Hillary wants to buy votes

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nation ... id=1034802

I meant to post this as it was in the news a few days ago. Anyway, Hillary wants the government to buy every baby a $5,000 bond. She's made that a part of her campaign now.

Talk about buying votes... So how does the "government" buy bonds? Through taxes. And we pay taxes. So Hillary would like to redistribute wealth in $5,000 chunks. This is just another entitlement program, and she's not even trying that hard to hide it.

Right now, there are about 4,000,000 births in the US per year (its actually a little higher). So Hillary just proposed a new $20 billion dollar per year social entitlement program, with little explanation on how she going to pay for it (you know she won't cut spending in other programs, so obviously it will be in a tax increase).

She just bought a significant number of votes with that, especially in the low-income category, since they don't pay very much in taxes. I guess the only silver lining in this is that Catholics make out!

[Embar Angylwrath]

Oh, I forgot this gem (sorry for the double post)

"I think it’s a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie Stubbs 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 their 18?"

So, with every child owing $27,000 of the national debt, this Ohio Democrat wants to help the situation by... ADDING MORE DEBT.

Priceless.

[Trollbait]

And people criticized me when I said she sounded Marxist....


She is actually starting to sound worse.....she is starting to sound Stalinist...

[Finglefinn]

So, with every child owing $27,000 of the national debt, this Ohio Democrat wants to help the situation by ADDING MORE DEBT.

Priceless.

Adding more debt and thereby increasing the interest we pay on the debt as well, which is compounding the problem, literally.

Way to go, moron.

[Ddrak]

Sounds like a program that doomed to die in the details. Is the bond willable? Exactly what can it be used for? Can it be touched by bankruptcy proceedings? Is the interest taxable? Does a Mexican that runs across the border to have a baby get a $5000 windfall? What happens if the child leaves the country and/or gives up their citizenship? Exactly how are the "bonds" invested - is there any guarantee provided that they will retain capital value? etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Of course, this is completely over the top of my personal feelings that the government shouldn't be doing stuff like this in the first place. Increase the tax-free threshold on income taxes would be a better way to go if you really want to buy votes.

But, essentially, politics these days is mostly about buying votes. Who was it that said people would vote themselves money if given the chance?

Dd

[Kulaf]

Just another BS campaign promise that will go nowhere.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Just another BS campaign promise that will go nowhere.

You're probably right, but its going to garner her some votes, because she just opened up the candy store to entitlement leeches.

[Harlowe]

Just another BS campaign promise that will go nowhere.

You're probably right, but its going to garner her some votes, because she just opened up the candy store to entitlement leeches.

She can't open that candy store on her own and I don't see that having a snowballs chance in hell of coming to fruition. It's just bs vote pandering.

Seems like a pretty whimsical idea from the ol' Hildy.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Exactly my point, Harlowe. Hillary is too smart to think this will ever get signed into law. Therefore, she's blatantly misleading voters. Pandering, as you call it. Snake-oil salesman, I call it.

Is THIS the person the left wants in the Oval Office? Someone who panders knowing there's no chance in hell this will ever become a program?

I notice Klast and Partha are uncharacteristcally silent on this issue.

[Partha]

I'm uncharicteristically silent because it's plain stupid. But then again, Hillary ranks only about 3000 meters above any Republican candidate out there, and a few miles behind a couple of others.

You wanna give your kids money? Take the tax hit now and PAY DOWN THE FUCKING NATIONAL DEBT.

[Lurker]

Embar probably wouldn't be opposed to giving a $5000 voucher to everyone every year for private school, but somehow a $5000 bond at birth is over the top.

I have no idea if her plan is workable or passable because I haven't seen it, but it's a fact that investing a small amount of money at birth is a great way to pay for college, and if having more college eductated citizens is a priority it's well worth the investment of tax dollars.

[Finglefinn]

Lurker, education is already funded by the biggest chunk of the national budget. There's a huge difference between the government buying a $5,000 savings bond and giving a parent a $5,000 voucher for schooling. The bond is creation of debt, the voucher is changing the way the education budget is spent.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Embar probably wouldn't be opposed to giving a $5000 voucher to everyone every year for private school, but somehow a $5000 bond at birth is over the top.

I have no idea if her plan is workable or passable because I haven't seen it, but it's a fact that investing a small amount of money at birth is a great way to pay for college, and if having more college eductated citizens is a priority it's well worth the investment of tax dollars.

Never have I heard such idiocy.

If she "truely" wanted to make those funds tied to education, she would:
1. Figure out a way to fund it, and
2. Make them available for educational purposes only.

Not buy a house, not buy a car, not a free giveaway of money. She didn't earmark the "savings" bond for any particular purpose. She just mentioned a few things the bond could be used for, but she mentioned NOTHING about restricting the bond to a particualr use.

If you like that notion, Lurker, hand each kid a few hundred bucks, because that is what its going to cost you. Its a program that costs over $20,000,000,000 per year. Take that amount of money, and divide it by every worker here in the US (about 200 million). Then adjust for the people who don't pay taxes.

[Lurker]

Not buy a house, not buy a car, not a free giveaway of money. She didn't earmark the "savings" bond for any particular purpose. She just mentioned a few things the bond could be used for, but she mentioned NOTHING about restricting the bond to a particualr use.

She said it would be restricted to college or a downpayment on a first home, so nothing you said here was true. Typical.

[Trollbait]

You actually have a quote where she uses the word "restricted", Lurker?

I would like to see it.

The actual quote I did read could be read both ways.

[Partha]

Is this the quote in question? Someone link it for Jecks, cuz I know he can't read my posts:

"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.

So, obviously, it won't be $20 billion, since not every kid will graduate at 18.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Not buy a house, not buy a car, not a free giveaway of money. She didn't earmark the "savings" bond for any particular purpose. She just mentioned a few things the bond could be used for, but she mentioned NOTHING about restricting the bond to a particualr use.

She said it would be restricted to college or a downpayment on a first home, so nothing you said here was true. Typical.

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,

That's her quote. Where is the word restricted used? She wants to give away $5,000, and she suggested two ways the money could be used. Later on in her speech, she said she thought that giving away $5,000 was a good way to get people to save money.

So.. she wants to give away $5,000 of money with no restrictions (none mentioned so far) so that people can use that money to learn how to save.

Are you seriously in favor of that?

[Lurker]

I wouldn't support it if it was unfunded, unrestricted, or if it could be "borrowed" from.

[jookkor]

She should go full bore with the vote buying and promise a flat tax.