This is a REALLY bad idea. They just brought this in in Australia a few years back. Basically, all it did was encouage really young women to go out and get pregnant because of the cash. The older and more sensible ones could see that it takes A LOT more than $5000 to raise a child.
This program was a complete joke. I usually think Hillary has good policies, but this is terrible.
2007-09-28 09:33:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Bad. My reasons:
(1) It is wealth redistribution and not necessarily to the children it targets. Families with children are likely to save less, given that the government has chipped in $5000, which will grow over time. Via this substitution, some of the $5000 + interest over 18 years will result in more money for the parents, because they will spend less on their children's post-18 education. It would make more sense if it was matching grant to families, that would encourage savings on their part.
(2) It isn't an investment in "our children". IF it was earmarked for education and/or training, and it actually CAUSED MORE education or training, THEN you could say it was an investment. BUT, it is a very poorly targeted investment and would easily be beat by programs that specifically addressed access to education. In other words, it is not cost-effective.
(3) It will encourage SOME parents to have MORE children. The likely group to be swayed will be the low income group, which already is a positive net user of government programs (what they take minus what they pay in taxes). These families will now have an even LARGER carbon footprint.
I usually vote Democrat, but this hair-brained idea is enough to cause me to either vote Independent, Green, or to abstain from voting. Mrs. Clinton, with this type of Socialist thinking, has lost my vote for good.
2007-09-28 10:50:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by Citizen for President 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bribery bond? How much would this program cost? Figure 4 million US births per year, and $5,000 per kid is $20 Billion dollars. Throw government inefficiency into the equation and squandering of taxes collected (Social security for example) it will cost about $2000 Billion and the money available for actual college expenses when the kids are old enough will be a shocking huge statement "Gee, where did all the money go?"
It is a bad idea. It is socialism and redistribution of wealth which will return very little of what is put in to most Americans.
2007-09-28 09:45:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Someone who cares 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Link?
2007-09-28 09:30:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by buffytou 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
She's made this proposal before. But you just had to mention that she spoke of it at a "black caucus" to give the first impression that it's a handout to minorites. I wonder where you guys pick up all these techniques.
My answer is no, it's a bad proposal because it will be so vehemently opposed by partisan Republicans.
2007-09-28 09:41:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
That depends on how Senator Clinton proposes to come up with an additonal $21.5 BILLION DOLLARS each year, which is what the program would cost. Will the money come out of thin air? I don't think so. Will it come out of every working American's paycheck? Yep, there's nowhere else for it to come from.
Some government programs sound great until you stop to think how they will be paid for.
2007-09-28 10:14:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Indigo Jones 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
She just announced to the world that we don't have enough illegal immigrants. If she is going to give $5000 to every child, can you imagine the influx of pregnant illegal immigrants we will see in this country. Where does she plan to raise all this money from? Hillary is just another big government liberal who wants total control over your everyday life. Anyone who supports this measure is 100% certified idiot.
2007-09-28 09:32:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by - 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
HAHAHAHAHA. You gotta love the Clintons - they are the kings of unmitigated pandering. The question is going to be no count if the everyday American is sensible sufficient to work out by this coverage or no count if their instinctive anti-intellectualism gets the greater useful of them. i'm no longer rather confident. perchance the shown fact that u . s . at present pronounced an identical factor will make it look quite much less "elite."
2016-10-09 23:49:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by uhlman 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Stupid
Overnight, the price of a college education will jump $5000.
2007-09-28 09:29:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by BigD 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think it is a great investment into America. The money remain and gain interest for years. If she wanted to put $100 billion into invading a country neo-cons would be all fo it.
The USA indirectly pays for Israeli college tuition. By funding their military Israel has the funds to pay tuition for their citizens.
Rather than investing only in war, neo-cons, would benefit the most from this. Talk about an investment that would return some real dividends down the road.
Its an investment folks. And only kids who are eligible to attend college can take advantage of this. They in turn become better paid workers and therefor decrease crime while increasing the tax base.
Currently, the US is extending Z Visas due to a lack of US Engineers.
2007-09-28 09:30:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by Chi Guy 5
·
0⤊
4⤋