Clinton: $5,000 for every U.S. baby

[Former Moderate]

Clinton: $5,000 for every U.S. baby

WASHINGTON - 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. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States."

[MORE]

[Former Moderate]

Dis-f**king-asterous.  There is no way in hell I will ever vote for Hillary unless she takes this proposal off the table.

She clearly has no concept of inflation, little grasp on how people actually behave—a gigantic, government-funded savings account would be a DISincentive to save on your own, and little respect for the voters if she really thinks we're dumb enough to swallow this garbage as a legit proposal.

[ilikeverin]

What a bizarre idea.  At least it's... uh... unique, I suppose.

[12th Doctor]

Hmmm... I think she stole this proposal from Soult-onomics... well, my proposal was only for people who need the money.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

This equals about $2 billion a year. Seems like a lot, but the US is blowing a lot more on dumber things (the Iraq War comes to mind...)

[Ebowed]

Great idea!

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Great idea!

^^^^^^^

But still won't make me support Hillary.

Now what could get me to support Hillary would be something like her publicly telling Ralph Nader to f**k off. In those exact words.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Maybe it's just me after a week of not sleeping, but this was totally not what I was expecting when I saw "Clinton: $5,000 for every U.S. baby".

[Former Moderate]

This equals about $2 billion a year. Seems like a lot, but the US is blowing a lot more on dumber things (the Iraq War comes to mind...)

You're missing a power of ten.  It's $20 billion.

"I think it's a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, an Ohio Democrat who attended the event and has already endorsed Clinton. "Every child born in the United States today owes $27,000 on the national debt, why not let them come get $5,000 to grow until they're 18?"

"I think it's a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, an Ohio Democrat who attended the event and has already endorsed Clinton. "Every child born in the United States today owes $27,000 on the national debt, why not ^make it $32,000 so they can buy a car when they turn 18? let them come get $5,000 to grow until they're 18?"

[Ebowed]

The only problem with this plan is that it doesn't include babies born overseas to at least one U.S. resident.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Epic fail.

[Secretary Polnut]

What a bizarre idea.  At least it's... uh... unique, I suppose.

Not quite - Howard pulled that one out of his hat during the 2004 election. I thought it was a bad idea then... I think it's a REALLY bad idea now. Clinton should never have done this - it sounds good, but there are some negatives to it.

[Pictor Ignotus]

On one hand, panderbear is back.

On the other, realistically it'll probably mean weakening social security so everything will even out. Maybe if the bond is given, they'll need less in Pell grants, so again evening things out.

[Former Moderate]

The only problem with this plan is that it doesn't include babies born overseas to at least one U.S. resident.

And the massive spike in inflation that will occur 18 years following the plan's implementation.  That could be a problem too.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Very strange idea to say the least.

[MarkWarner08]

Dis-f**king-asterous.  There is no way in hell I will ever vote for Hillary unless she takes this proposal off the table.

She clearly has no concept of inflation, little grasp on how people actually behave—a gigantic, government-funded savings account would be a DISincentive to save on your own, and little respect for the voters if she really thinks we're dumb enough to swallow this garbage as a legit proposal.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Amen.

Hillary's plan: Worst. Pander. Ever.

[Lіef]

This makes sense in Europe, where they have a negative growth rate. But it's kind of bizarre here...

[Tender Branson]

This makes sense in Europe, where they have a negative growth rate. But it's kind of bizarre here...

Looks like Hillary Clinton is pulling a Bruno Kreisky (note: most powerful Social Democratic Austrian chancellor in the 1970s) who introduced "birth allowance" valued at then 8.000 Schilling for every child born. Inflation-adjusted this would mean about 1.000-1.500€ (=1.500-2.000 $) nowadays per child. This was substituted in 1997 with "maternity allowance" and additional forms of child and family benefits. Basically, if you are a 7-month pregnant woman in Austria, you are banned from working about 8 weeks before your calculated birth date and you´ll get your whole net income until 8 weeks after the birth of your child. By then you normally applied for additionally family and child benefits, so that you are getting between 500-1000€ a month in benefits - 3 years long.

Back to Socialist Kreisky: Did the "child allowance" he introduced in the mid 70s bring any good for the number of births ? Well, it was so-so. The Austrian birth rate hit a record 1.9% in the early 60s and steadily declined afterwards to 1.2% in the mid 70s. Between 1975 (implementation) and 1997 (substitution) the birth rate just declined to 1.1%, with a slight upward trend in the early 80s and early 90s, just to reach record lows from 2000-2006. Kreisky was blamed by conservatives for skyrocketing the national debt during his time in power, but was seen as a huge freedom fighter for Social Rights in Austria. One of his most famous slogans was: "I would prefer the state to run up high debts rather than see people become unemployed."

Where does Austria stand now ?

The national debt is declining for years now, from 70% of GDP to less than 60% now (mainly achieved by skilled conservative finance minister Karl-Heinz-Grasser), the unemployment rate is rather low (4% -> OECD calculated rate) and the budget will be balanced in a few years. Yet 1 problem remains: The birth rate remains low. But is it bad ? Hell, no. There are plenty people on this planet for selective skilled immigration.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Give $10,000 for every abortion instead and make birth control and condoms free.

[AkSaber]

Epic fail.

Yes it is.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Epic fail.

Yes it is.

We shouldn't be promoting population growth. We need to make promotion of birth controls, contraception and legal abortion a condition of recieving any food/medical/other humanitarian aid.

[gorkay]

It's an interesting idea. Obviously there are a lot of details to work out about it, but it sounds promising in concept at least.

I wonder about the reasoning power of someone who would say that this idea is "crazy," yet not bat an eye as the government spends billions on weapons systems we don't need.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Epic fail.

Yes it is.

We shouldn't be promoting population growth. We need to make promotion of birth controls, contraception and legal abortion a condition of recieving any food/medical/other humanitarian aid.

Interesting idea.

[Nym90]

It's an interesting idea. Obviously there are a lot of details to work out about it, but it sounds promising in concept at least.

I wonder about the reasoning power of someone who would say that this idea is "crazy," yet not bat an eye as the government spends billions on weapons systems we don't need.

Agreed. It's not as though we couldn't afford this plan easily if we wanted to; the argument that it would be too expensive doesn't really hold water.

Now as to whether or not it's actually a good idea, I would agree with Supersoulty that there should be an income cap, although that of course would decrease its popularity as it would then become a welfare program. It's a good idea, though it could use some refinement.

[Lіef]

I think it would be more helpful to use that money to pay for Universal Healthcare and making college cheaper/investing in pre-college education.