It is kind of a 21st century version of the chicken in every pot thing.

Silly, it will not work and most people know this.

In NYC they are already paying people to do the right thisng, stay in school, take kids to medical care etc.

Is there really any difference between Hiliary's plan and Bush's plan for partial privatization of Social Security ?

Both take money from the public coffers and put it aside in private accounts outside of the public system. Both create the sense that there is a safety-net to the safety-net.

The movie might be new but it's the same soundtrack.

Neo:

Is there really any difference between Hiliary's plan and Bush's plan for partial privatization of Social Security?

Both take money from the public coffers and put it aside in private accounts outside of the public system. Both create the sense that there is a safety-net to the safety-net.

That's kind of a funny way of putting it: Under the full or partial privatization of Social Security, a portion of money earned by the individual taxpayer Jones is paid to the government but placed, not into the general SS fund, but into a separate "Jones" account. It's then invested according to a strategy chosen by Jones, to eventually be returned to him, along with the accumulated interest, when he reaches a certain age.

No money is taken from any other taxpayer and put into Jones' account; it's all money that came from the sweat of Jones' brow. The only difference from the present system is that Jones is not paying as much money into the system to be used by other people as he would today; he is not taking any more from those other people.

By contrast, under the new demogrant, money is taken from Smith and Moskowitz and Martinez and Sauerkraut in order to send $5,000 to Jones, merely because Jones had a child during the Hillary presidency. The others all had their children in earlier years, hence get nothing from the program... they just continue to pay and pay and pay to support other people's kids, for the rest of the taxpayers' lives, or until some future Congress overturns the demogrant.

Do those really seem the same to you? Do you believe that all the money really belongs to the government, so if the taxpayers send less, that's equivalent to a government expenditure?

Dafydd

How about a private sector counter move to this foolishness? We start a nonprofit NGO that will provide all moving expenses, $100,000 in cash, and a guaranteed price for any real property to any certified leftist/progressive (Krugman and Chomsky might go for it) who will give up his/her U.S. citizenship and move to say France. Costly? Yes it will be. But unlike a government program it will get less and less costly as 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%... of the leftists take advantage! By the time we hit 15% we might be able to do things like repeal the 16th amendment, get rid of organizations like the Education Department, and maybe even get back to paying attention to Article I Section 8 of the Constitution! Leftists all say that the EU is better anyway. This will give them an opportunity to prove it for free. They just love free stuff.

Actually, this sort of idea has been kicking around for a while. Charles Murray, who is not usually thought of as a liberal, wrote a book about his version of the plan about 28 months ago.

March 27, 2006, Moving Ground: How to dismantle the welfare state with $10,000 a year…in your pocket, Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: First things first. $10,000? Who’s getting and when? And can I use it on my credit-card debt?

Charles Murray: If you've reached your 21st birthday, are a United States citizen, are not incarcerated, and have a pulse, you get the grant, electronically deposited in monthly installments in an American bank of your choice with an ABA routing number. If you make more than $25,000, you pay part of it back in graduated amounts. At $50,000, the surtax maxes out at $5,000. I also, reluctantly but with good reason, specify that $3,000 has to be devoted to health care. Apart from that, you can use the grant for whatever you want. Enjoy.

As I have said on Ace of Spades HQ,

Oohhh, a bribe. Do I get to sue?

I wonder if anyone in Hillary's camp has crunched the numbers? I ask because of the little amount she is willing to put up and how minute that would turn out to be when the bills came due for college.

If we start with her stated $5,000 and put it in a bond for eighteen years, the end amount will vary with the rate of interest, but if we assume interest rate comparable to savings bonds there simply isn't going to be much money. Looking around it appears that savings bonds pay a little less than four percent on average and that means the $5,000 grows to a whopping roughly $10,000 in eighteen years, while the cost of college (according to "Trends in College Pricing") is currently $16,357 for a four your institution and is projected to rise to $55,285 dollars eighteen years down the road. So her big program is going to pay for less than two months at a four year college. Whoopee.

The sad thing is I suspect there are those who are willing to be bribed to vote for her for such a paltry sum, but they need to hang out for more. Yes, ten thousand dollars is better than nothing, but they will have to pay more taxes to get it, unless they are among those who pay no taxes, and I suspect that the trip to Washington D.C. would cut the amount of their own money they get back on this screwy idea. I can see many people paying much more than an extra $10,000 in taxes to get back that $10,000.

Hopefully it won't sell. Dear old George McGovern couldn't sell it, back when he was running for president, and so he dropped it. With a little luck Hillary will do the same. It was a bad idea then, and hasn't improved with age. All Hillary did was adjust the amount to reflect inflation. Still, you have to give the Democrats credit for coming up with a good sales program. After all, we must do it for the children. It makes no difference how screwy the program is, or what it costs, we must do it for the children. Anyone who could be against it is a meany and hates kids.

I wonder how many voters are hoping Hillary's helicopter "Money One" will fly over their house.

Wow Neo, I wonder how many others are as clueless at to where government's money comes from? Did you understand Dafydd's complicated answer? Or is your 'fact shield' at full power?

A quadruple of questions:

1) What if said child does NOT go to college? Says, they join the army, decide to be a plumber, or whatnot. What happens to the bond?

2) Wouldn't colleges, who are always hungry for more money, simply increase tuition by the amount of the bond?

3) So we start this benefit, and no one, ahem, benefits for 18 years? Anyone else not believe that?

4) What do they invest in? Anyone else think it will be goverment bonds only? So the goverment will use tax money to buy goiverment bonds?

How about a better plan - the goverment provides money toward endowments for colleges, on condition that they provide a guaranteed number of free admissions? I'm not advocating this mind you, but pointing out that there are better and easier ways to accomplish her goals than this cockamamie solution.

This seems like simply a dumb idea, until you scratch the surface and realize it is really a colossal blunder.

Didn't read the rest of the comments because i'm leaving soon but wanted to share this.

From a link on Instapundit to I think the guys name is Rob Port, he had a good idea.

Let's take up Hillary's idea as Republicans. The thing is though, with a bit of a difference. All the children born from now on will get $5,000.00 put in a retirement account from the government. Those children will not receive social security but at age 65 they will receive the sum total of that $5,000.00 over the course of 65 years.

This means we will phase out completely Social Security in exchange for about 20 billion a year for these children.

I'm guessing Social Security costs a heck of a lot more than that. And the other bonus is, if the children own the $5,000.00 themselves and no one else can touch it (including the government) then if something happens to them, they can pass it on to family.

I'd be willing to pay $5,000.00 a year to each child in exchange for getting rid of Social Security. How about you?

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)