About Hillary's $5000.00 for every newborn...?

Question

Would you support Hillary's proposal of the government's providing $5000.00 to every newborn if it meant that it was the first and last handout ever given to that person? She wants to provide for in the beginning, to promote a "good start" in life. Spend it wisely, or spend it foolishly, it's your choice.

Will this act actually help reduce the amount of money spent on welfare, or will the government be back later in life to shell out more $$ to these same people?

Anybody else see a fiscal problem here?

Answer 1

If there was a 100% garantee that $5000 at birth would be the one and only Federal handout, then I would be all for it! But everyone knows that slowly more "neccesary" handouts would be added...and within a few years we'd be back to where we are now, except with a mandatory 5K at birth addition.

But as any slightly inteligent person knows - she only said that is passing to get the attention of poor people. She will never do it, but just mentioning it bought her lots of votes.

Answer 2

wow. That right there makes me totally not want to vote for her no matter what the cost! Tom Tancredo!!! but anyways back to your question. I feel like that would be good for the lower classes but at the same time not because it will encourage underage premarital child birth and will cause an over population. It will not help the welfare programs. I feel like the welfare programs should be only for a limited amount of time. If someone is not keeping a job and cannot support their family then there is no need for welfare for that person. Now if the person just can not get a job then the welfare should be provided so long as they are consistently applying for jobs and looking for employment and going to at least one interview a week. People who are on welfare that abuse the system are many and should be monitered closer to reduce the debt of the country. There are moms that are just making more and more kids because they will get more money on welfare. That needs to stop. Just like the housing authorities for single moms. If you have another kid you get kicked out. They need to be taught how to stop having kids because theyre the bad apples for welfare.

Answer 3

Nope.
All I got when I was born were savings bonds equalling up to $450.
Now I am making $450 every paycheck.

If Hillary gives $5000 of our money to each child born, we would go into debt so fast. over 70000 babies are born in the US each year. If all hell breaks loose with Hillary winning the election, we will spend $350,000,000 on newborn babies.
I will be broke if I still live here in the US if that happened.
Why can't we spend that useful money on something more important like safety or services here in the US? We need more roads, rails, home security, & good paying jobs.

Vote for Rudy in 2008

Answer 4

I don't think it would eliminate Welfare, or even have an effect on Welfare. But it would have an effect on student loans. If you invest $5000, at birth for 18 years at 4% interest (which is on the lower end), you'd end up with $10,129.08 (if only compounded annually, and most mutual funds/bonds are compounded monthly or daily). That could reduce young adults debt, which, like tax reductions, would stimulate the economy. Also, those on Welfare recieve Pell Grants, which is free money from the government to go to college. So it might save money in the future.

I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it is an interesting idea.

Answer 5

If it's a one time payment it would actually save the taxpayers a lot of money. As the tax code is now you can get child credit until they are 17. That adds up tremendously over time. There are problems with this proposal though. How many unfit parents will start having kids just for the money? How many unwanted babies will there be in the US. It may discourage abortions but encourages a population boom when we don't need that. Also the tax code we have now suits the need better because you get more money over a longer period of time as the child grows. A one time payment would be spent shortly and gone.

Answer 6

I would not support it because it will not be the last. Look at the Sub Prime problem. People want handouts here. There is always a group that have their hands out and expect the government to put something in it.

By the way, exactly who is going to pay for it. Surely not Hillary.

Answer 7

I think its pretty ridiculous myself. I see several problems with this idea. First, the only ones spending that money are going to be the parents. Secondly, where does she plan on getting the money to fund this plan, Lastly, did it ever occur to her that people might start having kids just to get the money.

Which means an increase in the population, more people using our precious natural resources, over time this will end up costing this money more money (we don't have) on public education, health-care, law enforcement, and welfare.

If this plan doesn't reek of socialism I don't know what does.

Answer 8

I don't like this proposal at all. My kids' mom is a spendaholic. This money would mostly go to her and her vacations. She is also a sheep so she would use it to further her social status. She is an unfit mother.
My cousin's father spent her inheritance that was to go for her college education. He is a bum. She has to have an appointment to see him. She could never eat dinner with him. She had to eat in her bedroom. How sad is that. Is it any wonder that she was on welfare at one time and has children with multiple fathers? This was the environment she was in for a time. I spent a lot of time with her but it didn't have much of an impact. Finally, it looks like things are better but I haven't been in touch with her for years. My mom and her sisters aren't speaking.

I think a better plan would be to set the money aside and when the kids are 18 or 21, give them the money then.

Answer 9

First of all this policy would never become real....I'm a staunch Democrat, but I see nothing here that would stick. We can't give people a "good start"...this all hearkens back to the statement that we should never depend on our government to bail us out! We must take on or own problems and work through them! Our forefathers never had a hand out..they came here, worked hard and were rewarded according to their own hard work.

It' silly and pretentious to think that the government would ever give money in this fashion.

Answer 10

This is just like saying we will give you a certain amt of money to save for your retirement. Use it wisely because we wont give you any more. Every person is not capable or inclined to make good decisions. When they need money later we will of course be shelling out again or be made to seem inhuman because they are now homeless and starving. Nothing will be saved in this plan.