It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Proposes $5K For Each Baby

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Hillary Proposes $5K For Each Baby


www.ibsys.com

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 28-9-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
You gotta hand it to those Democrats - always thinking up ways to create new voters! From cradle to grave, let the gov't take care of us!

We'll figure out how to pay for it later.

www.ibsys.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I've already got my checkbook out...

$20 billion... That's a drop in the bucket compared to what she really has in store for us... I'm definitely on the "supply side' of her policies, and as such, I think I deserve to be kissed before I am...

Bond Monkeys, not just for my word is anymore....



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Too bad she can not be jailed for making offers like this. It essentially amounts to what the Old time DJs called payola play my record or in this case have a baby and I will give you 5K, just empty promises


[edit on 9/28/2007 by shots]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
This is going to sound really bad but Im just going to say it as is;

After years in the PICU dealing with some of the worst dispicable, least fit parents I have come to this conclution:

The least desireable you are as a parent or a human being the inversely more fertile you are.

Some of these drugged up abusive parents pop out children like they were a giant Pez dispencer.

Great call Hillary, lets give these unfit parents a reason to procreate more :shjk:



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Yup this is a great idea! where will she get the $5000 from? The taxpayers? Oh they are already broke enough, how about putting all that money in the economy so the dollar does not fall even further then it is.
If you want to waste it then just give it to the Bush administration, maybe he can buy 4 plates, 2 forks and 1 bullet with it.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Too bad she can not be jailed for making offers like this. It essentially amounts to what the Old time DJs called payola play my record or in this case have a baby and I will give you 5K, just empty promises


[edit on 9/28/2007 by shots]


I agree... Thats just gonna prmote people to have more babies which our country can't afford to do...5 k aint poo compared to the millions we will pay for the poor people who cant afford to have the babies anyways. Then somebody will eventually find a way to access that money adn peple will just have the babies thinking they will somehow get that money.......on paper looks alright. think abou it for like 30 seconds and it just angers me.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 28/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Great call Hillary, lets give these unfit parents a reason to procreate more :shjk:


This was my exact thought when I read the OP.
Geez................I would think it far more productive to give this said 5K boon to perants that test drug free, and/or to promising children with high test scores yet low income (drug free) familys.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
And the best part of it all??? I am willing to bet that anchor babies get it too!!! Woot, way to further milk the tax payers, Hilary.

Is there even anyone still in Mexico at this point?


apc

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Woof.

OK lets see... birth rate is currently 1.416 percent.

Say 4,200,000 babies a year for a population of 300,000,000.

That's $21,000,000,000 annually.

$5,000 per rugrat... parked in a 529 (if they're lucky) would probably net around 8%.

$5,000 at 8% with no contributions would be about $20,000 at age 18.

Today, the average cost of in-state tuition for a four year college is $30,000. Given a tuition inflation rate of 6%, a baby born today can expect to pay $85,000 to go to school.

85,000 > 20,000

So Hillary is promising the children of the future one year at college.

This is literally our tax dollars at work... awesome.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Mrs. Bill Clinton was against Partial privatization of Social Security because she didn't believe the average american could invest their money properly.

Now she likes the idea of bonds for future growth?

Can anyone be seriously thinking about voting for this person?



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Well, she just gave me another reason not to vote for her. I'm glad we are hearing about her "brilliant" ideas now instead of after she is elected though.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Just letting you guys know that in Australia we already have this $5,000 bonus for for new babies, the family receives it every year for 5 years (per baby). A lot of developed countries around the world also have similar policies, especially in Europe and Russia.

I think this policy is common sense considering the cost of raising a child, declining birth rates and the fact that these children benefit society as a whole. The cost of this policy is outweighed by the social costs of a declining birth rate, ageing populations and the need for more immigration to fill the gaps.


apc

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   
All the other countries that are tumbling into the hellfire that is Socialism can have it.

But with a current global population doubling rate of 60 years, declining birth rates are a good thing.

Then there's these little issues:

1. As FredT pointed out, idiots have problems using condoms.

2. As LostNemesis pointed out, we have an industrial anchor baby problem.

3. As I am pointing out, many people (illegals especially) believe having a kid is their ticket to the welfare line. They don't get married because the mother receives more benefits if she's single. Because of the obvious instabilities the parents split up and we have the horribly destructive problem of single motherhood we are faced with today. As the parent(s) was incompetent to begin with, the cycle continues. The child grows up believing being on welfare is good and beneficial, and the Social Democrats get a new voter.

Marx was wrong. Socialism is not the natural evolution of a society. It is forced into existence through long-term social manipulation by enemies of freedom. It must be defeated as the result is the United Socialist States (NAU)... and that didn't go too well for Russia.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   
1. Australia is not a country tumbling into the hellfire of socialism, the government in power at the moment is the equivalent of your Republican party.

2. The population doubling is not coming from Western countries, where the birth rate is less than 2 children per family. We’re actually importing children from these growing countries in order to make up for our shrinking population.

3. I think that if poor families are going to have lots of children they’re going to do it regardless of whether they get this baby bond.

4. If poor families do get this baby bond theoretically their children will be able to get a better education and be able to escape poverty, effectively reducing the number of people relying on welfare.

5. This baby bond would be targeted at middle class families that are choosing more and more not to have kids because it’s too expensive. So less, well educated middle class kids are being born, and being replaced by poorly educated lower class kids.

6. I’m sure the baby bonds will be invested at more then 8% per annum, that’s about how much you would receive at a bank. I think 20% per annum sounds a bit more reasonable.

7. Illegal immigrants most probably aren’t entitled to this baby bond.

8. In Australia we have the $5,000 baby bonus which is meant to cover the cost of the baby e.g. hospital costs, nappies, clothes, books etc. This is probably a better idea than the baby bond proposed by Clinton. I think in Russia and some European countries they give tax breaks for having children, which in my opinion is an even better idea. This means it’s less attractive for lower income families, and more attractive to higher income families.

9. I’m sure an economy like America’s can handle spending $10-$20 Billion a year on such a policy considering the future benefits it will provide.

10. What Karl Marx predicted was the rise of the trade union movement, it was just incorrectly interpreted by Lenin and co. as the states responsibility to impose collectivization and heavily regulate the economy.

P.S This topic reminds me of a movie I watched recently called “Idiocracy”, if you haven’t seen it I suggest you hire it out, one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen.


apc

posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
1. In the US it is clear Bush has had his hand in this. It is a virus, and Republicans can be infected as well.

2. Sucks to be in your country then. Growth here is strong.

3. Yes, but they don't need any more incentives to misbehave. Having a child should be a decision of responsible parents able to support that decision. Letting the Government support their decision for them takes away responsibility.

4. Theoretically? No. Hypothetically. However I'd say one year at college would be more of an insult than a charity.

5. No, they are living longer and choosing to have kids later in life.

6. 20%?! Oh really? Just what fund will that whopping five grand be earning 20% in for 18 years? These are government bonds after all. The money actually being put in a 529 is optimistic.

7. And most probably monkeys will not fly out my butt.

8. It is the responsibility of the parents to plan appropriately and to decide to have children when they are capable of supporting and providing for the child. Regardless, I'd welcome tax breaks over wealth redistribution any day any time.

9. It's the principle of the matter. She'll be telling the children of the future, "Don't worry. It doesn't matter if your parents don't teach you how to take care of yourself. The Government will take care of you."

10. And you think modern liberals aren't doing the same?



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Ever see Idiocracy?

Well, here we go.

Ask anyone around here to name some Presidential candidates and the answer is always the same: Hillary Clinton and the black guy (they cant remember his name). Needless to say the area I am in is populated exclusively by morons who would rather have spinning rims on their cars than own property and if isnt on the E Channel it just isnt happening.

So all of these people hear Clinton promising them free money for their bad behavior. They love it. Dont mention anything at all about taxation, finance or the economy, they wouldn't understand. All they hear is free $5,000. I'd be willing to bet they don't understand the money is to be put in some ridiculous fund. They think they're getting a check for $5,000 to do with what they please.

I can understand in a perfect world where Cthulwho apparently lives why the idealistic and fantasy driven would like such an idea but in practice this asinine move would simply reward bad behavior by people who honestly have absolutely no sense. Dont these people exist in Australia? I speak from 30 years experience living in welfare central surrounded by every kind of government "help-out-the-poor" program under the sun that this madness never ever helps anyone. It makes thing so unbelievably worse you can't imagine. The cities around me are crumbling with crime and poverty and are all headed for bankruptcy if they aren't bankrupt already because of these idiotic policies and people keep asking for and voting for more!

Why haven't any of the candidates talked about REALLY helping people by ending these NAFTA and CAFTA things, bringing industry and manufacturing jobs back to America, ending these ridiculous and crippling taxes and locking down the borders? It's not that hard it just takes some work and you'll have to say no to special interests groups. Instead they make more ridiculous promises and push us further down the road to economic collapse.

Well, that's just great.

I swear this is all being done on purpose. There simply is no other explanation for making such obviously bad decisions over and over and over and not ever learning anything from it.

I hope idiotic ideas like this win out and I hope we all get taxed 80% and I hope the dollar collapses into oblivion and there is no more food or medicine or clean water for anybody. Even then I don't think people will learn their lesson. I've run out of hair to pull out.



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 02:24 AM
link   
This amounts to nothing more than a bribe to the Democrats' favorite base: the poor and uninformed. What they don't understand is the Government under Hillary Clinton will get it back from the same people in HIGHER TAXES, at the cost of a DISMAL JOB MARKET (If you raise taxes on the "rich"--people/corporations who do the hiring, there will be LESS HIRING!).

Unfortunately, there are enough poor baby-making welfare mommas out there that it might actually get her MORE VOTES, which is the only thing Hillary Clinton really wants!

---DEMOCRATS--Punishing Productivity Since the 1970's!!



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 02:31 AM
link   
jsobecky,

If the cowboys AND indians (just look at our avatars!) can see through this, why won't everyone else??????


[edit on 12-10-2007 by CreeWolf]



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   
this lady is insane. everytime she proposes something it is more ridiculous. the only people it seems she is trying to attract is the welfare queens and ghetto rats with all that free stuff....guess who is going to pay for it in the long run.
socialism, take fromn the rich/middle class and give to the lazy.

why doesn't she propose something worth while
ie:
1. random drug/alcohol screening those on welfare and food stamps

2. if you are on welfare and food stamps you must also be on a contraceptive. you get pregnant it is a strike against you. it happens again you have the option of surgery or get off government subsistance. the rest of us shouldn't be forced to support you and your ill planned litter.

3. minimum knowledge testing before being allowed to vote. type of questions would be basic: "who is vice president?" "point out the US on a map" "how many states in the union?" that sort of thing just to make sure they are not retarded and just voting for someone "cuz she black" or "cuz she a womin"

4. a voter should be able to pass an english language test to vote. and have a valid social security card.

man i could go on for weeks......



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join