digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Clinton: $5,000 for Every U.S. Baby

breitbart.com — 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.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • netooi25, on 10/10/2007, -20/+310get ready, if it happens its coming out of your taxes cause it sure as heck isnt coming out of thin air...
    "Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States."
    4Million * $5,000 = $20 billion dollars a year coming from somewhere
    • lOvOl, on 10/10/2007, -30/+64She is just doing this to lock up the white woman vote, or rather the woman vote itself. The really dumb thing about this is that working young people college educated or not, would be more able to afford a down payment on a home or college tuition if they were not taxed so highly by the government to pay for socialist programs for old people. A baby born today inherits $400,000 in debt if you include future transfer payments to the elderly. So with Hillary's plan, that baby now only owes $395,000 in debt. I don't see Hillary talking about touching Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, I only hear her talking about mandating everyone pays for health care whether they want to or not.

      Also, even though 50% of the country pays almost all of the taxes, the bottom 50% also pays dearly in the form of reduced real wages through wage inflation not keeping up with core inflation. The bottom 50% are often young people trying to get started in life and realistically most people can't start families until they are at least 30 (unless they have a really good job and no college debt). By then, a woman's fertility is going down the tubes (no pun intended). This is just not a practical way to run a society. Young people should be taxed the least, especially since they simply do not yet have the savings that pay for themselves. You can call me an ageist, but this is just being practical since you can work till you are 80 these days, but women (and to a lesser degree men) have a small window of opportunity in their lives to raise a family and those most productive of reproductive years are often spent slaving away in some cubicle.

      Bribing people with their own money like Hillary is doing, is just a cynical way of grabbing votes from idiots who fail to realize that they are way overtaxed in the first place. Unfortunately, in America enough people seem dumb enough to vote for her as our next president of the United States that they take this kind of bait, hook, line, and sinker.
      • jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11"A baby born today inherits $400,000 in debt if you include future transfer payments to the elderly. So with Hillary's plan, that baby now only owes $395,000 in debt."

        Uh... I think your math is bad. If a baby used to owe $400,000, and then the country takes out billions of dollars in loans, the baby now owes more, not less (the $400,000 figure is an average).
      • karipatila, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2"...if they were not taxed so highly by the government to pay for socialist programs for old people."

        I bet you won't be calling the programs socialist when you're on the receiving end yourself. The whole concept of twisting common decency and taking care of people into something fundamentally wrong and evil seems just incomprehensible.
        • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Feh. Even if you're benefiting from it, it's STILL SOCIALISM.
        • SpykerSpeed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Society as a whole doesn't benefit from dependence on government bureaucracy and money-shuffling.
    • Tabou, on 10/10/2007, -40/+117That's what we spend in one week fighting an illegal war in Iraq.
      • thepotatoman, on 10/10/2007, -28/+18Would "two wrongs do not make a right" work here?
      • knupso, on 10/10/2007, -28/+30Pay attention retards. IT IS NOT A WAR. The war is long over it's an occupation and rebuilding effort. The war was easy, installing a government to do our bidding is what we are having trouble with.
        • adeadwaffle, on 10/15/2007, -8/+14Semantics my friend. The American army is occupying a country that does not want Americans there at all. There is still fighting in Iraq. There is still bloodshed in Iraq. There are still American deaths occurring in Iraq. It's a war.
        • lotu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Knupso is right. In a war you shoot anything that is not you. The body count is in the hundreds every day. People call it a war to compare it to actual wars where lot and lots of people died.
          We are staying there not so much for our benefit but for the millions of Iraqies.
        • digsig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983027.stm
          "How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq?"
          Leave NOW - 47%
        • hmunkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It isn't a war I guess. But it's still a damn long occupation.
      • csulok, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5even if you're right in that the war money could be put to better use, most of that money goes back into the pockets of americans who work in war factories, construction companies.. probably not nearly enough of goes back into their pockets, but at least that's now, not in a bank that would produce money 21 years from now.
        • superdosh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Yes, right back into the hands of corporations. Except for those billions that those corporations seem to have lost.

          Investing in the military industrial complex is not the same as investing in the American people.
          • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Right because corporations are self-running entities. No real humans needed.
        • opnickc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"most of that money goes back into the pockets of americans who work in war factories, construction companies.. "

          All of that $5,000 goes back into the pockets of americans. . . what's your point?
          • Laughsatyou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it doesnt go back into the hands of the americans who had the money taken from their labor in the form of taxes.
          • opnickc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree completely - I think it's a very stupid idea. Considering 2/3 of americans below the poverty line have cable tv, that extra $30/month or so would be enough to save $5,000 for their child on their own, and not have to be taken from those more fiscally responsible.

            My point was, in both cases, the money is forcibly taken and then later argued to go back to the people. Clearly, this is much more true in the $5,000 case than the other, even if both are wrong.
      • Mc0v, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Many people from the third world is already coming to USA to deliver their children to get an American passport for them - and after 18 years college cheaply! Clinton makes them even more interested! Shame on her and Democrats!
        • Spytap, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5There is no part of that entire statement that makes grammatical or logical sense. I've re-read it three times now trying to find what you're trying to prove and the only thing I've come up with so far is that you believe that the majority of third world inhabitants have their children get born into college...
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13What the ***** does war spending have to do with blowing another huge load on ***** we don't need government to be doing for us?

        If anything, the fact that the war is so goddamn expensive only means that we have even MORE reason not to be throwing money into pits like these. It's called financial responsibility. I really wonder how the US came to lack so much of it.
      • JettaMan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14That's not really the issue. The issue is we do NOT want to condition people to think that they can get free things in life just by sucking more and more from the government. The government is not a big sugar daddy who gives us "free" things because we want them. You are just robbing from Peter to pay for Paul.
        • mirunit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8"The government is not a big sugar daddy who gives us "free" things because we want them."

          But that would be so fun! I really don't like working for things, its too hard! Hillary will save us, she will tax the evil rich so I can buy more alcohol and lottery tickets come welfare day.
      • imthe1, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Well Tabou, I guess in that case we should definitely do it. and we should do anything that costs that much because it's what we spend in one week on an "illegal" war.
    • KlayBorg, on 10/10/2007, -25/+22Considering that Bush is planning on spending 60 billion on just a fence on the US mexico border, which is essentially pointless, its quite a small amount in comparison.
      • ndstumme, on 10/10/2007, -11/+27He is planning on spending 60 billion on a fence once. That is just one payment of 60 billion. Clinton is planning on spending 20 billion A YEAR. After 3 years she will already have met that 60 billion of Bush's, and will quickly pass it up. Think people.
        • zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+19That's right. Once you build a fence you don't have to worry about maintenance, supervision, reconstruction .. ever again!
        • ogremidget, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Yeah right, do you think that fence will have robots guarding it? No, there will be solders securing that fence. We have to pay the solders, it will need to be maintained. Really, that fence will cost us money for the rest of our lives.
          • hiikeeba, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Not in Texas! Governor Perry put web cams on the fence and told the concerned citizens to get busy. He's even offered a reward.
          • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Or, we could just take some of the troops that are dying in Iraq and bring them back here, where they belong, doing the job of actually defending our country instead of having them killed trying to fulfill some nutjob's grand scheme of nation-building.
          • highstriker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Uh, seeing as how we already *have* soldiers... something tells me we wouldn't be paying a whole lot extra. Certainly not 20 billion dollars extra. Not only that, but to help stop illegal immigration, that could also help to save money, and help to make jobs for *American* citizens.
        • hmunkey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It's sure as ***** not going to cost $20 billion a year.
      • noisey, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Bush will never build a fence on the border. The last thing he wants is for American labor wages to go up. What better way is there to keep that from happening than to flood the labor pool with Mexican poor.
        • ogremidget, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Umm... The National Guard have been building a fence for over a year now.
        • hiikeeba, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3We've shipped those jobs over to China, the land of lead paint. All that's left is dollar a day agriculture jobs. You know, the kind of jobs the Mexicans were stealing from college gradutes. . .
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Bush wants open borders and free movement between the countries of the NAU. noisey is right, he's done nothing but stall the immigration issue because he doesn't want to fix it.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3That doesn't make this idea any better. That type of logic will prevent this country from ever achieving some kind of financial responsibility.
    • 68024, on 10/10/2007, -23/+18...as opposed to wasting it on a pointless war.
    • gwhardyiv, on 10/10/2007, -6/+26"Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States." That's BEFORE the government announces this brilliant plan. I bet condom manufacturers aren't too happy about this proposal.
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21Oh, and a free $5,000 account won't exactly be a disincentive for illegal immigration, either.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Yeah, like we need more dumbass people having MORE kids. This is such a horrible idea. I think 99% of our politicians simply don't think anymore before they decide how they spend our money.
        • mirunit, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Well, if they manage to get people dependate on government handouts its easier to get them - and all their kids to vote for you. So, indeed they are thinking.
      • thatsmyaibo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10What about all the illegal immigrants that have more kids than they can count. People will be conceiving for money and we are overpopulated as it is. Worst idea I've ever heard and i pray this woman doesn't even pass the primaries.
        • yodaj007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4In some areas the population density is pretty high, but for most of the US, we have a very low population density compared to other countries.
    • Grummond, on 10/10/2007, -14/+30Honestly, i think it's about time the US starts spending the tax dollars on PEOPLE instead of on killing people.
      • surilamin, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5Yes, for that matter, why don't we hike taxes up to a 100% and distribute it among everybody evenly! That'll solve everything!!!!! Every dollar will be spent on the people! Because killing terrorists isn't benefiting the people!
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9I want to digg you up, but it sounds like you're directing sarcasm towards the terrorist comment, and "killing terrorists" most certainly ISN'T benefiting us in ANY way.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17I think it's time the US just stops spending tax dollars.
    • llamabread, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Sadly somewhere equals China.
    • bitt3n, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16ya! the government stupidly spends other people's money on OTHER things, therefore it is only logical the government spends other people's money on this!

      in other news, I just bought a $200 pair of sneakers, so it's only logical I should buy a $200 beanie.
      • Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1It's your fashion statement. I say go for it.
    • neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -11/+10So it comes from our taxes and goes back to the people. Sounds like a much better use than occupations and crazy high tech surveillance equipment.
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13No, a better idea would be to stop spending so goddamn much money period, and let the American people hold onto more of their hard-earned money.
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3.
    • kalleanka, on 10/10/2007, -23/+19Being from Sweden I read this and I was thinking "finally this Americans come up with a good system that helps the _kids_ of the poor families". But what do I see? Every ***** digger hates the idea. I'm all surprised, I thought Digg was full of young liberal people.

      To me, this is a great idea cause in today's USA, kids born in a poor family are pretty much ***** from day 1 in their life. You guys have to pay for your education, that's all retarded all right. With this system at least you help the poorest along the way so they can afford a decent university when they grow up.

      For the rich people in the society (like me) the $5000 is so minor anyway. But for the poor, it helps a lot. Remember, the money is in a fund locked until the kid gets 18 and then the kid, not the mom, gets the money.

      Anyway, maybe I'm to Swedish thinking education is a human right just like food, water and the right to vote. In USA, that's generally not the common idea. If you got no cash, well, you get a crappy education.
      • DonCarcharo, on 10/10/2007, -10/+15I agree with you in concept that giving money to the needy is a wonderful thing. However you miss the point that the people who generally need this money most, won't know what to do with it. It will get spent on alcohol and drugs which in turn will lead them to producing more unruly kids, thus netting them more income. I've lived amongst these people and my wife was a social worker for years. We've seen all this first hand. The poor are more than willing to accept government money but it never gets to the kids. And when the money runs out the kids get dumped into the system so the government can raise them. Since the poor out-reproduce everyone else and also get the most government assistance, a plan such as this would actually enable the vicious cycle, not quiet it.
        • Bkaufman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12While I disagree with the idea, you don't understand what Hillary is saying. She wants to give a 5,000 dollar account that is not accessible until the kid turns 18. This will not allow parents to use the money. Now the kids could misspend it, but I have no compassion for some poor person that wastes the money rather than using it to better themselves.
      • mirunit, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13You are assuming that the poor will always use the money for noble things - which they will not. Also 5000 is abit less than 1 semester at a public university.

        "You guys have to pay for your education, that's all retarded all right. With this system at least you help the poorest along the way so they can afford a decent university when they grow up."

        If you pay for your education, as I am having to do, you respect it significantly more than the people who do not. Also, scholarships are very readily available and usually anyone who tried hard enough can get at least 1-2. It is less about being poor and more about the attitudes conveyed by the parents. If you have never been at a loss financially, then you have absolutly no room to talk. Also, what dictates what the 5000$ is spent on? Because I guarantee that the majority of it will not go to education.
        • rnwen2750, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4***** off with your scholarships bit. What a dumb overgeneralization. I am an American citizen going to school full time with a kick-ass GPA, involvement around campus, and volunteer work. I have never been given any scholarships and have applied for quite a few.
      • Totalchaos02, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5I can see where you misunderstood our country, Kalleanka. See in America food and water isn't even a human right, someone needs to turn a profit. If you are kind enough to help out the poor you are labeled as a socialist who is trying to overthrow our government.
        • imthe1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6apparently you have misunderstood our country also. if you want to give YOUR money to help anyone for any reason great. I applaud you. you are a wonderful person. However, i don't want you to decide to give my money to someone else. there are charities i give to, organizations that i believe in and want to help. there are things that i don't agree with, this being one of them, and i don't want you or Clinton deciding where i give my charitable money.
        • scubasteve377, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4No, if you are kind enough to help the poor, you are labeled a philanthropist. Philanthropy is a wonderful thing. However, if are enough of a self-righteous piece of ***** that you would use the government to steal other people's money (including the poor) at gunpoint, to "help" the poor, you are a goddamned socialist.

          Food, water, education, and health care are NOT rights, because in order for you to make them rights, you would have to violate the rights of others. There are plenty of people in this country that give money VOLUNTARILY to all kinds of charities, and if the free market is allowed to work properly, every one of these things will become much more affordable.

          You try to act like it is selfish to not want half of our paycheck going to a wasteful, ill-conceived social program that will fail (just like every other form of welfare) to improve the situation of poor Americans, while at the same time inflating costs for everybody and pushing more people into poverty. Socialism is not humanitarianism. It is thievery, and eventually, slavery.
      • smitting, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1What you don't know is that if you're poor in the United States, you can apply for a gov't grant to get your college for free, and there are people to help you do this in your free high school.
        • Bagration, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You obviously grew up in a very affluent neighborhood (or are delusional) if you think the lower class has the same kind of access to education as everybody else in the United States
        • jefflundberg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The sad thing is that even though there are many ways for the poorest people to attend college, they either aren't motivated enough to care, or don't even know the opportunities exist. I know people that did not grow up in affluent neighborhoods (they were basically one step up from homeless) that went to under-grad for free. One of them now has their Masters Degree and the other has a Jurist Doctor degree.

          The "lower class" absolutely does have the same access to higher education.
      • imthe1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4While you might have to pay for college here, everything before that is free. where i live in Texas not only is public school free, but included in that is free breakfast, lunch and dinner at the school for any child that wants it. if you apply yourself in school and don't screw around then you will get good enough grades to be able to qualify for the vast number of scholarships and other free money out there to pay for college, especially if you are poor or a minority.
        • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes but Texas is known to have a good public education system only within the suburbs. Go into Dallas, Houston, and even at times Austin, and San Antonio, and you still see schools that are below standard even for third world nations. And seeing that I am from Oklahoma its the same here. The education is great in the suburbs, and small towns, but in any urban area it sucks ***** ass. Guess who lives in the inner cities? Minorities. Anyway if you can't afford private schooling you are screwed. Yes there are scholarships but guess what? They are limited in numbers. I busted my ass in highschool, and yes I did get into college but only because my school in OKC(was a charter school). Prepared me for it. Before I went to that school in the 9th grade I remember having history books that didn't go pass 1985. The teachers didn't care, and thus no one was ***** learning.
          If youare a minority(which I am). You aren't the only one competing for those scholarships. So lik emyself. I got tons of scholarships, and only because I had the grades, and credentials.
          IT doesn't come easy, and if a white person did what did he or she would have those scholarships also, but you want to know what white college students do? Well only a small percentage of them are even on the ball or serious about were they want to go in life. If they aren't screwing around they are wondering how to wash their clothes and wipe their own asses. They sit there and blame black people for making it "harder" for them to get in. Which is utter *****. Affirmative Action isn't even written in law, and it screws the minorities. Because once a college meets quota with admitting minorities from one group. They capp it, and don't accept anyone else from that group. They put them in a waiting list. This ensures that white students are still the majority on their campuses.
          They moan and whine about all this *****, and lack culture because they grew up in the suburbs. Hell they don't even know their own existence is lies within lies. Anything that brings them to the reality of things hell even digg.com can destroy the world that the powers that be created within the US.
          Now with that out of my chest. All of this just motivates me to really leave the US.
      • rocket777, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Let's see, government promises $5000 each. AT the going rate, this will cost about $50,000 after all the pork is added to the bill. Then they pay for it with counterfeit money that they DO create out of thin air. By the time the kid is old enough for college, all the inflation will let him buy a pair of sneekers for the 5 grand.

        Hilliary will say anything to buy votes. This country is going down the drain. If you thought things were bad with Bush, just wait, the next jerk will just pick up where Bush left off. That's just the way it goes. One day we will have to pay for all the free lunches. I just hope it's not as bad as the 1930's, cause when the fit hits the shan, the government will create another new deal and we're all going broke.
      • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I grew up poor. My mom barel made 15 thousand a year, and she worked 4 jobs to make ends meet. But barely. We couldn't save up for rainy days, and we sure as hell couldn't afford medicine(barely food).. I'm in college now, and I'm busting my ass to pay for it. I get tired of seeing douche bag middle class students act the way they do. In terms of laughing and mocking someone that asked a question. It's like the concept of my money thus I am going to get a full understanding of the subjects doesn't add up to them. Because everything is ***** given.. Even so I think what Hilary is doing seems like a good thing, but the US is very inefficient when implementing new systems. They almost always fail and then people don't want o go up that road. Right now Americans are just skeptical and rightfully so. We really don't know what to do, and we are lost. We think we need a good leader to fall in line behind, but we don't realize that we all as American citizens must grow some pair of balls and take a stand on things that matter to us. Of course Digg.com is filled with libertarians, and most libertarians are upper middle class to rich. So of course they want a system of "screw everyone else while I exploit them."
      • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Good old american "freedom thinking" all around. Don't give money to the poor because they MIGHT use it for something else. That's like not sending aid to Africa because the corrupt military might get 50%. Well, guess what? The remaining 50% will still be helpful, as opposed to giving nothing.

        Not to mention half of the comments here avoided the fact that the money isn't given to the parents at birth but to the kid when he gets to 18.

        I love Sweden :-)
    • xenoguy, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5this is a terrible idea. who wants to pay for someone elses frogspawn? how hard is it to save your own money for your kids?
      • blagoaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Though you got dugg down, your comment raises an interesting point.

        "how hard is it to save your own money for your kids?"
        Apparently pretty hard. There are many people who don't have a good handle on investment at all. It's not necessarily because they're stupid. Those who seek and pay for professional advice will likely have it pointed out to them that they ought to be putting money aside for their retirement, plus high level education for each one of their children, plus other money aside for various other things. If you're more confident in your intelligence, you might avoid going for the advice and end up letting it slide or figure that you're an intelligent and responsible person who will be able to get a high enough income if your kids are in need. Ultimately, it's easy to find yourself in a bad situation and end up requiring your kids to pick up the slack (with a loan, part time work, etc.).

        Others of course are running up their credit cards and car leases while they've also got a mortgage or rent to pay for. The stats on how many people are in that sort of situation are really ugly. Quite a high percentage, though I don't remember it exactly.
    • schlottj, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1woot we really need more jesus freaks like the Duggars, keep it up USA! 17kids = $85K
    • blagoaw, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3$20 billion dollars is less than $80 per capita. Considering that higher level education has become a near necessity, I hardly find that to be an unreasonable subsidy to help lower the barrier between rich and poor. It does hurt a little though.

      It would seem more reasonable to me if only parents had to make this investment (and for it to still be weighted by income, as usual.. so that the poor don't spend their childrens' bread money on it of course), and for it to be proportional to the number of children they have. This would simply help them invest their money toward their childrens' education, since people tend to suck at making important investments. This idea isn't politically possible though, so the realistic solution is for everyone to pay.
    • Subterfug, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11$20 billion is chump change compared to what we waste in Iraq.
    • TripcodeMel, on 10/10/2007, -5/+320 billion dollars at, what.. 70bux a person? You probably spend twice as much on gas every month.

      Enjoy your petrol.

      *****.
    • zachshmack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5When I saw the headline, my first thought was, "Why's she buying up all these babies?"
    • eberhardt333, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5better to my kids than to bombing countries the president doesn't like
    • anonynous2_, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5$5,000 now or $100,000 when they need money for college.

      I'll give 'em my $70, thanks!
    • aspec, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Or maybe she's thinking about eliminating welfare.
  • Robodoon, on 10/10/2007, -33/+183She is an evil socialist! and a Rockefeller Stooge
    • bigpeeler, on 10/10/2007, -17/+18Amen to THAT!
    • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22I'm all for a bit of socialism: I'm all for public education, public transportation, ...

      But this is idiotic. If you want to help with education costs, fund education. If you want to help with people purchasing homes, don't bail the market out of their ridiculous mortgages.

      This is buying votes by redistributing wealth, plain and simple.
      • tartle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I agree. This sounds dangerously like "trickle up" economics. How absurd. How are the rich ever going to get richer if we start giving money to the poor? Worse, it's morally objectionable that Clinton would want to give money to the poor. They are just a bunch of crack ho's. I bet she even hangs out with prostitutes. She is so unchristian! Persecute her!
        • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I thought the plan was to give $5000 to *every* US baby, not to just families of the poor.

          Naturally, this would exclude illegal immigrants (at least I assume), so the predominantly-poor children of illegal immigrants would not share in this benefit. So it's actually biased AGAINST the poor.
        • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You want to help the poor with money? Subsidize public education, subsidize public transportation, subsidize family planning, subsidize day care, ... Do things that _only_ the government will and can do for the betterment of society, for the betterment of the economy, for the betterment of every future countryman.

          But cut them a ***** check? That is idiotic beyond my comprehension.
    • JettaMan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14What a stupid biotch. How can someone be so ignorant of economics. If you do that, it will only cause prices in education to escalate even more. Just like when they tried to help people get houses.
      • docdoober, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Just like the HMO scam. And it was/is a scam. Dollars directed exactly where they want them. To feed their pockets and egos. Makes me sick. And the payment for this is coming from where? The same tax burden that's oppressing the American public middle class right now. What a tard.
    • mirunit, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Does anyone think that this 5000$ would be used for anything worthwhile (the majority of the time)? I could see it being used as a down payment for cars families cannot afford, TV's, stereos, alcohol, lottery tickets, appliances for the house etc.
    • scubasteve377, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Not to mention, with inflation, $5,000 18 years from now will probably pay for one class at a community college.
      • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Based on past behavior, the government will probably force you to put it in some kind of investment vehicle that earns a pathetically low amount of interest. So it'll be worth more than $5000 in inflation-adjusted dollars, but only barely.
        • compulsive1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2If I read the article right, this is a $5000.00 bond that matures 18 years later. You can buy a bond like that for fraction of that amount. I don't know what the going rates are, but a 18 year bond starts much smaller. If she's talking about depositing $5000.00 in very child's account and that is a great idea according to some, why not start them with 50k or 100k? Wouldn't that be even better?

          This is just a big rouse to write/generate more money in to the economy. Watch "Money as Debt " on Google Video. It will all start making sense to you. As long as debt is issued, the economy is going. When people stop borrowing ever more the economy collapses. She is just proposing a new huge debt that can be written into books every year, so that phantom money based on this debt can be generated for years to come and the US economy keeps going. She can not come out and say why billions of dollars of new debt need to end up on the books, because that would officially confirm the absurd system we live in and cause all kinds of problems with people questioning the system itself. She is trying to do it in a feel-good way. It's for the children and not for the war! But the fact remains that all so-called major candidates are part of the scheme and will support it. The others have no big money behind them because they might do something to stop this out of control system and cost the bankers their sweet place in the economy.
    • futureinmind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Karl Marx would be proud.
  • szurls, on 10/10/2007, -25/+137I have a new idea too. I get $5,000 for every idea that is presented without details on how it would be paid for. This way I'll have enough money by the end of the month to give to Newt to run!!!
    • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -20/+16I have a better idea, stop the War in Iraq and use that money to fund any number of social programs, or just give it back to the people in the form of a tax holiday. We dropped half a trillion dollars on Iraq over 6 years without blinking, $20 billion on baby bonds at least does something good for THIS country.
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6(I should probably say this, even though it's in bad form to reply to myself; I'm a democratic socialist (think: UK), fiscally somewhat-conservative, registered Independent and I think this idea is appallingly bad, simply because it wouldn't work for America. But at least it would be money spent /here/ and not spent paying for bullets sprayed through Iraq. You can almost here the change falling with the shells every time the news shows a clip of some soldier spraying a wall with bullets and hitting nothing. All of that is money better spent /anywhere else/).
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I'm really tired of hearing the "we could spend this money better elsewhere" crap. The country is spending too much money, period. We shouldn't be thinking about where else we could spend it, but rather how we can stop spending so goddamn much money.
      • ndstumme, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Here's the thing. Say you go into a store and want to buy a drink. You can get a 20oz for $1.00, or a 2 liter for $1.50. It is obviously, and by far the better deal to buy the 2 liter, but that requires having an extra $.50. If all you have is $1.00, then buying the 2 liter is not an option, unless you find a way to get another $.50.
        We have spent half a trillion on the war in Iraq. Yes, 20 billion spent here is better than 500 billion spent there, but here's the thing. We have already spent that there. There is no way we can get it back. We have spent $.50 of our $1.50. We are only left with $1.00, and therefore we can't buy the 2 liter, or pay for clintons proposal, unless we find other means to support it. The store won't let you just take it without the extra $.50. Yes, it is probably better spent on this new idea, but we have already spent it.
        • Double0Doug, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Weird analogy, but I can get behind it. We need to keep these topics separate. As a fiscal conservative, I believe the war in Iraq, building that fence, and a proposal to give 5K to each and every newborn are ALL a huge waste in funds.
          I would much rather see all of this money spent on a socialized national healthcare system. Even as a fiscal conservative, I believe healthcare is a human right not a commodity… and I work for an health insurer.
          • Antwan718, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4i think the most logical argument would be to instead of taxing people to give to their children or in this case somone elses, stop taxing the people and let them save their own money, and those in the richest 10-20 % need to pay more taxes due to their higher standard of living
          • hmac, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3If we didn't have the health insurance and the pharmaceutical companies driving the prices up to make a killing off each other, we might actually have affordable health care WITHOUT insurance. Crazy, right?
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5No, it doesn't do any good for the country. Because once again, we're taking hard-working people's money and distributing it to EVERYONE. Whenever you take from the working and give to the jobless, you create an incentive for people to scrape by on government welfare. $5000 for having a kid? Jesus christ, that is completely insane. I know people who can't even pay their credit cards off on time. What are these morons going to do when they realize they can get an extra 5 grand just by having a kid?
        • JeffD, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2WEll if you read the arcticle you would have seen that it wasnt 5k to teh parents its 5k put into a trust fun d accumulating interest given to the kid upon turning 18. (That said, its still not a very good idea).
    • ndstumme, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4sounds good to me
      • arcticblue, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I really hate Konqueror... it only lets me reply to second tier comments.

        Japan already has a system similar to this. You get $3000 for your baby and then you get some money every month up until he's a certain age or 6th grade. Japan is doing it to support a baby boom because they have too many old people and not enough young people. I don't know why Hilary would try to do this in America though... What needs to be done is the health care system needs to be overhauled and be made affordable for EVERYONE.
        • arcticblue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3OK, I seem to have a "digg down" curse. Pretty much all of my posts over the past week or so have been dugg down. If you are going to digg me down, I'd appreciate it if at least you let me know why. Do you not agree that Konqueror acts weird? Do you not believe me about Japan's system (my wife is Japanese and politically active...she knows about this stuff)? Or does the rich elite here on digg not agree that poor people should be able to afford health care too? Or is it because I didn't mention Apple or Ron Paul? I'd really like to know.
    • hellathatguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1i hope your talking about Newt the little girl from ALIENS. RUN NEWT RUN!.....RIPLEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!
    • ThePantsParty, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3newt's not running...he just annouced it....
  • DefendThyself, on 10/10/2007, -35/+151I love how she promotes a separation against us and "the evil rich people." Yet this whore is one of the richest in the country. These uneducated people don't realize she is playing the rich card and the poor eat it up. Who wouldn't want $5,0000? I do, though it will come right out of our pockets. You don't poop money, and it does not grow on trees. She wants to take it from you and give it to others. How about forced redistribution of the middle class wealth to the poor? Can she be anymore Socialistic? Does this women have no pride? She is a whore for the CFR. We need Ron Paul to save the Republic.
    • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -10/+26Remember, $5,000 costs a socialist $20,000 to give. It's not even close to 100% efficiency, the bureaucracy (ostensibly created to ensure the policy does not waste money :( ) will burn far more money than will come back to the poor.

      Here in the UK we have in the last few years set up a tax credit system to give money back to families. This system costs more each year in waste to maintain than it actually gives out. There are figures that suggest a universal tax break equivalent to the average amount in tax credits given out to the most needy would actually cost the country less than the tax credit system. Of course bureaucracy always takes on a life of it's own and will do so with your $5,000.
    • JonFugeEveryone, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3The young people in this country are the ones who have seen the effects of no child left behind and have seen how badly the federal government has done when it has gotten involved in anything. We are the ones who will pay off the debts caused by the foolish economic policies of this generation. This is why we are the only people who are going to be willing to campaign for freedom. We must market Ron Paul nationwide focusing on the issues important to our audience. Make fliers for teachers about ending No Child Left Behind and the department of education. Make fliers on the 2nd amendment and immigration for our friends in the NRA. The freedom philosophy is best for everyone and if we market it properly we can get Ron elected.
    • Repsaj1980, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3I don't know anything about the No Child Left Behind programme, but your debts are mostly caused by the current 'war'. And $20.000 for $5.000 is a gross overexaggeration. Besides, bureaucrats are people too. People who need jobs, and who will spend their own wage back into the US economy.
      • arcticblue, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Ugh... who spells "program" with an 'e' at the end. Do you pronounce it PRO-GRA-MEH or PRO-GRA-MEE? Silly UK and your weirde [sic] spellings.
        • arcticblue, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Ok, this is off topic, but since some grammar nazi is going to get on my case about missing a question mark...
          I use Kontact to read RSS feeds and it works great, but it uses Konqueror to view stories you click on. I wrote that comment in the embedded Konqueror tab. Well, when I clicked Edit, it made KDE flip right the ***** out and my mouse turned in to a circle with a slash through it. I had to do a Ctrl-Alt-Backspace since nothing was clickable any more. Stupid Konqueror. I say Konqueror is right on par with explorer.exe in terms of stability.
      • jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"Besides, bureaucrats are people too. People who need jobs, and who will spend their own wage back into the US economy."

        They're people who are wasting resource in the process of redistributing resources. They're not producing anything. To make an economy stronger, you need it to make lots of things that people around the world want to pay for. People around the world don't want people you to spend $6000 (I'm being generous) to give $5000 to a baby. That's not productive. I want them to have jobs, just not that kind of job.
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That's wrong, people around the world do wan that, just look at how socialist Europe is. They LOVE that bureaucracy crap!
          • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I had a government professor in college who was from Europe, even though I was taking classes here in Texas. His comment was that the main difference between the US and Europe is that in Europe, being a government bureaucrat is a respectable career position, whereas in the US, people who work for the government are viewed as lazy people who just want to leach off the public dime. And he's right. That is exactly how we view government works in the US. You'd get more respect by working a part-time job at a fast food restaurant.
    • YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Who said naythign about that money coming from the middle class? Like she's said before, the money will mostly be coming from the richest 1% (the old money, the disgustingly rich, which is only found in America) through a more progressive taxing system. I'm not much of a Hil-dog fan, but these concepts you call 'Socialistic' I call straight up fair. Is Bill Gates really worth 200,000,000 times more than you are? Our current society and class system thinks so.
      • LoompaOompa, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Yes bill gates is worth 200,000,000 times more than me, because he rightfully earned that money in a free market society. I definitely don't agree with a flat tax, because lower income families definitely need as much money as they can keep, but you can't call a plan based on a dumb idea fair just because it doesn't effect you directly. $5000 dollars for a baby wouldn't even do anything. It's ridiculous to think that it would. Most low income families would have that money spent within a year.
        • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2He "rightfully earned" it? I think in the case of Bill Gates, it would be fairer to say that he got away with earning it by making crappy products and manipulating the market to create a monopoly, breaking lots of laws in the process, but not quite enough to get busted.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yes he is, but since I don't know how to explain that in emotional terms, and you don't understand real terms, I guess I'll consider you a lost cause.

        Bill Gates created a company that sells billions and billions of product, while employing thousands of people, every year.

        What you call fair I call theft.
      • Tweekster, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0So the richest %1 are going to foot the bill? ***** *****
        you are a god damned sheep if you believe that. I know some of you think we should have a 100% tax rate on anyone makeing 250K a year or more, but it isnt going to happen.
        • docdoober, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Ditto on the BS. All it takes is the 1% to form a simple company, and "hide" their income or profit. There will be even more loopholes generated for the now 1800 page tax code that is unmanageable. What a person to think the American public is this stupid.
    • geoffp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Wow, I was sure you were trying to be funny until the Ron Paul plug.
    • Slydevil01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"You don't poop money."
  • mattowan, on 10/10/2007, -24/+149OMG. Put a fork in her.
  • desertdweller, on 10/10/2007, -28/+75I'm sure she got the idea from Russia:


    Another socialist big-government big-brother plan. Yech.
    • splash, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Australia has a similar system called "Baby Bonus" of around $4000, but only to those who meet certain criteria, ie. earning under 70k a year. The interesting thing is that the bonus is given out in one go, and not spread over a year or something similar. As a result there was a marked increase in the number of TVs bought when this bonus came out.
      • dailygringo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10there's been a demographic shift as a result of the bonus, a marked increase in lower income families having children they can't really afford over the life of a child, because $4000 is such a huge sum of money to someone in that situation. in the long run it's only going to create a larger welfare dependent population...
      • KlayBorg, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5But that doesn't matter to the Howard government, they just try whatever tactics they can to remain in power and grab votes with their pathetic hand outs.
      • daza, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Kevin Oh-Seven!
        • opiniastrous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Costello Oh-Eight! (hopefully)

          Why? He'd give the government new drive (Howard is slowing and has been saying some things I haven't been too happy with recently), has a tonne of experience in cabinet and with the economy (as would his cabinet), and has quite liberal views as contrasted with Howard (look at his family connections for God's sake! His brother is CEO of World Vision Australia! He even used to an office-bearer of a party associated with Young Labor!). Anyway, I just thought I'd have my say here, because I know I'm in the minority!
      • opiniastrous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2KlayBorg, it's not about re-election. It's about trying to kick-start Australia's birth rate so that when the (superannuation lacking) Baby Boomers retire en masse, the outnumbered Gen Xs and Ys are not suddenly overwhelmed by the cost of supporting Australia's aged population, thereby dragging the economy (and standards of living) down. Costello was derided for his joke that parents should "have one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country" but he is right - Australia requires an increase in the birth rate to ensure future prosperity. So, rather than being an election move, the 'baby bonus' was an attempt to solve this long-term problem, much like the superannuation co-contribution scheme and attempts to increase the retirement age.

        In conclusion, look beyond your cynical outlook on life to the wider drivers, motives and consequences of political actions.
    • bigpeeler, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Ah yes, Russia. Billy-boy's college stomping grounds.
    • Repsaj1980, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4So short sighted. That's $5000 which goes straight back into the US economy. Increased buying power is good for the economy overall.
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7A new entitlement that's supposed to mature in 18 years goes straight back into the US economy? You should contact Hillary to discuss.
      • Fragowell, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2No, being short sighted would be not being able to look at the long term impacts this will have on the already dire welfare state of the lower economic brackets.

        Mark that down as one more foreign arm chair economist with all the feel good answers...
    • sakuraz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6In Soviet Russia, Kids pay YOU.
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6When my daughter was born 14 years ago, we could receive a one-time payment for those not working or as my wife did work, stayed at home for 1 year with 100% pay from her job. This system has been in place for the last 50 years and continues to be extended and improved and it works like a charm.
      Here in the US, my coworker gave birth on Friday and was at work on Wednesday! That's insane and sickening!
      USA is truly a 3rd world society!

      • Fragowell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What country are you from?
        • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Norway, but all Nordic countries have the same system.
      • jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6I'm sorry about your coworker, but it's the responsibility of a parent to plan ahead and save up a nest egg for things like maternity leave, prenatal and neonatal care, and all the other newborn expenses. If you want a baby and can't afford one, the best thing you can do is save up for a while. The last thing a new kid needs is a parent who isn't responsible enough to pay for it.
        • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4*sigh* Typical American idiot answer.
          • unloud, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2*sigh* Typical non-response due to lack of intelligent counter-argument.

            It isn't the governments job to make sure you manage your life; if you were a big enough adult to decide to have a kid you can be a big enough adult to plan for when it comes.
      • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Well, given that here in the US, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) legally guarantees your co-worker the right to take 12 weeks off after having a baby, and given that she came back to work less than a week later anyway, I would say that was her decision to do it that way. So why is it the fault of the US that she decided to do that?
  • desertdweller, on 10/10/2007, -5/+52URL failed -- here's the text.

    "

    By MASHA STROMOVA, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 11, 12:51 PM ET

    ULYANOVSK, Russia - Make a baby. Win a car. Don't be surprised if the streets are empty and curtains drawn in this central Russian region Wednesday as residents take up an offer by the regional governor to help stem Russia's demographic crisis.

    Ulyanovsk Gov. Sergei Morozov has decreed Sept. 12 a Day of Conception and is giving couples time off from work to procreate. Couples who give birth nine months later on Russia's national day — June 12 — will receive money, cars, refrigerators and other prizes."
    • FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -7/+37LMFAO!!!!!

      18 years of hell with an unwanted child........BUT I GOTS A FRIDGE!!!!!
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Hand it over to the state if you don't want it. The pseudo-commies just want the birth rate going in the positive direction again.

        Then again, maybe this is also Hillary's new platform: Make Babies, Not War!
    • JAGUART, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Don't laugh. With a burgeoning Idiocracy, I'm sure this will be the next prime time game show.
    • jly64, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Hildabeast! Halarious
  • pasqualepinzon, on 10/10/2007, -22/+73How effin stupid is the everyday American?? Obviously Hildabeast has a low opinion of the average American to even propose this idiocy. Unfortunately it will get her votes. The crackhead welfare voter will work overtime to get their $5000.00
    • airiox, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Dugg for HIldabeast, lol nice.
    • rushiku, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6How effin stupid? Apparently, smarter than thou. You see, a 'baby bond' would not be cash money upon delivery of said baby, but a 'bond' (hence the word 'bond' in said phrase 'baby bond') assumably collectible, with accrued interest, if not robbed by government first: see Social Security for example, only by stated child upon attainment of 'adulthood', for the purposes of additional schooling or home purchasing, only.

      Incentive for increased procreation = null, it's not even part of the equation.
    • YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Yea, there's certainly a lot of crackhead welfare voters... Moron.
    • jly64, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Hildabest is pretty dumb for being an educated rich biatch. LOL
  • Colindean, on 10/10/2007, -21/+79Or she could propose additional child tax credits and propose a federal program urging parents to buy bonds with the amount saved from the credits. That makes a lot more sense and keeps the government out of our lives.

    Better yet, vote Ron Paul in 2008, folks.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Ron Paul delegates things to the states [which ideally is a good plan], but that just means that the state could decide to give $5,000 to every baby.
      • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18You could, however, chose to move to a state that doesn't have such a plan. The idea is diversity, somewhere would be a state which has low taxes and those who want low taxes can move there. If the main government passes a law then there is no escape.
        • Argo1, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Yes, becuase we know the job markets are the same in in each state, so when "Ron Paul 2008" happens, I can just as easily get up and move to the state that i like and find a job so easily?
          • JeffD, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Who said that it would be easy? Just that it would be possible.
    • mjw2025, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4What's going to happen to the high tax states when the people move to the low tax states?
      • theblooms, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9The legislatures will see the errors of their ways and repeal stupid ***** like this. Theoretically.
      • Fragowell, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Ah, the beauty of economics and competition.
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I'll take my chances with state reps over fed reps, all day long. Feds are out of control because they're out of reach.
  • LouPickney, on 10/10/2007, -24/+80This sort of big government spending is why I'm supporting Ron Paul for president.
  • fdmille, on 10/10/2007, -15/+60I'm tired of this bitch! The Clinton's will say ANYTHING if they believe that they can get political points from it, and the Democratic party continues to make stupid promises and the poor people keep believing this type of bull sh*t.
    • sharkbump, on 10/10/2007, -14/+11Democrats can get away with this crap because their core constituents are stupid.......really....they are!
      • Mauna, on 10/10/2007, -9/+11You are right. That's how they like their voters.
        • otatop, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Because the core Republican voters are just raking in the Nobels, right? Both parties pander to the dumbest people they can.
          • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Just look at any old bell curve and you'll realize that most people are average. Considering today's ever-competitive education systems, "average" is turning into "stupid", so it really is a niche that both sides are going to have to fill if they want the majority vote.
  • sharkbump, on 10/10/2007, -19/+44Hillary = Idiot .............Notice how frikkin free she is with YOUR money!

    .....it would take the inner-city crack hos all of about 10 seconds to sell that bond
    • YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Haha, as opposed to the conservatives who just whisk away YOUR money on a needless war? Alot more than she's proposing.
      • MioTheGreat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Republican != Conservative anymore.

        A true conservative wouldn't be in this war. In fact, look at Bush, he's a great example of NOT conservative. Big government? Invasive Foreign policy? These are disgusting to any conversative.
        • otakushark, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Ah, the No True Scottsman fallacy...
          • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ah, the "if I don't like your definition, I'll call it the 'No True Scottsman fallacy' definition and that makes it false automatically" fallacy.
  • baronvonnasty, on 10/10/2007, -20/+13She's the lesser of Two evils, if that other evil is Ghouliani.
    • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3I disagree, at least guilian, for the most part, is socially liberal enough to keep out of people's personal lives, i.e. abortion, but fiscally conservative enough to not think that forced redistribution of wealth is a good idea.
      • gpaone, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Killing a human in the womb should not be looked at as a "socially liberal" issue....it is criminal.
        • Fragowell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You have to at least grant that there is a reasonable argument to be made over when an individual human life begins.

          I know you're probably not going to, and it's probably because you're passionate about your religious beliefs. And it's perfectly fine to be passionate about your religious beliefs, but consider that when you include it as part of your reasoning, you may be operating under a completely different assumptions than who you are trying to convince. You have to understand the other position before you can talk someone out of it.

          Or I could be presuming way too much. Forgive me if I am.
    • KlayBorg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Ummm... What about Obama, Gravel, Paul ect.

      She hasn't won yet, get other decent candidates in!
      • RandomGuySteve, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Obama would be a great president. I'd vote him in a minute. However, I don't think the Dems have enough courage to select him in the primaries over Clinton simply because of the recognition that Hillary already has.

        If the race next year comes down to Hillary and Giuliani, I will cry for this country, cause we're gonna be set for at least 4 more years of face palms, and then vote for ron paul if he decides to go 3rd party.
  • mtshasta, on 10/10/2007, -12/+63Hillary speaks……
    1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
    (2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few…… And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”
    (3) “(We) ….can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”
    (4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground.”
    (5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.”
    (6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.”
    Now you might think these were the famous words of the Father of communism, Karl Marx……..
    ….and you would be on the right track in thinking so…..but you would be wrong……
    These pearls of socialist/Marxist wisdom are from none other than our very own, home-grown Marxist………
    Hillary Clinton!
    • Stevethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Well Marx believed in the violent overthrow of the establishment by the proletariat, what you see here is the European brand of Socialism which by far is a lot better than corporatism that the US has nowadays but a lot worse than the truly free markets. If we want to enjoy freedoms we have to cherish them and most people don't, instead they take advantage of any welfare system that was built in a good will or -in the other end- blindly support the monopolies and the corporate fascism that comes after them. The problem is the people, not the system, you have to give people better education and by that I mean the exact opposite of "no children left behind" policy.
    • YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Yea no *****. Like our policies here in the US are succeeding... The typical conservative afraid of any sort of adaptation to a fast changing society. Keep shaking that cane old man.
    • lathicentropy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sources for these quotes?
    • BradMW, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1***** socialist dyke.
  • Leo21k, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10...I want $5000, that's not fair. :(
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Get preggers then!11 You'll prolly have to get preggers a few times to actually get all the money back from the taxes you spent.
  • Achaean, on 10/10/2007, -9/+30oh cmon now, this is just plain stupid. it doesnt take a genius to realize that people will end up abusing the "baby bond" program. the result will be more irresponsible people having babies simply to make their $5,000.
    • KlayBorg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11It already been proven to be an atrocious idea in Australia, with Birth rates rising among socio economic groups that in the long run cannot afford children, which ends up putting more pressure on the welfare system and increasing the growing gap between the rich and the poor. Complete "liberalism" and complete "socialism" are inadequate for our society, a middle ground needs to be found. Many countries within Europe have found this middle ground, however, it has not been adopted by the rest of the western world unfortunately.
    • afruff23, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Not to mention entrepreneurs will see this as a golden opportunity and buy the bonds at the hospital ward for say $4500 from parents and watch it grow and cash out. That's not to say these businessmen are evil, but that many stupid poor people will end up having more taxes and still no money saved up.

      And if you say that "the bonds can't be sold", well the parents could cash out the $5000 + savings and give them to the guy when their child turns 18.
      • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Not legally, since when the kid turns 18, the money will be the kid's and not the parents'. But I bet it would happen anyway.

        Speaking of which, if the money is legally the kid's when they turn 18, what are the chances *they'll* spend it responsibly? Hey! $5000! I need a ground kit for my car!
    • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You are assuming that in Australia all chilren from poor parents will end up like ***** and totally useless to the society. Maybe some will, but others will become important players of the society. Try to think of the future in 20 years, not six months.
  • Enochyang, on 10/10/2007, -4/+52how about you take that $5000 and put it back into our social security?
    • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4The social security system failed many, many years ago. It's only still around because the aging voter gets scared when you suggest replacing it with something.
    • lathicentropy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4No, because that would be an intelligent thing to do.
  • Mauna, on 10/10/2007, -11/+28Hillary wants to legalize the "undocumented immigrants" so she can get their vote. The $5,000 would do it, since what they do best is have babies. She knows they would like the money, so the Democrats are trying desperately to get the amnesty bill passed.
    • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, le'ts hate those ***** immigrants! If immigrants had brought anything good to the US in the last centuries that would be known fact.

      Damn Irish! Go back to where you came from! This place is only for true loyalists to the crown of Britain.
  • FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -15/+77$5000.00 A a baby?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

    By 2026 the Mexicans will be loaded!!!
    • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13That's funny, but in the "this is exactly how it would happen" kind of way, which makes it even more sad.

      Hopefully this is just another campaign lie and we can all forget about it in the upcoming weeks.
    • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Instead of 1994 Ford Astro Vans with spinners on them, we'll be seeing Honda Oddyseys.
    • fuckingusername, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1lol yup give them more of a reason to come here and pop as many kids out as possible. I can think of another race that will take advantage of this but I won't say. I have an Idea if you make 100k or more a year and your a congress rep or any other part of the govement you can pay for the babies
    • sodoh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Not sure why your getting Dugg unless to show off such a stupid comment. They are not getting cash. They are getting a bond. It is most likely the bond will be tied to third level education.

      It is actually a good system if it is done right. It takes a slight stress of those who want their children to have a university education. This would increase your population that can help pay for your pensions and hopefully put America as a country that is seen breeding winners instead of insourcing them.

      I also don't know why people get worked up about it coming out of your taxes. Most likely it comes out of that persons taxes. It works well in other countries.

      Ireland for example (where I live) you get one time payment of $1,418 a year until the child is 5. IIRC more then 2 children gets you more. You also get $212 a month per child until 18 ($45,946 totally). Add to that medical can be deducted off your taxes.

    • VEGETAble, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I like the idea, but mexicans have so many kids they can't take care of. Even if the parents don't get the money, an average mexican has what, 5 times as many kids as a human. ***** that
      • ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"an average mexican has what, 5 times as many kids as a human"
        Mexicans != Humans now?
      • GvnMcCld, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sometimes I wish I could say my race is not human, because there sure are a lot of stupid humans to be compared to.
  • Tomthekat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6They want to keep us barefoot and pregnant.
  • Qtip42, on 10/10/2007, -12/+100That is the DUMBEST thing I've ever heard. DO NOT GIVE STUPID PEOPLE INCENTIVES TO HAVE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!! They will pop them out faster than rabbits.

    Clinton should be smacked for saying such a stupid thing.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Oh come on, all politicians lie, it's the only way they can get elected. But you're entirely right on the "what the ***** was she thinking" scale. The end of the article really tells where it's coming from: " Earlier this month, Time magazine proposed a $5,000 baby bond program." She's just latching on to that publicity.

      But I entirely agree with the Idiocracy point-of-view.
    • PalmerEldritch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7They would have to be pretty stupid indeed if they saw this as an incentive to have children. The parents don't get the money, and the children don't get it until they are 18. There are plenty of reasons to disapprove of this plan, but that is not one of them.
    • AliasHandler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4This is no incentive to have children, it's not like the parents can touch that money. It's for the kids and them only when they turn 18 and only to be used for certain purposes.
      • Tweekster, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Do you honestly believe that will ever be actually set up that way?
        That there wont be exceptions and workarounds?
  • Flushnasty, on 10/10/2007, -19/+6Lets just blame the Mexicans for everything shall we?

    And not that I support this idea, but it would only cost 10% of what the war in Iraq is going to cost this year alone. So funny how the people that bitch about taxes are the same ones that supported the war in the first place. We could have national health care, free higher education and this baby *****. But NO Lets "blame a random country for 9/11" please, IF U SUPPORTED THE WAR STOP ***** COMPLAINING ABOUT TAXES! You let George bush trick you.... you dont deserve an opinion.
    • vault, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8You don't pay taxes, then? Got it.
    • lordigor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4they could both be bad ideas, you know. you don't have to have one or the other.
    • Flushnasty, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2First off, I said "people that bitch about taxes", not pay taxes. Second, I said "Not that I support this idea", referring to the $5000 per child. If your going to criticize me could you at least take that time to read a few sentences thoroughly . Donkeys
      • Toshibi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Flushnasty, you do realize that there are a group of people out there who are fiscally responsible and were against the war in the first place, don't you. Libertarians like myself. Gives me free reign to bitch about all the stupid ***** this government pulls.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3IMHO, if you didn't support the war then you were "stupid". Whether or not we were specifically LIED to, false information gave us the image that we had just been attacked on four different accounts by people who also held nuclear / chemical / hydrogen - fueled weapons.

      It is because of this self-afflicted terrorism that 90%+ of the US population supported a war. Back then, it really seemed like it was actually going to protect us. People thought it was going to be Desert Storm 2.0 with 40,000 enemy casualties and 80 US casualties.

      Obviously, that didn't happen.
      • furi0us1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3No, sorry. Only blind sheep believed a word bush and company said. Those with any critical thinking skills weren't fooled. Unfortunately there weren't too many of them in this country to begin with.

        Even if Saddam did have chemical weapons (there was no chance he had any useful nuclear weapons), this war was ill advised to begin with. The only people who claimed there was a connection between Saddam and Al qaida was Bush and Cheney. There was no outside verification of that, and in fact there were plenty of people openly questioning their claims. It's this countries fault for the blind patriotism that seemed to take over our ability to reason.

        This war was obviously a huge mistake to begin with. The only thing that wasn't foreseeable was that it would turn out to be such a huge disaster.
      • cramtod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If you didn't see how support for the war was being sold, you were misguided. The Iraqi invasion and occupation was sold as a cakewalk by the administration. Bush and palls (Rumsfield, Wolfowitz mostly) went general shopping until they found what they wanted to hear.

        "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this."
        - General Eric Shinseki, Feb 25, 2003

        "There has been a good deal of comment - some of it quite outlandish - about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army - hard to imagine."
        - Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, Feb 27, 2006
      • Liability, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The biggest problem dragging the USA down is not its corrupt robber-barons, it is the ignorance of its citizens..
  • WisR, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18Holy crap... I don't know whether to digg or bury this, as this better never happen.

    The strange thing is, if this hits the front page, it will be taken as a sign by her campaign that this idea was dugg, and hence has our support.
    • HallsOfMandos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Until they read the comments - this has to be one of the worst ideas ever put forward by a politician in this country. As many have already pointed out, we do not need to give people a monetary incentive to have more children.

      'Can you calm down on your rutting for just a second, at least until we figure out this whole food, air deal...' - The Late, Great Bill Hicks
  • Sil369, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Didn't families used to be compensated monetarily for having lots of children loooong ago? I can't remember where it told place... England? France? ....
    • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"Dem blasted commies did it", and as we all know from the McCarthy-generation on, anything the commies did is automatically a bad idea.

      (note: this actually is a *really* bad idea, IMO. It's only going to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies taken to term, for no other reason than getting the money, and it's still not giving money to the people who need it the most. In a way, it's almost encouraging the poor to stay poor by having a bunch of children and getting the "instant gratification", rather than encouraging investment).
    • mbradbury, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Happens in Australia now, The payment is $5000.
    • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It does hapen in many if not most western european counties. We have low birth rates so we need a combination of immigration and births to get enough population. Without that most of western europe would have a decreasing population and end up extinct at some point in the future.

      I was born in Switzerland and 30 years ago my parents, rather poor immigrants from spain, had right to those benefits. They didn't spend it on crack, I am fine and I pay taxes.
  • thatchimp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23i'd rather have school vouchers for parents who'd rather use their tax dollars to send their kids to private school rather than public schools than a stupid bond that will do jack ***** in building towards the massive amount of money needed to pay for college. i recently read a study that your kid born today will end up needing 300,000k for their college education. ***** bonds, give us a real choice, and our kids a real chance...
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!

      Public school is where the politicians teach the kids to be good little voters.
    • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2$300 million is a lot for a college education...
  • tunapez, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Buying our votes w/ our money.
    Encouraging population growth=More future voters.
    Keeping the money in Guv's coffers to default on later, maybe to bail out SS.

    Gee, sounds like a great idea!!!
    /sarcasm...if anyone could be a worse leader for the US than Butch, I believe Hillary could be that stooge.
    • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, let's see. You pay money through taxes and the government gives you services back. They build highways, hospitals and all that costs money. What exactly is wrong with promising to give back to the average people the profits from the taxes?
  • DesertDude, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8Anyone have a list of GWB's plans and promises in 2000? Lots of crap is thrown out at these elections to lure voters.
  • SqueakyWheel, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9It takes a village ya know
    • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It takes a village of working taxpayers to pay $5,000 to every ***** baby born.
    • texnofobix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1to raise an idiot?
  • ConfirmedCynic, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5For education, maybe. If it's made available for buying a new house, then housing prices will simply rise to what the market can then bear. No use in that case.
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1What makes you think education prices wouldn't do the same?
  • DirtySnachez, on 10/10/2007, -3/+27This is a common practice in Australia. The gov a few years ago bought in the 'baby bonus' as well as the '1st home-owners bonus' which is basically a $8k and $20k windfall from the government to a regular citizen. It helps when you're starting out a family and buying a house, the government here does its bit for you, you know... like *wants* you to survive.

    I'd post links but you can google it if you wnat.

    Scandanavians are laughing at us all right now.
    • blugill, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Government windfall?!?!?!
      The government doesn't make any money! They do nothing but collect taxes they are NOT in a business that makes a windfall!
      Do you feel obligated to pay 5K for someone else's kid?
      Wouldn't you rather have that money and put it towards your own kid?
      • DirtySnachez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Your missing the point. Everybody HAS to pay taxes, and this 'baby bonus' we do here in Australia is basically a $8k tax-refund cheque just because you are having a kid. Yes, I want my taxes to go towards it, because it means a better quality of life for the kid, and a hopefully a better society in the end.

        Its not like im paying extra than I would normally in taxes.
        • Liability, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1... those who don't have kids pay more, those who do have kids are forced to participate in the gov't-mandated money management program. It's garbage.
        • sodoh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That's what you think. But you are wrong. Everyone pays taxes. If anything I would see it as getting my taxes back from other years.

          For years I didn't drive a car yet my taxes (in Ireland) go towards the roads. Should I moan about it?

          Single people whine a lot about taxes. But the fact is the kids will be paying for your retirement. Also bringing up a kids is expensive. Do the maths on Nappies alone.
          • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No, the kids will not be paying for my retirement. I have been investing money in the stock market (and other things) and will be paying for my own retirement through investments. In the US, we have Social Security, but I am not stupid and am not leaving my fate in the hands of a government program that may not be around decades later.
      • YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yea, YEA, CAPTALISM!! I WIN, AND EVERYBODY ELSE LOSES! YEA, YEA
    • kalleanka, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14"Scandanavians are laughing at us all right now."

      Yes indeed, being from Sweden I read this and I was thinking "finally this Americans come up with a good system that helps the _kids_ of the poor families". But what do I see? Every ***** digger hates the idea. I'm all surprised, I thought Digg was fully of young liberal people.
      To me, this is a great idea cause in today's USA, kids born in a poor family are pretty much ***** from day 1 in their life. You guys have to pay for your education, that's all retarded all right. With this system at least you help the poorest along the way so they can afford a decent university when they grow up.
      For the rich people in the society (like me) the $5000 is so minor anyway. But for the poor, it helps a lot.
      Anyway, maybe I'm to Swedish thinking education is a human right just like food, water and the right to vote. In USA, that's generally not the common idea. If you got no cash, well, you get a crappy education.
      • urmsghere, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0yea and im not paying for some dumbass idiots to have kids whos not gonna educate them with any morals wuts so ever, and the kids are not going to college anyways.
        • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Mr. Educated: it's "yeah", "I'm", "who are", "going to", "whatsoever", and "anyway".
  • bigpeeler, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Somewhere out there, Obama just got a hard on.
    • ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3First time anyone ever has gotten a hard on because of Hillary Clinton.
  • thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13As a few have stated, you don't give people money (that they can spend on ANYTHING including gambling it away in 5 minutes on a roulette wheel), you give them vouchers that they can ONLY spend on education or whatever the intention is you want them to spend it on.

    Also, Hillary is simply going for the female vote here. Doesn't matter if a woman doesn't want kids, or already has enough kids, this kind of "pledge" gets the female vote. And the female vote wins elections everytime. It's all emotion-based soundbites with little thought. It's happening in the UK where Gordon Brown mentions a new rape law, or a sexual discrimination act, and his rating jumps 10% because of the female vote. It doesn't matter if the rape law simply extends the meaning of 'rape' to be simply looking at a woman, or if the sexual discrimination act includes more frivilous 'crimes' against women, it will win the female vote.
    • MrSteamTank, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Dugg you up for being so right!. Women are more than 50% of the population and more prone to change votes from one candidate to another. For that very reason almost every politician will do things to pander to women. Hence the implementation of the incredibly sexist VAWA that we have here in the States which every woman agrees with but is wrong in so many ways.
      • BobMysterioso, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0Agreed on both points! That is why I have been saying for years that women should never have had the right to vote. I think to fix this very pesky > 50% population we should clearly abort female babies for a few years. This should clear up the issue - and make us a stronger nation to boot!
        You 2 are the smartest people on this board. Why can't anyone else see your genius?
        I am joking, entirely, I believe nothing of what I just said, I'm just poking fun of these 2 asshats.
        • thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Way to go Bob - we talk about how politicians pander to the female vote, and then you try to create a ridiculous strawman by talking about killing all women, as if this is the natural extension of our point of view. Now if you want to have a counter-argument and state that none of this pandering to the female vote exists, you go right ahead. As it stands, your post makes you out to be a complete and utter dork.
        • MrSteamTank, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Well Thailand he sure does have a point. I mean if we disagree with political pandering towards a particular segment of the population then the only logical conclusion is that we want to eventually murder them! It makes perfect sense!

          I simply love how the counter-argument to the kinds of points we make always are either direct insults and/or claiming we are intensely sexist, racist neanderthals stuck in the 1950's.
      • thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1VAWA is so messed up it's just not funny. The W in that acronym is a terrible double standard that exists in the US in 2007. Sexual equality does not include men who are victims of violence. To describe that logic - you just can't - I think an Escher painting would get closer than me trying to put into words this kind of twisted logic.
  • daxsymbiont, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4what happened america, too racist for obama?
    • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I remember a survey that I read in I believe it was Newsweek that I found to be very telling of America. It was a survey of a likelyhood to vote or not vote on someone based on some unpolitical aspect of theirs. The jist of the survey was, Would you not vote for X just because X is a Y. Obama:Black Hillary:Woman Romney:Mormon. Hillary was what I expected, about 20% said that they would never vote for a woman. Obama showed white guilt to the extreme and only 3% of people said they wouldn't vote for a black man. We all know this to be false, because unless they cold called Harlem, more than 3% of americans are still rascist enough to not vote for a black guy. Now, what surprised the living ***** out of me was that 56% of people said that they would not vote for someone simply because he or she was a mormon. Are you ***** ***** me? Are we as a country still stuck in the dark ages where the religion of a candidate is the defining factor of whether or noit he or she is a mormon? I lost a bit more hope for the future of this country after reading this survey.
      • BobMysterioso, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I found the most telling part the biases that you reveal. Racism - ok.. Sexism - ok.. Rejecting someone based on religion? Thats crazy talk. You shoud have lost a bit of hope after reading the survey and analyzing your feelings.
    • JonFugeEveryone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5A year ago Obama was the voice of honesty and reason. Now he seems to be nothing but a puppet for his special interests. I have not heard him say anything significant in months.
  • Radanator, on 10/10/2007, -11/+28So illegal immigrants should get $5000 on top of their free education and not having to pay taxes??
    • chiggah, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Seriously ;/ I wonder if those angry civil rights groups fighting for all the illegal immigrants' right actually give a ***** about the rest of the society. They fight for these people to enjoy as much benefits as a lawful resident/citizens, if not more in some ways, bu than that's it. Of course, no government department as a whole is willing to risk their next election to actually resolve these issues.
    • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Children of illegal immigrants should get an education just like everybody else, for two reasons: (1) being children, THEY did not choose to immigrate illegally, and they should not suffer for their parents' choices, and (2) it benefits society to have educated people, regardless of what their parents did, and it doesn't do society any good to have uneducated people (regardless of where they came from).
    • tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Your comment is stupid - if they're illegal, they aren't accounted for. That means they can't claim the benefits. It works both ways - if they want the free ride, they don't get any of the handouts either.
    • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I can't believe all the hatred I hear against the "illegal immigrants" you treat them as criminal. The only thing illegal they do is being there. They didn't commit any crime, they are not murderers. They care about their children as much as any one and if you give them the opportunity to establish in the country legally, they will and their children will be the needed workforce of tomorrow.
  • cubeeggs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12"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?"
    Their? Those are some bad editors.
  • Frostman3D, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Yeah... This woman needs to be president. $5000 for each baby born, hmm... at the birthrate in this country, that could be quite a bit. Who's gonna pay for it?
    Thank God Hillary is being herself, she'll never win.
    • Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers, i.e. Voting day.
    • Shadoglare, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Based on the numbers in the article, "quite a bit" would add up to about 20 *billion* dollars each and every year.
    • thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1"Thank God Hillary is being herself, she'll never win."

      She's got the female vote in her pocket now.
  • BuboTitan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Germany has a similar program, and it works ok. But I have a question. What about the children of illegal immigrants? They are US citizens too, but a program like this is only going to encourage more Mexicans to cross the border just to have their babies here.
    • CarzorStelatis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Er... so the fact that the child will have access to $5000 when it turns 18 will make the parents want to work as virtual slave labour in unscrupulous businesses? Hmm I see the logic there.
      • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Given that literally millions of people are already choosing to work as illegal immigrants, why would sweetening the pot by $5000 not encourage more people to do it?
    • ajc30, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Anything that makes life nicer in this country will encourage more mexicans to come over. So let's turn this place into a ***** hole, that will keep them out!
    • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's funny how everytime I hear someone use the term "illegal immigrant" it sounds as they're saying "criminal immigrant". Sure working in a country without authorization is illegal, well guess what: INTEGRATE them, that's it. They'll be glad to become americans and participate in the society. They will pay taxes and serve their country.

      The only solution to get rid of illegal immigrants ? Make them legal.

      The US population has been growing trhough immigration for centuries and it has become the worlds most powerful country. What exactly has changed to make you think that immigration is suddenly a plague?
  • Caleb666, on 10/10/2007, -16/+33Ron Paul. That's all I gotta say. He's the only one that actually makes any sense.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I can't wait for some proper debates between him and the other candidates! Hopefully ones where they actually get time to speak.
    • BobMysterioso, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Stop wasting time on Ron Paul. At the end of the day he will not be the candidate and he will not get more than 3% of the primary vote.
      Just watch.
      • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Absolutely. I think he has some good points, but he's too extreme and is thus unelectable. Voting for Ron Paul is a lot of like voting for the Libertarian or Green Party candidate: nice idea, but they aren't going to win, so unless you like using your vote as a symbolic statement, vote for somebody who has a chance of winning.
    • YoureAllSoDumb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Sometimes he makes sense... Dissolving FE