Mortgaging Our Children's Future
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Economy — Comments (77) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
You've heard it many a time to denounce a fiscal program or two. It is appropriate here.
I mean, the pandering is unbelievable. Equally unbelievable is the fact that so few people--I know, I know, it's early but come on--appear to be asking where this $5,000 per child subsidy is going to come from. At least, Professor Mankiw is kind enough to point out who is going to pay for it in the end.
« Rethinking the Goals of a National Mortgage Bailout — Comments (45) | The Importance of Entrepreneurs — Comments (1) »
Mortgaging Our Children's Future 77 Comments (0 topical, 77 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
I, for one, think this is brilliant - when seen from a political perspective, that is.
I mean, it's a crazy, moronic, condescending idea when viewed from every other angle - but politically?
Shear. Brilliance.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
It will be a test of the future direction of this country. If Hillary gets elected on this crap of a platform I think I might move to France!
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
In 18 years, that little $5,000 nest egg could grow to, oh, $12,000. A down payment on a house in Calcutta; maybe even 20 minutes at a State University.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Now that you've pointed this out, you realize that it's only going to make them ask for a $25k or $50k per child plan.
I mean, when you have representatives saying things like this:
"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 their 18?"
Well, hey...why not? After all, if $5,000 is a wonderful idea, $50,000 would be an absolutely fantastic idea, right?
Myself, I think the problem is that the Donks aren't thinking big enough here.
Is the deliberate perversion of the notion of increased savings by individuals that Hillary is trying to sweep into the national consciousness with this "plan."
The article states:
Clinton said such an account program would help people get back to the tradition of savings that she remembers as a child, and has become harder to accomplish in the face of rising college and housing costs.
Let's leave aside the analysis of the costs of college and housing in the past 37 years and just talk about the first part. It is true that when I was born, my grandparents purchased $2,000 in U.S. Savings Bonds to celebrate my entry into the world. However, they purchased those bonds with money they had actually saved, by stacking one dime on top of another and putting it in a bank account, not money that was handed to them so that they could "come get it" out of other people's tax dollars.
Hillary and the Democrats are now attempting to turn the idea of personal savings into a government program. Of course, if you believe that the State is really nothing more than the individual writ large, it makes sense.
Do these people do anything except sit around all day long and think of new ways to make people dependent upon the State? Or is it my imagination?
With a son at The University of Louisville and a daughter at Kentucky University (makes for interesting Cats/Cardinals conversations), I can tell you that 12k will come very close to paying for one full year for an in state student assuming the student has enough gumption to work on campus a few hours a week.
since you called one KU instead of the U of K. ;-)
Your comment encourages bucking the system doesn't it? Working? WORKING?? The idea of working is not to help one's education or career. There are only two reasons for working according to the way the Democratic world seems to operate. (Maybe the order should be reversed.)
1) To donate as much taxes as the Dems feel they "need" for someone else's use.
2) To join a union so they can contribute union dues and time toward electing Democratic candidates.
In general conversation at home, we tend to refer to the schools as U of L and K U perhaps for instant recognition instead of waiting for the University of.......... Anyway, my comment was in response to the assumption that 12k will not get you in the door at a state university in 18 years. I don't agree and I don't think we can choose not to invest and plan based on the fear that it will be unfordable when our children are older, regardless of 5k from the government or not. One can debate the program but I can't see that saying 12k will get you about 20 minutes at a state university gives any credibility to that argument.
And the fat lady has the b---- to call this savings, a scheme only a liberal could love, class bribery at it's best.
Toss in an ever expanding medical care program, ever increasing aid to education, and you have a population of young drones, the perfect type to support Democrats.
But I thought they were worried about federal debt?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
The Brietbart article linked on Drudge includes this gem. Have you ever heard more screwed-up logic in your life?
"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 their [sic] 18?"
I ref. that exact quote above.
This is how Democrats really think when they let fly about "wonderful" ideas and don't realize a microphone or a reporter is going to quote them. They're imbeciles.
It's important for people to realize that Democrats consider taxes == charity, and they also believe that the State should force you to be as generous as they think is needed.
This is not just the opinion of some backbenching representative from Ohio. It was also the considered opinion of the Dean of a law school that I used to work for. She considered progressive taxation to be a form of secular charity, enforced by a secular entity known as the State, and said as much to me in private conversations.
We were talking about a recent piece on NPR that she had listened to which pointed out that people of religious faith were more reliable charitable contributors than atheists and agnostics. The Democrats were very worried about this back in 2000/2001/2002. They couldn't quite figure out how to keep the atheists and agnostics around and get them to donate at the same levels that people of religious faith reliably do.
They're still working on that problem, obviously. One of the ways is to tell prospective parents that they can expect a $5,000 "savings" bond (kind of a welfare check you can't cash for 20 years).
...for progressive taxation. He's said here that it's essential to reduce income inequality before the social strains that it causes tear the country apart.
I have a feeling that this is the orthodox view (and it's shared in attenuated form by Republicans like Alan Greenspan). Your law school dean may have been extemporizing.
Another idea that many Lefties I know just won't give up is the old Engelian one: from each according to ability, to each according to need. While fine and right-sounding, this ignores the mysterious and inconvenient reality that people need carrots, not sticks, if they are exert themselves beyond the bare minimum needed for survival.
Or maybe she was deliberately condescending, it was tough to tell. When she spoke to me on the day Ronald Reagan died, she referred to progressive taxation less in terms of "charity" and more in terms of the "orthodox" view, but in the prior conversation she had used the word "charity" in that same connection.
To me that meant that she had confused the concepts and would use either one depending on the situation.
I also think that her description of progressive taxation's rationale depended heavily on the amount of wine she had consumed, so it was always tough to tell exactly what she meant.
Well, Rep. Jones, perhaps because then they'd owe $32,000 on the national debt?
I'm dumber for having read her quote. She robbed me of at least 3 IQ points after those neurons died of shock.
Whenever I hear or read stories like this, my only prayer is for the American people, particularly conservatives, to wake up and sense the danger of Hillarycare. She's a socialist thru and thru; and all you need to do is connect the damn dots. You can see the ground swell of support building amongst the MSM; no matter what she says, they have a positive spin for it. She can mistate the facts; she can rewrite history; she can pretend she's black; her finger can point in every direction except at herself. Add her god-like husband to the mix, and we're playing with fire. So this little gift will be "for th children" and the press will eat it up. If we become complacent and think this is a "never happen" kind of candidacy; we're going to be in for a very rude awakening come next November.
That this is a electioneering idea hatched by Donna Brazile. The articles we've seen so far aren't talking about the origin, but it *reeks* of Brazile and her influence during the Bush in 30 Seconds ad campaign brought to us by MoveOn.Org.
Remember that Brazile was featured on Dutch TV with Eric Blumrich of Bushflash.com who single-handedly pioneered the style of apocalyptic internet Flash that has been most recently imitated by Naomi Klein.
Her most famous quote during that interview broadcast on Dutch TV was how the Democrats could win in 2004 if they made it all "about the chiddren, the chiddren, the chiddren."
I think it's a lead-pipe cinch based on my knowledge of Donna Brazile's past ideas that this is *straight outta Brazile.*
On Eric Blumrich:
This is the guy who made it to the finals of the MoveOn.org contest in which Donna Brazile was one of the most influential judges. He suffers from clinical depression, and according to him, he always has:
In the wake of the 2004 fraud, I found myself stumbling back into the depths of a clinical depression that's pretty much plauged me, my entire adult life. I've not produced much in the way of new animations, in the last year- but I hope to return to productivity, in wake of the wonderful results of November, 2006.
If there's anything to be learned from my example, it's that anyone- ANYONE- who has initiative, drive, and the hours that chronic unemployment frees up, they can reach an audience of millions, and mayhaps find themselves in places they never thought they'd see (if, perhaps, sometimes, it's only from the outside.)
Oh- I forgot one last thing: I hate republicans- I really do. If George Bush were writhing in flames, right in front of me, and I needed to piss, urgently, I'd let him burn, while I rushed off to find a nearby tree that could perhaps make better use of my liquid offering.
This is the guy who almost single-handedly created the apocalyptic style of internet flash video for the Democrats in the last two elections. He was interviewed I believe by VRPO (socialist/commie) in the Netherlands along with Brazile when this ad campaign by MoveOn was reaching its zenith, just before Jimmy Carter sat down with Michael Moore at the Democratic National Convention.
If anyone can find the original video of the Dutch TV interview with him and Brazile, I would be grateful.
spend it, it's investment.
The Alice in Wonderland world that the other half lives in, an almost unimaginable ignorance.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
I apprecaite your observations but this act of 'mortgaing our future' isn't new. Spending money we don't have (seems like an impossibility except in Washington) began in earnest with LBJ's Great Society programs- Food Stamps, MediCare, Medicaid, and many others. Republicans also helped to move things along as well- SCHIP and Medicare Prescription Drug funding were all started by a Republican Congress.
So, I can appreciate your concern about Hillary's socialistic statements but they have been around a long time in both parties unfortunately.
Yeah, to a large extent this stuff has less to do with politics than it does education. Even a socialist like FDR couldn't get away with this. In his day people understood that a person would have to pay in to Social Security to get anything out of it. Now the manna simply rains from heaven, and many people believe it really is a miracle. What's changed? Now people are so stupid they'll say that "giving" somebody $5,000 of OPM is letting them have their share of the national debt. Other people are so stupid that they'll write that down and put it in a newspaper without having their head explode. And still other people are stupid enough to vote for it because they agree it's a good idea.
Those who missed sharing Earth with the dinosaurs probably don't know that George McGovern had a similar program: his plan was to give every American $2,000. At the time that was widely ridiculed, even by reporters. That was back before reporters were all volunteers for the Democratic Party.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
I've been recently reading up on the Progressive Era. Teddy Roosevelt scored quite a nice handful of political points by decrying the malfeasance of "men of wealth."
(He moderated his rhetoric somewhat after taking a pivotal role in quelling the financial crisis of 1907, by pledging not to prevent a key transaction by the US Steel Corporation under the Sherman law. And of course he was thereafter pilloried by other Progressives for being in Wall Street's pocket.)
My point is that if you could roll back the clock to the early Depression, you'd probably find a lot of people who thought manna from heaven was a pretty good idea, because they believed that the wealthy were stealing from them in the first place.
In support of your point, though, it's true that FDR had to sell SS as an "insurance policy." Who knows, maybe that actually made sense in the mid-Thirties, when the risk that someone would live well past 65 was far more underwritable than it is now.
Let's bring it back to its roots in the Democratic purity of the New Deal.
Social Security is an "insurance policy that can never be taken away from you," as FDR said.
Well, insurance is something you underwrite, so as to spread the risk of adverse events across a large pool. The risk in this case, of course, being death.
Let's index the Social Security benefit age to the actuarial life expectancy, which was about 65 in 1935. Benefits for today's retirees should start at 77 for men, 79 for women.
;-)
Becker and I were hitting on that a few days ago.
I'm not optimistic, though. The American people would rather let the system crash than fix it.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
and starvation, not the maintenance of a lifestyle. It should be means tested.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Means testing is one of those things that only looks good in the rear-view mirror. We have all these people of means; they don't need the money; so let's cut them off.
That's hindsight. It works on the people who already have means.
Now use foresight. Why have means? If you spend all your money now on prettier women and faster horses, they'll give you free money when you're old. Otherwise they won't. So why save beyond a certain minimum? If you're an average working stiff you'll end up with the same lifestyle in retirement whether you save or not.
That's what means testing does.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
...benefits (we officially don't have a prettier woman industry, so I can't officially speak to them). Money back in circulation, job creation, that sort of thing. ;)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
- Benefits for today's retirees should start at 77 for men, 79 for women.
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
Put that in place, and people will sit in their jobs, preventing any upward mobility by younger people, until they're in their late 70's.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
We won't NEED as much upward mobility if we're not at risk of burdening ourselves with outrageous taxation to keep SS from collapsing.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
What was that cheesy sci-fi movie where they killed you once you hit a certain birthday? We just need issue some laser blasters and snazzy new uniforms to SSA personnel and we are set.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
At least in the movie, as I've yet to read the book... things were just so miserable that you said Vaya con Dios on your own, heh.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
killed once you reached a certain birthday. I believe, but am not certain, that thirty was the age of termination. Soylent Green allowed for a government assisted "pleasant death." The big deal in Soylent Green was where the protein in the issued rations originated.
in the same flick. Made the teen male heart go pitter pat.
But Peter Ustinov? He must have been short on cash...
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
They want to give people money for their children, but, they wont let me control my own Social Security money. What a bunch of hypocritical morons.
It seems as if the Democratic primary is the art of one-upping. What can one do to one up the other candidates. They know it has no chance in hell of passing. What has our Democratic Republic come to.
would be to drop the home gift. It's asinine, promotes socialism, and absolutely unneeded (I bought my 1st home making $3 an hour). Work, save (if just a little), and protect your credit and a home will come. If one can pay rent, one can eventually buy a home. If they can't pay rent, I can't see that a 5k+ gift is the answer.
I do support the 5k for education for the following reasons;
An education of k-12 is simply no longer enough. I'm sure that tax dollars paying for grades 9-12 could have been considered a hand out 50 years ago. Technically speaking, if we're to stay a cutting edge country, this could be a very wise investment.
5k (or perhaps a smaller negotiated amount) would build an educational nest egg over 18 years. This use-it-or-lose-it fund could make the difference for so many that otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity.
This really isn't footing the bill. It's offering an opportunity for one to get an associates degree if they're willing to commit themselves.
These funds should be paid to the school only and there should never be a cash-out option.
Take a basic economics class. You know why the cost of hgiher education has gone up? Because government keeps dumping more and more money into people's hands to spend on it! Demand goes up, supply is relatively inelastic, the price goes up.
This bit of radical socialism will just help prices continue to go up faster than inflation, which will just be used as justification for even more socialism later.
It's a death spiral of unAmerican socialism.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
higher education more accessable to the poor and minorities. Don't they care?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
We can't steal from those who have dedicated their lives to helping our young people. Instead we need to invest our tax dollars in the future of our young people.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
My guess based on some practical experience is that it's not so much the salaries in academia that cause the relentless rise in tuition: it's the arms race between colleges to have the best facilities, centers, institutes, programs and -- especially -- perqs for students.
People today expect to send their children off to a College that will have its own police force, its own extensive facilities, a rock-climbing wall, computers everywhere, library that even gives librarians a hard-on, etc., etc. The amount of money that needs to be spent to continue that sprawl is one of the reasons colleges are becoming their own little socialist country within a country.
I worked at DePaul College of Law in Chicago and I can tell you that although the facilities there were much, much less impressive when Mayor Richard Daley went to school there, nobody that's coming out of that school today is any smarter, none of them are better lawyers. It costs a lot more, though -- and there are all kinds of expensive amenities.
that want affirmative action and that bemoan the fact that the po' can't afford to attend the elite institutions, private institutions and even public universities, and want to tax us to help.
They could put their money where their mouths are.
See also the leftist press and the dearth of black reporters, etc.
btw, my Charlotte Observer column Monday will address Jena and why the press seems to think most whites are racist.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
This was the highest-paid professor I knew at DePaul. I personally helped lobby the Executive Vice President of the University, Richard Meister, to extend to her a package of salary and benefits that was so far outside the norms for a normal hire that he winced whenever I saw him in public, but our Dean was undaunted, that's how badly she wanted her.
Her base salary was in the low six figures, approx. $125,000 a year as a brand-new hire. She was an "academic coup" because DePaul attracted her away from the University of Chicago (where she really didn't want to be anyway.) Meister tried to fight that inflation but really the President of the University was doing a lot of other things that were much, much more costly in an attempt to build the Image of the university up, and the Law School dean wanted a prominent Lesbian scholar, so he caved.
There were a few other professors in her salary range at the law school and I expect at this point that all of their salaries have gone up at the usual inflation+alittleextra rate.
Is to be a husband-and-wife team or a domestic partnership under the new interpretation of marriage if you are a professor. The Siegel/Bandes team hauls in more than a quarter of a million dollars a year + benefits teaching kids to be liberals, and you too can hook up with a domestic partner now and get hired that way.
Apropos of my previous comment above, I forgot to mention something else:
Hillary's "plan" to give every child a $5,000 bond at birth would also immediately have one other drastic effect:
It would stop a lot of grandparents from buying them with their own money. In that way, the grandparents who used to save a few nickels and dimes for their children's children's future would now have much less reason to do so: the government would let them just "come get it" -- so why save any money at all? Why bother worrying about the estate tax? Why bother worrying about your grandkids at all if the gubment is going to take care of them?
How can the Democrats look at themselves in the mirror in the morning? How can they walk around while seriously talking about ideas like this?
What is wrong with them?
It's dumb idea. Unfortunately the Republicans don't have a leg to stand on though in regards to spending. They've been as bad or worse on mortgaging the future if you look at their actions the last six years in power.
Allan Bartlett
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Democrats want to waste your money on every conceivable "give away" program.
Most of the Republican candidates want to waste trillions declaring war on every muslim nation (Afghanistan*, Iraq, Iran, and Syria to start, then who knows?).
The only candidate who will have a fiscally conservative Presidency is Ron Paul who won't waste YOUR money on any of this nonsense!
James
* Okay, I'm a Gulf War vet, and I supported the Afghanistan war (they were directly involved with 9-11), but the Iraq war, or Iran? You've got to be kidding!
Yes, you're making common cause with Communists. Yes, you're using some of their arguments in fact. But don't let that deter you; keep right on claiming the mantle of conservatism and call for a neutered America.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I guess I'm a "communist" or a "commie sympathizer" because I don't support the Iraq War.
Forget that I served 10 years in the active duty Army before being medically discharged because of injuries I served in the Gulf War. Disagree with George Bush, and you're un-American or communist, right- smear those you can't beat with honest debate?
BTW, I'm the exact opposite of a "communist" - I'm a pro-freedom, fiscal conservative (if you must smear, at least do it intelligently- thanks).
James
Ron Paul 2008!
Since you were wondering.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Not sure how a guy who is fiscally conservative equates to a Communist, but I'm sure you have your reasons.
...that I expect better from you. Reread what you wrote about what Neil wrote, reread what Neil actually wrote, then note the differences.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Sorry about that: I'm still caffeinating.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Outright communists aren't going to be backing Ron Paul, I don't think, which is why I didn't call any of them Communists.
However let's take a look at how International ANSWER rallies against the war. Yeah, they're Communists; just look at that Steering Committee and they have Iraq war vets, too. Their vets say things like this:
For so many years, that uniform has not stood for justice and freedom. It is the uniform that the Iraqi people saw stomp through their towns. It is the uniform that drove humvees and manned machine guns. It is the uniform that dragged people from their homes and interrogated them in prison camps. But on the streets of Washington, D.C., the uniform took on new meaning....
For the first time, that uniform was worn fighting a just war. When I emerged from jail that night, I saw hundreds of cheering supporters outside. Then, I knew that sooner or later we will win this war against imperialism. And I have never felt prouder wearing that uniform.
And while the RPers don't use exactly this rhetoric, they both claim that the current administration is against freedom, and they both are on the same side with respect to Iraq. Hence, 'common cause.'
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Ron Paul won't waste our money on any nonsense. Just on such vital matters such as marketing wild American shrimp or researching shrimp fishing. Or funding our constitutional right to refurbish an old theatre that was shut down in the 70's.
If you must smear me, at least update the rhetoric, call me an anti-American islamo-fascist saddam lover- its just as inaccurate, but at least its "timely." :)
Got to get ready for church soon- yup, this "islamo fascist" goes just about every Sunday (note: thats church, not mosque).
James
Ron Paul 2008!
Also; note the Reply To This link. Put using it into your muscle memory.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The USA was using scare tactics right up until November of '89 when the soviet bloc essentially collapsed.
Trust me, if you were a soldier in the 80s, you're whole reason for existing was to stop the communist hordes who were bent on destroying the world- it was drummed into your head every day.
As a soldier serving in Germany from 86-89, I got to hear it almost every day in one form or another.
James
Ron Paul 2008!
And while my teenaged, deeply stupid (or at least hideously inexperienced) self probably would have agreed with you on the entire Commie horde trying to take over the world thing, twenty years later I have to sip my coffee and murmur, "But they were."
Thank God for Ronald Reagan, huh?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Reagan was the last Presidential candidate I was really exicted about until Ron Paul came along.
BTW, Ron Paul was one of Reagan's first backers in congress- during the 1976 Republican primary (Reagan lost to Ford).
Ron Paul 2008!
Ron Paul is no Reagan. Reagan wasn't an isolationist. Think about all the money he wasted defeating the USSR.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I left for a weeks vacation and I come back and there are not one million BrooksRob comments eating up the bandwidth. What's up?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2007/sep/22/redstate_poll_has_gc_...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
First off, if I was handed a check for $5000 at age 18, I can assure you that it wouldn't have been spent on anything remotely responsible. I would also wager that there is a large percent of our population's 18 year olds that would not be spending that money responsibly either. So is this $5000 monitored in any way or just the down payment for an overpriced sports car to pick up girls that they'll regret buying later in life.
Second, $5000 doesn't go very far these days. It'll maybe get you a semester at a state school. As far as a down payment on a house, I would love for Mrs. Clinton to show me where these homes are located that can be had for such a low amount.
Finally, there are a lot of programs in place right now to help 18 year olds. I can speak from experience, as I went to college with under $3000 to my name. I was able to pick up grants, subsidized loans, and even scholarships by looking real hard. I got out of school with a degree, found a job, and paid off my loans. Sure it wasn't easy, but life isn't.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Nothing burns Lefties up more than the fact that some children are born more equal than others. They never get tired of telling you that every child should start in the same place as every other one.
That's the principal reason why they're in favor of a 100% estate tax.
That's what Herself is thinking. Cut down on the evil of inherited wealth by sharply increasing the death tax, and then spread $5,000 around to every new kid. (Invested in government securities, of course, which means that at age 18, it will have roughly the same purchasing power it does today: enough to buy a small graduation party and not much else.)
After all, it takes a village, doesn't it?