Clinton Proposes $5000 "baby bonds".

Roxxxanne:

OK. Your Sept 30, 7:29am Nr 2878161, followed by Oct 01, 7:16am 2870470, seemed to be making the case that we owe all the children something. From there you seemed to support the idea that kicking in $5,000 didn't seem to be too bad an idea to you.

I had assumed that ALL children included your own, if any. And, I would assume, any future children, if any. Hence, my retort.

Perhaps I read too much into your comments, not that there was much to go on in the first place.

I still stand on my initial comment, but I will expand; I do not feel that I (or any taxpayer) owes any child, now or future, anything above and beyond what we are taxed to death to provide them now. Though, I assure you, local and national government will find a way to increase their take for the project(s). :wink:

That we should give money to the newborn to offset what taxes they will pay in the future to offset the National debt not only defies logic, but defies comprehension. That money is owed our creditors (which doesn't necessarily include all citizens, but does includes a lot of foreign countries and citizens, as in Treasury Bills, etc.) and we all are taxed for it, have been taxed for it and we all will continue to be taxed for it, (including all children) now and forever, probably. Sad

bye the bye, I DO try to keep up, but sometimes I get lost in the maze of illogical thinking and ad hominum bombast..... However, in respect to your searing logic and obviously superior intellect, I will endeavor to do better. Embarrassed

Halfback

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

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.

So if we give them 5k that is only a partial payback for the money we have stolen from them.

0 Replies

I think It more .
Today is 3rd October in Germany

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
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.

So if we give them 5k that is only a partial payback for the money we have stolen from them.

I take it you have/had a lousy relationship with your parents.

It's so easy to GIVE your kids $5K each before they reach 18 - hell, it's only $300/year... save it for them for the love of (god). Why ask everyone else to pay it for you (when you know damn well you are paying for your own kids anyway). It's just another incentive to have more kids and not feed them - like so many do - for the benefits.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
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.

So if we give them 5k that is only a partial payback for the money we have stolen from them.

I take it you have/had a lousy relationship with your parents.

It's so easy to GIVE your kids $5K each before they reach 18 - hell, it's only $300/year... save it for them for the love of (god). Why ask everyone else to pay it for you (when you know damn well you are paying for your own kids anyway). It's just another incentive to have more kids and not feed them - like so many do - for the benefits.

The parent's don't receive any benefits. The child does.

The argument that people will use this $5k as an excuse to have more welfare babies is absurd. 1) the parents have no access to the money. 2) the money isn't available for 18 years

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
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.

So if we give them 5k that is only a partial payback for the money we have stolen from them.

I take it you have/had a lousy relationship with your parents.

It's so easy to GIVE your kids $5K each before they reach 18 - hell, it's only $300/year... save it for them for the love of (god). Why ask everyone else to pay it for you (when you know damn well you are paying for your own kids anyway). It's just another incentive to have more kids and not feed them - like so many do - for the benefits.

The parent's don't receive any benefits. The child does.

The argument that people will use this $5k as an excuse to have more welfare babies is absurd. 1) the parents have no access to the money. 2) the money isn't available for 18 years

Why not just save it for them yourself? Hmmm? I see that as a benefit to the dysfunctional parent.

And never trust a welfare recipient - they're smarter than you think when it comes to finding creative ways to rip everyone else off.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

And never trust a welfare recipient - they're smarter than you think when it comes to finding creative ways to rip everyone else off.

My parent's were welfare recipeints for my entire life. I wouldn't have eaten had it not been for foodstamps.

Now, I pay enough in taxes to more then offset the money the state gave to my parents to help ME have a better life (which I do).

**** you and your condescending attitude.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
And never trust a welfare recipient - they're smarter than you think when it comes to finding creative ways to rip everyone else off.

My parent's were welfare recipeints for my entire life. I wouldn't have eaten had it not been for foodstamps.

Now, I pay enough in taxes to more then offset the money the state gave to my parents to help ME have a better life (which I do).

**** you and your condescending attitude.

**** you for getting such a lousy education that you don't realize that my parents, my family, and I paid for you to have a better life. Here's a nickle chump - go down to the five&dime and buy a clue.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

maporsche wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
And never trust a welfare recipient - they're smarter than you think when it comes to finding creative ways to rip everyone else off.

My parent's were welfare recipeints for my entire life. I wouldn't have eaten had it not been for foodstamps.

Now, I pay enough in taxes to more then offset the money the state gave to my parents to help ME have a better life (which I do).

**** you and your condescending attitude.

**** you for getting such a lousy education that you don't realize that my parents, my family, and I paid for you to have a better life. Here's a nickle chump - go down to the five&dime and buy a clue.

Typical.

0 Replies

maporshe: owned.

0 Replies

YOIKS! This IS getting heated! Sad

Let's put this delicately. I fully realize that in every society, all over the world, there are needy. Just as there are deadbeats and drones. As part and parcel of my family budget, every month, certain charities that my wife researches and deems worthy of our money, both foreign and domestic, receives the budgeted amount. In the grand scheme of things it isn't but 5% of the budget (that's after tax dollars).

There is a point to my chest beating ( Embarrassed

) and it is this...... I would rather have the tax money that the Government disperses to it's version of "charity work" in my pocket so I could disperse it to my version of "charity work". (I'd even promise to diserse every nickle I kept from taxes to charity.)

Now why would you want to do all the work when your friendly Government Welfare System can do it for you, you might ask? Because years of watching Congress do "charity work" has fully convinced me that I could do a hell of a lot better job of getting money where it is truly needed than they have demonstrated.

Therefore, when ANY Government Official starts spouting off about a new "giveaway" program, no matter how "warm and fuzzy" it makes you feel in concept, I am first to resist. Mad

Halfback

0 Replies

Consider that they just spent $450K on every displaced citizen of New Orleans - man, woman and child.

****, I can swim.

0 Replies

cjhsa:

The best actor award goes to the Mayor, who yells "Bail out, everyone!", but forgot to have the means (or the plans) on how to get his "poorer" constituents out. Leaving them to their fate, so to speak.

The perfect irony is that they reelected him. HUH? Rolling Eyes

Halfback

0 Replies

Same folks reelected Marion Barry, and Jenifer Granholm. Go figure.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Consider that they just spent $450K on every displaced citizen of New Orleans - man, woman and child.

****, I can swim.

Where the heck did you pull that number from?

Even if we assume every Federal dollar allocated for Rita, Katrina and Wilma went to the 300,000 residents of New Orleans that have not returned it doesn't come close to $450,000 per person.

Federal allocations
http://www3.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20060712_Katrinafactsheet.pdf
$109 billion, not all of which has been spent and much went to Florida, Missouri and Louisiana outside New Orleans.

2006 Census estimate for New Orleans shows it down 300,000 residents
Rand estimates it will only be down 200,000 in 2008
http://www.rand.org/news/press.06/03.15.html

**** <------ it's what you seem to be drowing in.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Where the heck did you pull that number from?

It's been widely reported on TV and radio. Perhaps you need to adjust your dial.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

parados wrote:

Where the heck did you pull that number from?

It's been widely reported on TV and radio. Perhaps you need to adjust your dial.

widely reported? LOL.. Oh? which radio and TV has reported the made up numbers?

As I pointed out the ENTIRE amount that the Federal government has spent is $109 billion for 3 hurricanes, 2 of which did NOT hit New Orleans. Until you can provide some evidence to back up your number I will stick with the government reports on the money spent and the number of people that have still not returned to New Orleans proper.

But maybe you want to argue that the WH is lying to us about the monies spent in places other then New Orleans.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070829-1.html

0 Replies

i'd much rather give my tax money to american kids than iraqi kids.

i'd rather give my tax money to kids than to faith based initiatives.

i'd rather give my tax money to kids than "programs to promote marriage".

i'd rather give my tax money to kids than build an ineffective fence across the southern border.

i'd rather give my tax money to kids than to bribe sunni shiekhs to pretend they are on "our side".

i'd rather give my tax money to kids than a missle defense system that hasn't really worked right since it's inception.

but since clinton didn't announce a program to do so, i guess my tax money will keep going to things i don't approve of.

that's kinda how the system works.

i pay for stuff i don't like. you pay for stuff that you don't like.

0 Replies

On welfare - have a kid - get sterilized.

$127000000000/300,000 displaced = $423,333/person.

End of discussion.

0 Replies

The money spent on New Orleans went to Bush's buddies not the residents of New Orleans.

0 Replies

Clinton Proposes $5000 "baby bonds".

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know