I'm reconsidering my support of Clinton in light of her recent ludicrous idea

[calteacherguy]

to give every newborn $5000.

It's a horrible idea for several reasons. The biggest reason is population growth is the greatest threat this planet faces, and this nation faces. We have LIMITED RESOURCES. We should be encouraging smaller families, not encouraging larger ones.

The money could be better spent by making college affordable to all, and improving public education.

And, it discriminates against people who don't have kids.

These kinds of things make me question her judgment. I am so against this idea I can't in good conscience vote for her unless she changes her position on this.

[Armstead]

1. A chicken in everey pot

It's never happen, she knows it'll never happen.

It's just pandering.

[terisan]

25. A sensible plan, superior to bank loans for education which is a bank welfare program.

[bvar22]

127. A better plan is Universal FREE Education...

for everyone who wants it.
If we can afford to stay in IRAQ indefinitely, we can certainly afford Universal Education.

[Norrin Radd]

136. Yep.

[dugggy]

151. Universal college for ONLY those who qualify

with prior universal testing for scores.

[bvar22]

152. AND FREE Universal Remedial and Qualifying Programs

for those who can't yet qualify.

[Bucky]

2. Trouble in Hillary land. Clinton's losing support among the anti-baby bloc.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

117. You know what? There are a lot of single and/or childless people in this country

And a lot of us vote. This is not going to go over well with a crucial demographic.

[AZBlue]

123. Anit-baby?

That's as inane as her idea.

[AtomicKitten]

3. One would think voting "yes" on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment --

would be the deal-breaker.

[calteacherguy]

4. That amendment was modified.

I've been trying to cut her a little slack, but it seems like there's another reason to vote against her on a regular basis now.

[AtomicKitten]

14. that vote was deja vu upside the head

That amendment although watered down a bit is a precursor to war on Iran. We must be mindful of recent history to stop this in its tracks, and Hillary did the exact opposite and signed on to this GOP-inspired scheme to set the groundwork for more war.

That vote is a screaming red flag. Just like the IWR vote. At the very least, Democrats have got to stop rationalizing this participation in the GOP-led scourge of the planet.

[calteacherguy]

21. I would like to see Congress come out with stronger resolutions calling for diplomacy.

At least at the end the resolution did stress that the intent was to endorse diplomacy, although I agree the language was weak.

I really don't think this amendment was at the same level as the IWR vote. It doesn't authorize war; in fact is was modified so the language could not be interpreted as authorizing combat operations in Iran to combat the Iraqi insurgency.

Of course, we know the administration will interpret things as they wish, so I understand your point of view. Still, I don't think this amendment will be as significant in the long run as some are making it out to be. There are parts of it I do actually agree with.

And again, it doesn't give the administration any more power than they already have. In fact, it as modified it gives a clear sense of what Congress beleives should be the limits.

Of course, this administration has proven they will do what they please, regardless.

Also, it would have hurt the Dem nominee in the general election to vote against it. It's good the modifications were made sucessfully.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Although the votes were different in magnitude --

they are in the same ballpark of intent.

Of course, this administration has proven they will do what they please, regardless.

And that is PRECISELY why Democrats have got to stop putting their name to GOP war schemes.

On edit: The GOP requires little provocation and has a nasty habit of tee'ing up these "between a rock and a hard place" votes before elections. Democrats must NOT be suckered into signing on to an extension of this war as a calculated measure to benefit their own political behinds.

Sorry for the drift off-topic. :)

[karynnj]

50. I think Atomic Kitten is right

It does not endorse war, but the IWR did not, per Bush before the vote "mean we are going to war". In fact, Bush did not mean anything he promised and his signing statement quickly eliminated the carefully negotiated changes in wording that made many people say as you did that as it was less bad - they could vote for it.

The IWR did not cause or even make the war more likely - it did make it harder to make the case that it was Bush's war and his war only. (Incidently, I think it ominous that Chris Matthews when talking about the Iran vote compared it to the 1998 vote that declared Saddam Hussein was a terrorist and that that led to us going to war. In reality, it didn't. ) Here, Bush has the ability, as he always did, to fight Iran for 60 days without Congressional approval. I hope and pray that he realizes that this would be an awful idea - but if he did, I will bet when he does come back to Congress, he will reference this vote.

[BootinUp]

49. I object!

Oh, we've discussed this already I think. You might want to review my arguments here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3560245&mesg_id=3562188

[paparush]

144. DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! NO DEMOCRAT should have voted for that shite!

Especially no democrat trying to become president of a country that is AGAINST the f#cked up war we are already in.

[karynnj]

46. It is still a signal that the top 5 Democrats and top 2 Republicans on the SFRC did not want sent

They are the people, who heard all the detailed hearings on Iran. The two Republican votes are very significant.

What bothers me is that I suspect it was done for political reason because she thinks it makes her look stronger on National Defense. After the last six years, it bothers me that anyone things Stronger means more militant. This was the same reason she took the positions on Iraq in 2005 and 2006 - when she was extremely negative on things like Kerry/Feingold - though the 2006 elections seemed to have convinced her that deadlines are not such a bad idea after all.

[bvar22]

128. Modified or not,

it WAS an escalation of hostilities toward Iran, and brings us one step closer to WAR.

Thats a FACT. There is NO valid counter argument.

[Capn Sunshine]

94. Yes, one would think

But remember , this is Hillary we're talking about.

I would have thought her tacit endorsement by Dark Lord Murdoch would be setting off alarms in all Democrats.

I would have thought her tacit endorsement by Bush would be setting off the smoke alarms.

But, it's Hillary, and she's inevitable. Ask anyone

[Inspired]

142. Correct...

So this is the issue that is setting off alarms? Amazing, really amazing. The red flag on her should have been noticed a long, long time ago.

[AZBlue]

124. One of many for me.

I can actually forgive, to a certain extent, the IWR vote, given the mood of the country at the time and how the GOP spin machine works. There's NO excuse for this one.

[AtomicKitten]

154. that vote was a red flag

And even though Obama didn't vote on this, I'm damn glad he didn't vote "yes."

[freefall]

137. Exactly. n/t

[wyldwolf]

5. noooo. Please! Stay! LOL.

[calteacherguy]

6. What do you think of this idea? nt

[wyldwolf]

8. Much like single payer health care. Neither has much of a chance in getting through Congress.

[calteacherguy]

9. So why does she come out supporting it? nt

[wyldwolf]

10. the same reason all politicians come out supporting pie-in-the-sky ideas

Votes.

[calteacherguy]

12. Well, I agree to a point.

Definitely that is the case with, say, Edwards.

Remind me what "pie in the sky" idea Obama has endorsed recently, I've forgotten.

[wyldwolf]

17. here's a knee slapper for you

Obama has promised to ban registered lobbyists from giving gifts to politicians. :rofl:

Doesn't sound as silly as "a chicken in every pot," but it has just as much a chance of becoming a reality.

[calteacherguy]

28. I actually agree with that idea. Why does it not have a chance? nt

[wyldwolf]

33. So, because you agree with it, you think it has a chance?

Hint: Politicians love the gifts too much to give them up. Sure, they'd make some noise about. They might even pass a bill or two, but there will be a back door that will still allow it.

[Windy]

41. boy you have no problem in compromising integrity for votes do you...

All Hillary supporters seem to be afflicted with the same disease.

Really think about what you're suggesting.. and look at your candidates actions.

Do we really want a panderer in office at this stage in our country's history?

[wyldwolf]

43. what does that have to to with what I wrote?

[Windy]

51. Pie in the sky ideas to get votes

Saying what the bush supporters want to hear to "get votes" ...
Pandering to the right wing to "get votes"

Supporting the bush policy of not talking to our "enemies" to get votes...

Your candidate is ALL about politics and not about what is best for this country and you and other Hillary Bots support her in that strategy.

[wyldwolf]

112. I said nothing of the sort.

[Forkboy]

109. They would have to have integrity in the first place to be able to compromise it.

[terisan]

26. Such cynicism. This is a sensible, very do-able proposal. nt

[wyldwolf]

31. Sensible, yes. Can it make it through Congress? Doubtful

[Milo_Bloom]

39. Of course it can.

If a candidate makes enough of an issue about it and the PUBLIC cares about it, it will become law, because there is no way a congressperson is going to vote against something for their own self-interest over the vast wishes of their constitutuents.

[Jim Sagle]

134. Face it, pal, this is HUGH!!!!! I'm SERIES!!!11 She's TOAST!!!!

Might as well join up with a REAL Dem.

;)

[cobalt1999]

7. I agree it is a stupid idea

I assume it is just pandering, but still...dumbest idea I've heard from her yet.

In my mind, she is still my #1 choice but Obama gained some ground on her.

[Adelante]

11. It's a bond for the future

I don't think it's a bad idea if it were tied to income levels. I'm not sure where, maybe $50,000 at the top. I don't think it should be for people who can afford to plan for their kids' futures on their own. But a booster for poor and working class kids to look forward to college or home ownership is the type of government program I would support.

[calteacherguy]

15. Why should we be subsidizing home ownership?

I don't own a home, why should I pay to subsidize others?

And why the hell should we subsidize having kids? People need to be responsible for the choices they make!

I COMPLETELY disagree with you on this.

[Adelante]

19. So disagree

If it were a situation of handing over a $5000 cash bonus for childbirth it would be another thing entirely. But a bond that helps enable a better future for less advantaged children is a good thing. I chose not to have children, but I do see that they will form the society to come and I would like to see an educated invested citizenry coming from all classes.

[wyldwolf]

22. you're ON to something here!

I don't have kids in public schools. Why should I pay to subsidize others? And based on your DU name, I assume you're a teacher. Why should I pay to subsidize your salary?

I can afford my own health insurance. Why should I pay to subsidize others?

I have a job and pay for my own food. Why should I pay to subsidize others?

[slick8790]

30. Home ownership is slightly different than public education, no?

[wyldwolf]

34. owning a home and going to school are different things, but both play a role in the poverty cycle

Owning a home was shown to help ground people and lift them from the cycle of poverty by several studies in the last decade - just like education.

[Colobo]

44. Admit it , wyldie- Her idea sucks.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colobo]

130. Oh dear wyld- you are so wrong, but I still admire you.

[wyldwolf]

141. you're approach to politics is like a teen's drooling over Andy Gibb in TigerBeat

[The Magistrate]

47. And There Is This, Mr. Wolf

People tend to cheer when told they are going to be given free money: it is hard to think of a more sure-fire applause line, and every political rally needs a good, full-throated roar of approbation from the crowd....

"If you want it, here it is, come and get it."

[Windy]

53. Hillary and her advisors are ALL about politics

Throw the populus a bone and say you'll send them money that the country really doesn't have, to buy their vote. No substance. Its all political gamesmanship all the time with Clinton.

Too bad. I really wanted to be able to cast my vote in the primaries for the first woman with a shot at becoming president. I can't do it. A vote for HRC would definitely be against my how interests and contary to everything I've stood for and what I've been fighting since Bush took office

[BootinUp]

54. Thats just an overly cynical view

As you recall, Bill Clinton at least was a very good fiscal manager, I hope to see a similar ability from Hillary and her team.

This idea has merits, a lot of ideas do, but there are going to be differing opinions on it. I don't agree with the OP that we should not encourage raising families for instance. My biggest question with this policy proposal would be with regard to priorities. In other words this might be an excellent proposal in a second term after we have dealt with much more pressing issues.

[The Magistrate]

58. That Is True, Ma'am, Of Anyone Seriously Contending For The Office Of President

One of the qualifications for the post, one might say....

[BootinUp]

57. True of course

The interesting thing with this proposal is that the payoff is down the road it seems. I mean I didn't read the proposal but I assume there are restrictions on when it can be used so that people save it for the future.

I wish the republicans actually cared about helping lower income people's savings.

[The Magistrate]

60. That Is Part Of the Point Of The Proposal, Sir

That it offers a benefit only in the long run.

It is one of the enduring views of what keeps people in poverty that a leading cause of it is an inability or disinclination to look down the road to long term consequences, beneficial or otherwise, of choices they make in the present. It is not a wholly accurate view, of course: the real meat of being poor is a deep understanding that the future is uncertain, owing to present insecurities, and that planning for it, or even much regard for it, is most likely a complete waste of effort, since some crisis or series of crises is bound to put any plans or hopes awry. But while the idea people mired in poverty need to be taught to look towards the future and delay present gratification for future benefit is pretty much false, it is quite possible that a program on these lines might give people some sense of security against the vicissitudes of the future, that would make looking towards the long term a more sensible thing.

[Adelante]

66. Exactly right

I would add a sense of opportunity lying ahead, the possibility of a way forward for the next generation. That's always been the American dream now becoming more and more constricted.

[Douglas Carpenter]

138. would you be surprised Mr. Magistrate if this proposal was met with ridicule from elements of the

media? Would you be surprised if large elements of the general public picked up a very cynical theme regarding this proposal?

The first thought that came to my mind when I learned about this proposal was McGovern's 1972 proposal for providing every American with a $1000. grant. I see that the right-wing blogs have already picked up that theme. And as the right-wing blogs correctly pointed out the 1972 McGovern proposal was only one element of completely restructuring the income tax and welfare system by creating a type of negative or reverse income tax for the low income and establishing a guaranteed minimum annual income to replace the old welfare system while completely rewriting the entire tax code. While I gather Sen. Clinton's proposal is nothing of that sort. And appears unless I am mistaken as being more or less as simple as it sounds.

The question of whether this is a good idea or bad idea aside, is it not possible that this proposal will run into a wall of cynicism and perhaps even ridicule similar to the problem Sen. McGovern's proposal faced in 1972? In 1972 most Americans still accepted then at least some concept of what the right would call "the nanny state". Has not the American public has been much somewhat conditioned by common political discourse in the last 35 years to reflexively reject "big government give aways"?

doug

[CreekDog]

89. Why have a public education system, people should be responsible

And take care of that need for their own children, not saddle us with the costs.

(not)

[BootinUp]

91. your funny. n/t

[CreekDog]

87. Because if you don't subsidize, kids suffer

Not their parents.

You think welfare was really for the parents?

Man, oh man, you are losing me.

[CreekDog]

88. We subsidize companies, why can't we subsidize homes

And why not subsidize people?

[iamjoy]

68. Not Cash

I think the government giving some one cash is a bad idea. If the parent is uneducated or foolish that money will be wasted. Why not take that $5,000 and invest it in child care programs to help low income parents? Why not invest it in education (Pre-K programs, need based college scholarships, etc)? Why not help build community centers in poor neighnorhoods where kids (and families) will have a safe place for recreational activities? Maybe even have free or low cost classes in "life skills" for parents and children?

[msongs]

13. you should vote for the republican nominee who will be against the idea probably nt

[calteacherguy]

16. Or, find a Democratic candidate who is against the idea. nt

[PATRICK]

18. I'm wondering

about that committment to growth capitalism in a time of reckless crisis. Yet another huge pot of money that would allowed to sit and festoon into six digit college funds? The regulations and consequences multiply faster than the cells of the fetus. Already we have funds like that in the state with so many tax regulations so much complicated risk choice factors for self-investing that I would need a super computer just to figure out if I'm being had.

Just make college free to all qualified and let simple taxes and a sane federal budget make the PUBLIC commitment recognize this social benefit to all. The boondoggle itself is dystopian pie in the sky as opposed to utopian. If you are going to aim that high, aim sanely.

[terisan]

20. This is a good idea for discussion. A $5000 bond posted at birth and growing interest

up to age 18 is like funding a personal trust which can be used to make that 18 year old a well-educated citizen and an individual who is able to contribute to the common good. If the child has a developmental disability of such severity that he or she is unable to be self-supporting the money could go toward things which will enhance his or her health, training or living conditions.

I think putting tax money on the front end, such as into an account at birth, instead of the back end, as we do now--is more responsible.

It seems far superior, to me, than funding higher education through bank loans, and federal grants.

Parents don't get the money, they still have child-rearing expenses and I don't
see people making decisions to have a child based upon this account. People in the US and developed countries already limit the number of children they have---one reason we have aging populations.

Stats are showing that people in 3rd world limit household size as they become more affluent; and that women who have birth control access and information limit the number of children they have.

Spending money on improving public schools as you suggest also discriminates against people who do not have children, although I would argue that spending either way-birthright or improving public ed contributes to the common good.

[wyldwolf]

24. shhh! You're hurting the "progressive"/Republican Coalition Against Hillary.

[CreekDog]

90. Yes, reduce the birth rate by reducing poverty

It works everywhere else.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

118. "I don't see people making decisions to have a child based upon this account"

I do.

Never underestimate the capacity for stupid in human beings.

[Benhurst]

23. Didn't it bother you that she voted for the Lieberman Amendment

which sets us up for a war with Iran? Or that Obama went AWOL on the issue?

If you're going to draw the line so low as to exclude all those who pander, we may find ourselves without a candidate and end up wandering about like Diogenes in search of a mythical creature.

[calteacherguy]

29. You make a good point there in your last paragraph.

I'll take it under advisement.

[emilyg]

81. No.

[Cameron27]

32. The last I heard, she backed away from that statement...

her campaign said it was a trial balloon, but wasn't part of her platform. (heard it on Tucker of all places)

[cobalt1999]

35. I expected better of her campaign though.

A "Trial balloon" strategy is dumb. She is smart enough to figure out her own policies without floating trial balloons.

I still support her, but I'm disappointed in this particular case.

[Cameron27]

38. I thought it was pretty lame myself.

[bvar22]

129. A Trial Balloon....

...to see which way the wind blows!

Was that before or after the Focus Group?

[pretzel4gore]

36. HC another time waster for bush....

bush is everyready bunny just hurrying this way and that, all ways costly mistakes, but the table has limits and there goes junyer towards the certain abyss! righteous shrieks of repuke despair fill the air then - holy frick- the democratic opponents have tilted the table! bushie has turned away and now's headed thatttaway, outta trouble, like an fattened overpaid mercenary. chop chop
-if the $5 grand was credit for every kid born ON EARTH it might be a good idea (but shouldn't someone meanwhile asap suggest outlawing airmile cards?)

[MessiahRp]

37. The way inflation has gone the past 30 years...

$5000 would be like $100 in 20 years. This is a stupid trick to pander to people. $5000 by itself doesn't pay for a semester of college, might buy a cheap but soon to break down car, doesn't pay the smallest of hospital bills these days

In 18 years when those children are grown up, that $5000 will be worth less than now because gas will be even more finite ($10-20 a gallon?) and corporatist Republicans and DLCers will make sure that the jobs keep moving overseas, our economy will be wrecked.

Then you can keep your measley $5000.

Rp

[glowing]

40. This argument is stupid... in every developed nation the birth rates

decline.. if it wasn't for immigration the US population would be in decline like most European countries. And it has been a factor as more countries become developed, the birth rates decline... so this population police thing is stupid.

Second, the more educated people are, the more they tend to be liberal and understand protecting their own liberties... they are also more apt to participate in political processes. Dumbing down the education system is a Bush feature.. it allows for more young people to afford less options and they become fuel for the endless war campaigns.

Third... those children you hate, will be running this country when you are back in diapers.. don't piss them off too much.. at one time you were allowed to be a snot-nosed kid. Its not easy to raise good kids. Give the damn kids a chance. $5000.00 is hardly the $30,000.00 worth of debt they are already born into in this country. And hardly enough to cover one semester with.

I'm not a Clinton supporter.. But I'm tired of everyone wanting to save Darfur, but not wanting to help keep an educated, progressive country going. You can't have it two ways. Humanity is all encompassing and that means babies too. There are a lot more ways that you can cut down on your consumption so a child can live in this world.

[ldf]

55. great, let's encourage even MORE

illegal immigration.

if you pop out a kid here, not only does it automatically become an american citizen (THAT is something that needs to be stopped), you get a 5000 savings account, too! PER KID!!!

:woohoo:

am i the only one who's first thought about this idea was just that, a result in MORE illigal immigration?

"if it wasn't for immigration the US population would be in decline"...

and just exactly what is wrong with that concept?

"like most European countries"...

maybe they realize that population growth MUST be curtailed, or we will All suffer because of it. and maybe they aren't living a culture with an extremely unhealthy reliance on some fucked up religious doctine (like "go forth, and multiply!").

"the more educated people are, the more they tend to be liberal and understand protecting their own liberties"...

yeah, WE are prime examples of that arguement, aren't we...

sometimes we can be so incredibly stupid..

you think we have problems now? i got a great idea, let's make it even WORSE!

:shrug:

[glowing]

59. I didn't say $5000.00 for every kid is such a great thing... personally,

I believe college should be free for those who have earned the grades and are geared into their specialties.. that is how it works in other countries that are more progressive than ours.

Second.. immigration problems stem from NAFTA and from corporate greed. Beleive me, most Mexicans would rather be in Mexico, than a meat packing factory in Nebraska.

Also, immigration isn't a bad thing. It adds a healthy mix of gene pool mixing into the population. We all know what happens with inbreeding. And it adds a world wide perspective and cultural mix.

The population problem is easily fixed with education, progressive- liberal policies, and woman having a voice (they usually decide how many are coming out of their body when they have the necessary tools to implement that decision). We are not going up the j-curve. Human population will level off and will begin to come down. This only happens with development of education, medicine, and civil liberties. And if more people stopped consuming the masses they did in developed nations.. other's would have the ability to catch up. Changing your diet would have a huge impact...eating little meat and more organic, locally produced foods would be a huge asset to the rest of the world.

Its hypocritical to want to save the world, but be pissed off at someone having a child. If everyone stops re-producing... then what's the point of doing anything about anything else? Leave it for the cock-roaches and bomb the hell out of everyone else...

[amandabeech]

121. Mexican women in the 1970s were still having 6-7 children each, and most

lived to adulthood thanks to better public health. The Mexican government simply did not get on that problem when change was needed. Now, there has been a sharp turn-around in Mexican government policies. The high birthrate has nothing to do with NAFTA or the United States.

The U.S. hasn't been growing the jobs that fast, and Mexico hasn't either.

Now, lots of those Mexican children are here, and they're taking jobs that used to go to those on the bottom of the income ladder, who, unfortunately, are disproportionately African American even now.

You may see heavy immigration as a contribution to the gene pool. Frankly, I see it as obfuscating the still difficult relations between black and white Americans.

Oh yes, and MFN for China and China allegedly signing on to the WTO took jobs that some thought would go to Mexico. The Chinese work really cheap.

[CreekDog]

97. darned constitution, letting those little babies from poor families be citizens

Darn it that constitution!

(not! again!)

[Telly Savalas]

143. Well, fuck, let's combat illegal immigration by cancelling all social programs.

[BootinUp]

42. Well, you won't see me

touting it either, but hang on, she was only floating it. The Clinton method is often like this: we don't want to just tell you what is best, we want to do things that are important to you and therefore if this plan is not thought of well you simply will see her drop it. We all have ideas we bounce off people.

PS you just hang on now, don't leave! ;)

[Colobo]

45. Cal, there is still time to come back to Obama land. We are waiting for you.

[BootinUp]

48. Cal, watch out I think I saw a puff of smoke and a slightly evil grin!

lol.

[Evergreen Emerald]

52. Are you basing your knowledge on the "ludicrous idea" from DU?

Could you please point me to your source of information so that I may have the same reading materials that you used to make your decision?

Thanks

[avrdream]

122. I would love that link as well.

Trying to figure out what is making Cal so nuts.

[saracat]

56. What the heck are you thinking? It is extremely odd how you change positions that quickly.

Or as frequently as you do.It would be one thing is you said you were undecided .Many are.But you keep fervently supporting candidates and losing interest over one vote? It is almost as though you are "mocking" DU.

[calteacherguy]

78. LOL.

Or maybe I'm just mocking the politicians.

I hope I've made clear that nobody should take my vote for granted.

[CreekDog]

102. Don't be a baby, politicians take your vote for granted or they take others for granted

They take everyone for granted until they lose it, then they take the rest for granted trying to get it back, and then once they get it back...

Don't you get it? It's really hard to add enough votes to get to 50%+1.

If you expect to not be taken for granted once in a while, you are extremely self-centered and unrealistic.

[goodgd_yall]

61. For the very reasons you state

I think it's a bad idea as well. I gave up supporting her with her AYE vote on Lieberman/Kyl; this is one more reason to vote for another candidate.

[Texas_Kat]

63. Since Obama and Dodd co-sponsored a bill (S.970) in March with the exact same language

I hope you're not considering one of them.

[Cameron27]

72. Good to know,

thanks.

[goodgd_yall]

73. Nope

Voting for Edwards

[goodgd_yall]

76. I believe Obama supported that bill

It was argued it is not like the Lieberman/Kyl amendment at all, but I take issue with that. The paragraph about designating the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization makes it a dangerous bill. The main difference is that the Lieberman/Kyl amendment is filled with testimony by Petraeus and Crocker to justify the resolution.

[CreekDog]

104. That's the whole point, it is a Democratic-sounding idea

Any of our folks could support it, unless it's tied to just one candidate running for president.

The ones most against it are Republicans. Our Calteacherguy can send some dough to Rudy G. and he can be sure Rudy won't be floating any ideas to give children, especially poor ones, money or a leg up.

[BootinUp]

62. Probably my last comment on this

You mention how much you are against it and that for you she would have to change her position on this. What position? It was nothing but a trial balloon to see if it would be well received. At this point there is no position.

[calteacherguy]

77. Good point. I will take that into consideration. nt

[ginchinchili]

64. I think it's pandering.

Does she explain how this plan will be paid for?

[CreekDog]

Driving up the deficit to help kids?

For once a good reason to drive up the deficit.

[amandabeech]

65. We're also going to have to pay for the *!@%$!!! war in Iraq.

Right now, we're selling treasury bonds (IOUs) to anyone in the world who will buy them in order to finance this deficit, including $1 trillion of Iraq war debt.

How long will China keep buying these things? Or Japan?

This debt weakens out economy and makes political, economic and, yes, military maneuvering much more difficult.

Someone's going to pay the piper, and it may likely be the kids that get the $5,000.

We would be better off putting the $5,000 in a trust fund so that these kids can pay the war off in 20 years.

[On the Road]

67. The Dollar Amount is Reminiscent of George McGovern's

politically disastrous proposal of what amounted to handing out $5000 checks to everyone. I am assuming that is coincidental.

On the question of whether it's affordable:

300M population
14.14 births per M per year
$5K per birth

I get an annual amount of $20 billion. Not insignificant, but not an amount that would break the bank.

There's a practical issue that many of the people this is intended to help would undoubtedly look at their account as a source of quick cash and waste it. But maybe there are ironclad controls to prevent this from happening.

The bigger problem I have with the proposal is political. Clinton has gone out of her way to position herself as tough-minded and conservative, including supporting some horrible saber-rattling bills like the Lieberman and Move On votes. Now, on her own initiative, she comes up with a superfluous proposal which smacks of the most stereotypical liberal philosophy of giving free money to poor folks. This is political poison, and I do not understand it at all.

[BootinUp]

69. Not really

not political poison at all. The idea was that the money could only be used for certain things, its not unlike social security but the difference is its in your bank not a mythical bank. As for the cost, I doubt she would seriously propose it, which she has not yet, without a plan to pay for it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. It's More "Politically Defensible" Than McGovern's Plans Because It Goes To Kids And Not Adults

And she voted against censuring MOVE ON...

[On the Road]

111. Thank You for the Correction on the MoveOn Vote

I'm not even saying the $5,000 account is a bad idea. It may have some merits. But it's still a "free money" proposal, and the distinctions may be lost on much of the electorate.

[Telly Savalas]

145. To elaborate on your points

That $20 billion is less than what we spend in Iraq in 2 months, and it's certainly a hell of a lot less than what universal healthcare would cost.

My understanding is that this was an account which could only be drawn upon by the kid once she turns 18, so parents can't use it to buy a plasma screen TV or whatever.

Politically, the idea offers the springboard for a discussion about real liberal values, e.g. "a kid doesn't get to choose the income level of their parents -- why not move towards equalizing opportunity".

My concern is whether this policy is the best way of getting a bang for the bucks. Investing in early education has been shown to yield dramatic results. Moreover, it might be more prudent to put the cash into a program for college grants and subsidized loans only for those in need.

[On the Road]

153. I Agree That the Amount Pales in Comparison

to the enormous amounts of military spending. I still maintain that politically it is a "free money" program that is dangerous for any Democratic candidate to campaign on.

[ElizabethDC]

70. Well, while I don't have a problem with this idea, it's apparently not an official policy proposal

someone on here posted that someone from Hillary's campaign as on Hardball or something and said that this was not an official campaign proposal, just an idea. However, the idea itself is similar to some laws already in practice in some European countries. You also understand that the $5000 would be a bond, not cash, right?

[jenmito]

71. Weren't you an Obama supporter before Wes Clark endorsed Hillary?

Maybe you should rethink your change of heart (or mind). :D

[BootinUp]

74. Where is Buffy

the vampire slayer when you need her?

Just kidding.lol.

[calteacherguy]

75. Yes. nt

[jenmito]

79. Come on back!

We'll keep the light on for you! :D

[CreekDog]

93. This idea could have been offered by Edwards or Obama

It's within the Democratic mainstream.

[jenmito]

96. But it wasn't. n/t

[CreekDog]

107. corrected

so there.

[jenmito]

110. Got a link to the "idea" he signed onto?

TIA.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. In The Larger Scheme Of Things It's A Fluff Proposal

If you think the U S A is overpopulated why don't you propose a $500,000.00 tax on the parents of every newborn child...You can get a neat little eugenics program going...

I'm sure you'll figure it out...

[CreekDog]

105. Yes, if only people who could afford kids could have them

Would we get a better nation?

[Lucinda]

82. Ok

A. How does this encourage larger families?
You really think people are going to crank out children just because the child might have the possibility of getting money 18 years into the future?

B. How does this in any way discriminate against childless couples? The other parents arent getting the money. The child is.

[CreekDog]

83. Giving money to children, how un-Democratic ;)

The age group with the greatest poverty each gets a head start with 5,000 which could help pay for college, for example...

But here it's offensive.

Calteacherguy, I usually agree with you, but you are way off on this one. As a trial balloon, which is ALL IT IS, it's a concept worth thinking about.

And to not vote for someone, EVER, because they threw out THIS idea, is ludicrous. Such a decision says more about your judgement than hers actually.

[Adelante]

125. I agree with you

Ever since I read this thread a Wes Clark mantra from 2004 has been repeating in my head:

"The Democratic Party lifts people UP!"

Calteacherguy should remember it.

[Milo_Bloom]

84. This has got to be a joke.

Her IWR vote is fine.
Her refusal to end the war in a reasonable time is fine.
Her lack of any actual Climate Crisis plan is fine.
Her bankrupcy bill support is fine.
Her horrific health care plan is fine.
Her vote to lay the ground work for war with Iran is fine.
Her refusal to propose real campaign finance report is fine.


But, damnit, it is that $5000 proposed money for children that made you reconsider supporting her.

That is some powerful toad you been licking.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. She Opposed The Bankruptcy Bill

Everytime it came up for a vote and she was present she opposed it...

[Milo_Bloom]

95. Please let ontheissues.org know that, they state otherwise.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)

[BootinUp]

99. Thats how I remembered it

In fact I got in a big fight with a friend defending Hillary over it. I tend to support moderate fiscal policy. Don't hurt me.

[Milo_Bloom]

98. And Mentata.com which also says she voted FOR it.

http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/congress/vote/VC107S24

[Milo_Bloom]

103. Here are the ACTUAL facts on the Bankrupcy Bill and Clinton

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/clinton-and-the-bankruptcy-law/

As first lady, Mrs. Clinton worked against the bill. She helped kill one version of it, then another version passed, which her husband vetoed. As a senator, in 2001, she voted for it, but it did not pass. When it came up again in 2005, she missed the vote because her husband was in the hospital, although she indicated she would have opposed it.

That doesn't look too good from over here, since she voted FOR IT in 2001. I don't begrudge her missing the vote in 2005, but we don't KNOW what she would have done, having voted for it in 2001.

[BootinUp]

106. Thanks, good info there.

She opposed it without a provision to insure children dependent on Alimony were higher priority to receive money after a bankruptcy than the credit card companies.

[Exultant Democracy]

131. K&R just for this post.

[leftofthedial]

85. I haven't heard one idea from her that I DO like

she sounds *exactly* like a repuke

[ElizabethDC]

86. This sounds like a Republican proposal to you!? n/t

[leftofthedial]

148. no. this sounds like a gimmick

an extremely dumb gimmick at that

If she and her gang of DLCers could have figured out a way to give children tax credits, they would have

[Evergreen Emerald]

101. her proposals are similar to both Edwards and Obama, do you feel the same about them?

[leftofthedial]

108. the same but slightly less so

Edwards, for example, is at least on the Democratic wavelength in terms of his labor positions.

anything other than single-payer health care is basically a rimjob on the insurance/banking and pharma corporations and is repuke.

"free trade" is repuke snake oil

staying in iraq for another 6 or 7 years is repuke

the PATRIOT Act (and voting for it or not voting against it) is repuke

granting king george his war powers and funding his illegal invasion and occupation are repuke

[Telly Savalas]

146. Which Republicans support $5K bonds for kids?

[Carrieyazel]

114. This should put to rest the MSM notion that she doesn't make gaffes. She's made plenty.

This $5000 idea is laughable and will be the butt of jokes. This shows what a flawed candidate she really is; we need her to keep it up (she obviously is going out on her own and leaving the rigid script more and more now that she thinks she's got this in the bag) and with blundering results.

[MGKrebs]

139. It's already being done in Britain.

I know that doesn't make it automatically a good idea, but I think it makes it something other than "laughable".

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article303234.ece

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/saving-and-banking/article.html?in_article_id=396807&in_page_id=7

[PurityOfEssence]

115. Good. You're seeing her as the simplistic panderer she truly is

It shows character to change your mind in public, especially to muse about it while still in the process.

She's all things to all people, and as a result is of no use to anybody.

This is just a classic and silly little giveaway and a sop to numerous constituencies. Upon analysis, it shows everything wrong about her: pandering to the left by giving money away, pandering to fundies by supporting over-breeding and pandering to the right by offering something quasi-market based.

It's just plain silly.

She is the perfect example of hiding in plain sight: by portraying herself as a steadfast fighter for all that she sees good and against all that's bad, she can continue being a do-nothing, supercautious ultramoderate and a lily-livered appeaser.

Her nomination would be ruinous to the party, the nation and the world.

[Carrieyazel]

116. Excellent post. You laid it all out expertly. She must be stopped

BEFORE the nomination.

[Cha]

119. Ya mean ya liked that idea

of a mandatory insurance card to apply for a job?

[Forkboy]

120. Everything she's done and THIS pisses you off.

:eyes:

[illinoisprogressive]

126. Hillary woulld promise the moon to get votes rather than make her case openly and honestly

[alittlelark]

132. I thought of it as BLATANT PANDERING....

.....

[Steve_in_California]

133. Socialism wears many faces.

I favor the adoption of a tax provision which would allow private citizens and employers to make tax deductible contributions to a "nestegg" account, to be used to help our young adults get off to a better start in life, whether for education, buying a first home, starting a business, or rolling over the full appreciated value into retirement savings.

I don't not believe that the government should take my money and give it to somebody elses kid.

[Douglas Carpenter]

140. do you consider yourself a liberal or progressive or at least a Democrat?

The assumption that government has at least some redistributive role is not only an assumption of virtually all Democrats to say nothing of liberals and progressives, it is a basic assumption of modern Western democracy as a necessity for the maintenance of social cohesion, to say nothing of moral imperative.

I have no opinion at this time regarding Sen. Clinton's proposal. But it is obvious to even the most casual observer that there is a desperate need for increasing the role of the state in providing assistance to the low income as the economic gap grows and grows and grows. I cannot imagine anyone in any left or center-left school of thought who would disagree on this essential point

[lligrd]

135. It Makes No Sense To Me Either nt

[Flora]

147. $5000 ?!?

Did she mention from where this plan would be funded?

Any conditions? Will pregnant women be running across our border to give birth?

[Clintonista2]

149. It's a bond, it's not cash

[ImpeechBush]

150. It's still an awful lot of money in some other countries

Seems like a powerful inducement for a woman to cross the border to have babies here. If Canada, for example, offered a $ 50,000 bond for every baby, I wouldn't be surprised if some Americans weren't tempted to deliver in Toronto. Given the comparative economies of the US and Mexico, why wouldn't women be drawn into this country to deliver?

I know the money goes to the baby and not the woman, but mothers love their children and here's a way of giving their kids a great opportunity. Honey, I braved the trip across the border so that some day you would have money... human nature dictates that that would be extremely appealing.

[laugle]

155. I'm a Hillary supporter...and I agree with you totally!

I also, don't agree with taxing smokers to pay for health care of children....whats next the twinkie tax, big mac tax, while were at it, why not start charging every person by the pound; can you see it--weighing in every day!

Every time they want money, they hit up smokers....let's charge a nickel for every bottle of beer sold...it's getting ridiculous. This is a very bad precedence.

If we are going to play this game, we should do a luxury tax and hit up the people that can pay for it.

In my city property owners were taxed to provide for 3 firemen. Police and fire are essential services and should come off the top of the property taxes, but of course the City squandered the money and then sticks it to property owners. Elderly people were afraid they would not have fire service if they voted against this tax, also, the election was rigged, so that there was only 1 vote to a household and my husband and I could not both vote. This is going on all over the country....and it may be coming to a town near you.....stay tuned.

Sorry for the rant, but I am so tired of getting tax for every damn thing they can think of.....have you checked all those fees on you bills lately!! What a rip off!!!