:10 am
HILLARY'S INCOME TRANSFER SCHEME

You've heard the latest, haven't you? This one came out last Friday afternoon. Hillary (please sit down) wants for the federal government to "give" every baby born in America a $5,000 account that can start growing and earning interest so that by the time this kid turns 18 they'll have money to go to college.

No .. I'm not kidding. She actually came out with this idea at a speech before a Congressional Black Caucus forum. It's a brand new entitlement program, courtesy of Hillary Clinton.

Just think about it! Download a baby, and presto!, the taxpayers owe your new child a cool five thousand!

This is pure Hillary Clinton. This is a woman who believes that America is government. If government decides that every new baby gets five grand, then that's all there is to it. Every new baby gets five grand.

Where does it come from? Oh, come on now. Ask Hillary and she'll just tell you it comes from the government. If you ask her where the government is going to get the money, she'll prattle on about repealing the Bush tax cuts or some such nonsense. Bottom line? A new entitlement program. Here's your birth certificate, here's $5,000, and welcome to America!

Let me tell you how Hillary's idiotic little income redistribution idea is going to work out in real life --- after, that is, the young single women of this country make her our next president.

First we'll have to figure out whether or not the five grand baby bonus will be paid to a baby born in this country of illegal aliens. Well of course it would! After all, the baby's a citizen, isn't he? We certainly don't want to discriminate. So .. here's a scenario that will become all-too common. Consuelo lives in Tijuana. Consuelo is pregnant .. bulging, wide-eyed pregnant. Sus roturas del agua. Consuelo heads for the border ... eager to get to the emergency room of a U.S. hospital. And why would that be? Why, so her baby can get it's $5,000, that's why? You couldn't figure that out on your own? Must be government educated. Pity.

Another question. Just how will the parents be able to invest the baby's money?

You can be sure there will be restrictions. Maybe this would be a good time to resurrect the Democrat's idea of "economically targeted investments." Maybe the law would say that you could only invest the money in stocks of a company that is deemed to be "union friendly!" Or maybe it could only be invested in savings institutions that show the politically correct inclination to make loans to minorities with bad credit and job histories!

How would the baby bonus play out around election time? Well, that's a simple enough question to answer. The Democrats would have two stock campaign tactics ready for each election: (1) Vote for me and I'll raise the baby bonus to $6000! A sure winner with every pregnant or hoping-to-be pregnant voter out there. (2) Vote for a Republican and they're going to take your baby bonus away!

What happens when spending gets a little tight? This one's simple also. Democrats will suggest that the baby bonus get phased out for people in upper income brackets. In other words, stiff the high achievers. In order to increase the baby bonus for lower and middle income parents, the Democrats will phase it out for the minority who earn the higher incomes. The math is so simple you should be able to figure it out even if you went to a government school. There are more households who make under $200,000 a year in this country than there are those who make more. Cut off the baby bonus for the evil rich, increase it for the poor and middle income types --- and the votes come rolling in.

Remember Hillary shrieking "I want to take those profits" after Exxon Mobile posted a rather hefty profit figure? Sure she wants to take those profits. She already thinks they belong to her anyway! This is a woman who harbors a gut belief that every penny you earn belongs to the federal government. You are to be allowed to keep just enough of what you earn to keep you fat and reasonably complacent. Beyond that, it's hers, and she will throw it around the way she pleases.

Hold tight, my friends. There's sure to be more Hillary absurdities on the way.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 08:16 am
Unhinged Neil Boortz wrote:

Just think about it! Download a baby, and presto!, the taxpayers owe your new child a cool five thousand!


We already owe them more than that, moron.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 08:29 am
That came up in conversation. The original Clinton utterance was just that, an utterance. It makes almost as much sense as the Edwards utterance about giving seed money to "the poor" to open savings accounts so they can save money. HUH?

While we are on the topic of inane utterances, how about the presidential hopeful at the last Democratic debate who sounded somewhat proud that he had stuck the "credit card" companies for $85,000 in his bankruptcy. (I believe that was the figure.) (Guess who pays for that, in the long run?) I could have sworn he also said "they deserved it", but I was swearing aloud it the time.

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 08:44 am
McGentrix: Well said! We are akin in our thinking on the topic.

Roxxxanne: Where in the world did you EVER come up with the idea that I (or anyone else, for that matter) owes YOUR children anything at all? I hold to the belief that if you procreate them, you take care of them. It's called personal responsibility. Something sadly lacking in certain segments of our society.

Halfback

P.S. "The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first."
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 09:01 am
Halfback wrote:
McGentrix: Well said! We are akin in our thinking on the topic.

Roxxxanne: Where in the world did you EVER come up with the idea that I (or anyone else, for that matter) owes YOUR children anything at all? I hold to the belief that if you procreate them, you take care of them. It's called personal responsibility. Something sadly lacking in certain segments of our society.

Halfback

P.S. "The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first."



The federal tax code wouldn't agree with you (child tax credit gives the parents $18,000 over the life of 1 child).

Nor would most state property taxes (much of which go to paying for children't eduction, here in IL my taxes on my 300k home are over 7k of which at least 60% goes to education).

Nor most places that allow children to get in for free (some movie theaters, resturants, etc....those free tickets/meals mean my tickets/meals have to cost more to make up the difference.)
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 09:28 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
Unhinged Neil Boortz wrote:

Just think about it! Download a baby, and presto!, the taxpayers owe your new child a cool five thousand!


We already owe them more than that, moron.


Why the hell didn't anyone tell me that all I had to do was Download my babies? Do you have ANY idea what I went through to get them here?

I'm thinking the "We already owe them more" comment relates to the national debt they are strapped with from the moment they ... um, get downloaded.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 09:33 am
Yes, and the examples go on......

Still does not require me to be happy about the situation!

I can do little about the situation as it stands, but I can, at least, protest further Congressional maladroitness in the use (or gathering) of taxpayer money.

Why is it that the Congress of the US seems to think that the solution to any problem is to fire great gobs of money at it? Particularly if "the solution" might buy them votes.

Halfback
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 09:52 am
Halfback wrote:
McGentrix: Well said! We are akin in our thinking on the topic.

Roxxxanne: Where in the world did you EVER come up with the idea that I (or anyone else, for that matter) owes YOUR children anything at all? I hold to the belief that if you procreate them, you take care of them. It's called personal responsibility. Something sadly lacking in certain segments of our society.

Halfback

P.S. "The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first."


While I would love to take credit for the words, they belong to Neal Boortz (you can follow link at top of post). I do agree with them though and agree completely with you on the need for personal responsibility.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 10:36 am
She makes this "pledge" before the National Black Caucus.

Would she make the same pledge to the "National White Working Peoples Caucus"?

How silly the loonies are trying to defend something that can never be delivered and is obviously a scam to buy the votes of the poor. When will she make a speech to the Balck Caucus talking about people taking responsibility for their actions, working hard, getting a job (or 2 if necessary)?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 10:45 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
Unhinged Neil Boortz wrote:

Just think about it! Download a baby, and presto!, the taxpayers owe your new child a cool five thousand!


We already owe them more than that, moron.


"WE" owe your child NOTHING!!!

YOU owe them shelter, food, clothing and access to free education and an environment free of abuse. YOU get a tax deduction for each knothead YOU bring into this society, now YOU want ME to give YOU more of MY money that I worked for? Rolling Eyes
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 08/13/2022 at 01:03:38