Hillary: Every baby born in the US should get a $5,000 account which they can access when they turn 18

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"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," she said.

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

[Jenn! 918]

That's a dumb idea.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well, $5000 compounded monthly at 3% over 18 years becomes $8,574. At 5%, $12,275. At 8%, $21,000.

Not one of those amounts is enough for a college education or a downpayment in 2007.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

That's a dumb idea.

No shite,add that one up. Thats some scary numbers there.

[dalegg 143]

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

She didn't say which government they should receive the bond from. Maybe she thinks The Kindom of Saudi should provide it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

She didn't say which government they should receive the bond from. Maybe she thinks The Kindom of Saudi should provide it.

Now, that would be a true diplomatic victory

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'd rather see tax incentives for companies to produce here, on U.S. soil, as well as tax incentives for businesses to offer college scholarships.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I'd rather see tax incentives for companies to produce here, on U.S. soil, as well as tax incentives for businesses to offer college scholarships.

I agree with that.

Hillary's plan, however, just isn't all that sound. As VJ Troll said, it won't add up to much over time. So what's the real point? All it'll do is cost the tax payers unnecessarily. If we're going to raise taxes dramatically, then we may as well shoot for government-funded health care. I'm not suggesting we do that, but if we do raise taxes a ton, I think that would be a more worthwhile endeavor than giving "every newborn baby a $5,000 account."

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

sounds like this will apply to anchor babies too.

[thesnowman 1]

They do a similar scheme in the UK. When a baby is born they get 500GBP (approx $1000) and the scheme actually works really well. The idea is to encourage a saving mentality and hope that any money given to the child will go into the account and then accrue interest. It is then hoped that it will help people put downpayment on homes and be more responsible with money, therefore benefiting the economy.

However I do agree that $5000 is a bit much. However if it encourages more people to go into higher education it should be encouraged as the plan is that the government will make more money in the long term as these educated people will pay more taxes.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Okay, but...

Say the child gets a brand new account opened up in their name when born, right? As far as I know, in the U.S., if someone is under 18, they cannot legally hold a bank account without a parent also on the account as well. So the child would have a "custodial account" which means they have an account, but it's technically under the guardianship of the parent or parents and will remain that way until the parent or parents remove their names themselves from the account.

This usually isn't a problem, since most parents will relinquish control when the child turns 18 or have the child get a new account (maybe with a better interest rate). However, some parents might take advantage of this -- particularly those parents who aren't "well off" and see the $5,000 as "free money" for them instead of their child. Since they have complete and total access to their child's account, they can do whatever they want with the money in there. If that means spending every dime before the kid's first birthday, then so be it.

That's probably one of my largest problems with this idea. If this money is really meant for the child, then it has to stay for the child only. It can't be used for whatever purpose the parents want it for at the moment. The reason I care? Because if my tax dollars are going to go to some kid's college fund (or whatever that will benefit him or her), then I want to make sure it actually does that. I'll be damned if my taxes get siphoned away just so "mom and dad" can afford a new TV and some other non-essentials.

[Dan J 277]

Okay, but...

Say the child gets a brand new account opened up in their name when born, right? As far as I know, in the U.S., if someone is under 18, they cannot legally hold a bank account without a parent also on the account as well. So the child would have a "custodial account" which means they have an account, but it's technically under the guardianship of the parent or parents and will remain that way until the parent or parents remove their names themselves from the account.

This usually isn't a problem, since most parents will relinquish control when the child turns 18 or have the child get a new account (maybe with a better interest rate). However, some parents might take advantage of this -- particularly those parents who aren't "well off" and see the $5,000 as "free money" for them instead of their child. Since they have complete and total access to their child's account, they can do whatever they want with the money in there. If that means spending every dime before the kid's first birthday, then so be it.

That's probably one of my largest problems with this idea. If this money is really meant for the child, then it has to stay for the child only. It can't be used for whatever purpose the parents want it for at the moment. The reason I care? Because if my tax dollars are going to go to some kid's college fund (or whatever that will benefit him or her), then I want to make sure it actually does that. I'll be damned if my taxes get siphoned away just so "mom and dad" can afford a new TV and some other non-essentials.

It could encourage parents to have kids they are not able to afford.

[almaty 19]

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

sounds like this will apply to anchor babies too.

yes, i would guess, they are american citizens

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

sounds like this will apply to anchor babies too.

yes, i would guess, they are american citizens

just what we need, more incentives......

[almaty 19]

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

sounds like this will apply to anchor babies too.

yes, i would guess, they are american citizens

just what we need, more incentives......

well, that is a good point there brother charles...