Hillary Clinton, the media anointed 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, wants to give every newborn a $5,000 government bond. Fox reports on Hillary's proposal here. There are 4 million babies born in the USA each year, with that number on the rise, especially if we don't control the illegal immigration problem.
"I think it's a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie Stubbs Jones (hey Fox, her name is Stephanie TUBBS Jones, not 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?"
Um, how is making the national debt bigger with those bonds 'a wonderful idea' ? I swear, I just don't speak Democrat anymore (and only about 1/3 Republican, for that matter). What is going on here ? Universal preschool, expanding SCHIP into the middle class, socialized medicine. When did it become the job of the government to raise your children ? Did I miss a meeting ? Have we all just accepted that now ? Is the drift leftward into a socialist state inevitable, with the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans being the speed of the trip ? The nation is already $9 trillion in debt and growing, and all I hear Democrats talking about is spending more and more and more, raising taxes more and more and more, and justifying all this insanity by saying it's 'for the children'. The Bush administration has raised the debt more than any other president in history, so let's stop calling that conservative too, because it isn't. Who starts big new social programs during wartime ? Our politicians have all taken leave of their senses as they rush to pander for votes. Responsibility be damned.
I have a fondness for those quaint ideas of our old founding fathers, who had these crazy notions about liberty and restraining the government, ideas that resulted in the USA becoming the greatest nation on earth less than 200 years from it's beginning. I think maybe they were onto something, and we are about to destroy it. Tell me if the following words from Thomas Jefferson sound like something that could be taking place today:
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds…our people…must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live…
We have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers.
Our landholders, too…retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must…be contented with penury, obscurity and exile..private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.
This is the tendancy of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering…
And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in it's train wretchedness and oppression." — Thomas Jefferson
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
But King, in the name of the children Mrs. Clinton sees it her duty to stack on more debt. Just think of the votes she can buy with this bit of suggested legislation. There are so many pregnant women at this very time and so many others who will become pregnant in the next year who would be glad to vote for her because of this bit of legislation. Surely, you and I, have no right to keep this from happening so all those babies can have more the date of their birth than so many of their parents.
Well now, I guess that the $5,000 may be spent by the mothers and that would make them, in many welfare instances, willng to be barefoot and pregnant all their reproductive lives. When Mrs. Clinton lays a trap to buy some votes it sure seems likd she lays a good one.
Surely our Senators and Representatives won't allow this thing to go forward other than the two women who are planning to use it for their own benefit. Isn't it something, the idiocy, that comes around in election years? Isn't it something the number of people who are willing to be taken in by this kind of legislation when the left is talking all the time about the growth of our national debt caused by this little war we are in and don't seem to be able to just walk away from? I would be amazed at the number that will be taken in if I hadn't already seen how politicians take advantage of all those who think this one is good.
You know this is the same thing McGovern tried back in 1972, only then it was only $1000 per child. Inflation has driven it up to Hillary's $5000. I hope Hillary meets the same fate as McGovern.
The left is using the war spending to justify every spending program they can think of under the sun. All they have to do is say, 'look, the war is costing all this money, and all we're trying to do is help the children'. Yeah, and help bankrupt us. Too many people buy right into it, and it ain't like you're gonna hear the media ever say anything about it. This has really goten out of hand, all this feeding at the public trough. Do you think they will understand my Jefferson quote ? I know you do.
Roy and King:
You are going on and on about Hillary's proposal to set aside funds when an American child is born….and you are totally against it.
Yet at the same time you guys have argued for tax cuts and also giving Wall Street access to Social Security funds, so traders could have at them.
Roy slips in a lie about the national debt going throught the roof because of war and conveniently manages to forget about those massive and deep tax revenue cuts which only increased the debt.
The national debt ceiling has nearly doubled during Bush Jr's tenure, having been raised 5 times and we ain't done with him yet.
And you expect people to reject a Democrat for president because Democrats spend too much?
No credibility.
Hey, Red, have you taken the trouble to figure out what 5,000 times the number of new born babies in the next 12 months would be? While you are at it figure it for the following year and the following 5 years. Now remember that many single women who love that welfare money will have one every year with this law in effect.
Now that you have figured those amounts throw in the amount that HillaryCare 2.0 will cost just the first 2 years it is in effect and tell me what that might amount to. I know that she means to let you and I pay for it by raising corporate taxes and causing prices to rise to let us actually pay for it all. Don't you see that this one is aimed at buying as many single mother welfare votes as she can? Of couse, you can't see that being blinded in both eyes where she is concerned.
Mr. King,
It seems that Rev Red thinks that spending is what will kill the Republicans and Hillary is not talking about spending, but she is talking about establishing socialism slowly but painfully. Maybe Red is redder than I have ever thought.
Reverend: I don't remember ever advocating that all our Social Security funds be put in the hands of Wall Street, so the traders could bet it all on something like pork belly futures, so you may have exaggerated just a tad. Investing part of SS in safe, conservative investments, however, would only increase the wealth of all of america, which is exactly why the Democrats are dead set against it. They don't want americans controlling their own money. You see, elitist wizbangs like Hillary are so much smarter than us dopey rubes. We can't be trusted with anything as important as our own money. We need our mommy Hillary to control it for us.
On tax cuts, yes, I plead guilty. I want to cut taxes dramatically, as opposed to having ever more and more of our money stolen by the government, as if they own us. I have this CRAZY notion that the more of a worker's hard earned money we can leave in his pocket, the better off that worker and his family will be. I call it mathematics. You should try it some time.
Roy: Looking at Hillary's growing number of new government spending programs, that socialism looks like it may come sooner rather than later if she is elected president. Maybe we should take out an ad in the NY al Times to warn people of the long term fiscal consequences of Hillary's plan to economically ruin america. I wonder if we could get that discounted rate ? Or do you think it would be more likely they would reject our ad as a political attack, LOL ?
The Democrat's solution to absolutely everything is raise taxes and increase spending. Has been for decades. Man, I am totally sick of it.
I am pretty sure that our ad would be considered a political by the people at the al Times. Maybe we should try somewhere else like Newsmax.
If you are so much in favor of cutting taxes and allowing all of us to pay our fair share you should consider the FAIR TAX. Can you see that I have been listening to Boortz lately?
It's true, tax cuts put a smile on my face. If I'm not mistaken, Mike Huckabee favors the Fair Tax.
That Neal Boortz is a real radical. He believes in all that freedom stuff. What a nut. Hillary don't play dat