Hillary's running total.

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

Using that argument, one could say since you did not pay for a service in another city via a local tax, you would not be allowed to use that service. On the other hand, one could hypothesize that a child using this tax could get a degree in something that would allow them to provide a service that would benefit the general population, couldn't they?

The money I spend in that city (food, gas, lodging, etc) makes its way to the city coffers.

And yes, a child could. So could a child privately financed. The question is, which would provide more benefit to society and less of a cost? Prosperity and economic growth in the United States were never better than in the early periods of unbridled (relatively) free trade capitalism without even the slightest hint of socialism. Every left leaning economy has either been laid to ruin or been severely hurt by these policies, and, in turn, so has their populace.

Before you try to find every little scenario, you really need to take a good look at socialism as a whole and how poorly it really does work. And if it truly is what you desire in your life, there are plenty of beautiful countries that practice it.

[SeanGAR]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

Out of curiosity, would you change you mind if the tax was put into a private fund in the name of the child that could not be touched by the parents or government? The only way it could be utilized is by the child attending a college, trade school etc.? The funds not used by people who chose not to attend would roll over to another child born?

Why the heck should taxpayers be asked to pay even more for other people who decide to have kids? My kids are 10 .... what is Ms. Clinton going to do about their college or housing expenses? Do you think I'm waiting around to find out or trying to save money myself for that?

The government is many times too large. They are many times too greedy and money hungry. They need to think about eliminating waste not expanding it.

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by AAlmeter

The money I spend in that city (food, gas, lodging, etc) makes its way to the city coffers.

And yes, a child could. So could a child privately financed. The question is, which would provide more benefit to society and less of a cost? Prosperity and economic growth in the United States were never better than in the early periods of unbridled (relatively) free trade capitalism without even the slightest hint of socialism. Every left leaning economy has either been laid to ruin or been severely hurt by these policies, and, in turn, so has their populace.

Before you try to find every little scenario, you really need to take a good look at socialism as a whole and how poorly it really does work. And if it truly is what you desire in your life, there are plenty of beautiful countries that practice it.

Nice...Your reply seems a little preachy to me. You have made such a broad jump in our discussion to arrive at this point that it looks to be complete. The country I live in is the one choose to or I would have moved. Not unlike a home owner though, some things could use renovation. Your suggestion that I am for all out socialism is puzzling to me. Your assumption that early periods of "unbridled free trade capitalism" brought prosperity is a half truth. It brought to some at the cost of others. I do believe the consensus is that mixed economies are the best. Not complete Socialism or Capitalism. Believe me, I am no expert, but I can see what complete privatization of an industry can do. It is somewhat like putting to fox in charge of the chicken coop.

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by SeanGAR

Why the heck should taxpayers be asked to pay even more for other people who decide to have kids? My kids are 10 .... what is Ms. Clinton going to do about their college or housing expenses? Do you think I'm waiting around to find out or trying to save money myself for that?

The government is many times too large. They are many times too greedy and money hungry. They need to think about eliminating waste not expanding it.

Like you (I am assuming), we are saving for our child's future. If she chooses to go to college, she will have that choice. Some children will not have the same opportunity. It may be that their family barely make ends meet to afford food and shelter. It may be that their parents want an iPod more that to save for their child's future. In either case, it would seem, the child is punished for something they have little choice in.

Do not get me wrong, you are hitting the nail on the head regarding waste. The society we live in is full of it. The government has not cornered that market. If people are not finding ways to save as it is, do you really think cutting taxes will improve the odds?

[glking]

How can you equate not getting something for free to a punishment?

[SeanGAR]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

Do not get me wrong, you are hitting the nail on the head regarding waste. The society we live in is full of it. The government has not cornered that market. If people are not finding ways to save as it is, do you really think cutting taxes will improve the odds?

If the government here cut taxes in half, which is the minimum I think that they should be required to do then, yes, people will save more or build up wealth faster in their houses.

But people today are much more into consumer goods than when I was a lad and spend accordingly. Course, the reason is that the goods are available and fairly affordable. So its possible that the extra money in consumers' pockets will go to purchase electronic crap made in China. But that is, in my opinion, better than paying somebody to get knocked up, which is what Hillary is suggesting we do.

[Kayak_Rat]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

Like you (I am assuming), we are saving for our child's future. If she chooses to go to college, she will have that choice. Some children will not have the same opportunity. It may be that their family barely make ends meet to afford food and shelter. It may be that their parents want an iPod more that to save for their child's future. In either case, it would seem, the child is punished for something they have little choice in.

Do not get me wrong, you are hitting the nail on the head regarding waste. The society we live in is full of it. The government has not cornered that market. If people are not finding ways to save as it is, do you really think cutting taxes will improve the odds?

Honestly Dave, I fit this to a T. I am the oldest of five children. My parents made a good living, but five kids times medical, clothes, supplies, etc. I had no silver spoon for school. I had to work 40hrs a week in the evenings while going to school during the day. Scholl would have been easier if thats all I had to do, but I wouldn't have half the work ethic I have now. A product(education, car, etc.) is much more appreciated when its your sweat that pays for it.

This being said, I highly believe that YOU are what determines your success. I dont think anyone is responsible for me, but me. There is no shortage of jobs in the US, contrary to popular belief. I work around illegals all day that are ecstatic to have a job. In the same area, I see people who are collecting government assistance while turning down jobs. I think everyone should be responsible for themselves. Just my

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by Kayak_Rat

Honestly Dave, I fit this to a T. I am the oldest of five children. My parents made a good living, but five kids times medical, clothes, supplies, etc. I had no silver spoon for school. I had to work 40hrs a week in the evenings while going to school during the day. Scholl would have been easier if thats all I had to do, but I wouldn't have half the work ethic I have now. A product(education, car, etc.) is much more appreciated when its your sweat that pays for it.

This being said, I highly believe that YOU are what determines your success. I dont think anyone is responsible for me, but me. There is no shortage of jobs in the US, contrary to popular belief. I work around illegals all day that are ecstatic to have a job. In the same area, I see people who are collecting government assistance while turning down jobs. I think everyone should be responsible for themselves. Just my

Z,

I think I understand how you feel. I, too, have worked my way to where I am at. I am the only one in my family to even graduate from high school, let alone college. I paid my own way through both undergraduate and graduate school. I know what you mean by feeling satisfaction from earning something.

Don't get me wrong. Some people do take advantage of the system. I do not believe everyone is able to find those boot straps to pull themselves up by. With that said, I would have appreciated college fund. I would have been better able to study and live a more normal life versus the full class schedule while holding a 30+ per week job. I do not think I appreciate my accomplishment that much more not having that offered to me.

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by SeanGAR

If the government here cut taxes in half, which is the minimum I think that they should be required to do then, yes, people will save more or build up wealth faster in their houses.

But people today are much more into consumer goods than when I was a lad and spend accordingly. Course, the reason is that the goods are available and fairly affordable. So its possible that the extra money in consumers' pockets will go to purchase electronic crap made in China. But that is, in my opinion, better than paying somebody to get knocked up, which is what Hillary is suggesting we do.

I highly doubt the majority of people in the U.S. save or invest any tax savings or windfall profits. Call my cynical, but that is my belief. Please remind me how the parents are receiving the cash from having a child in our hypothetical? My understanding is that it is going to the child upon turning 18. Maybe I am misinterpreting what the proposal was.

[glking]

You are misinterpreting the proposal. It is:

LET ME BUY YOUR VOTE

[glking]

Definitely not trying to make it personal.

I know you are a good guy.

I'm just a hard core conservative, and can't understand why anyone would want to push the country towards socialisim.

[ghostrider]

Why the push towars socialism? It's the sense of entitlement a lot of people have. The lack of responsibility along with that sense of entitlement are what is killing our great nation. No one wants to be held accountable for their actions. They came from a 'rough' neighborhood, a broken home, abusive family, there's an excuse for everyone. My dad left us when I was little, so I'm entitled to welfare and food stamps. I didn't have a good male role model growing up, so I can't contribute to society.

This $5000 deal? Worst thing we could do to our kids. The selfish society we live in, will just make it worse on the kids that would benefit from this. I never had anything growing up, but YOU have $5000 waiting for you when you grow up, so why should I give you anything?






Oh wait, it's the global warming! By the time these kids are old enough to collect the $5000, we'll all be dead anyway!

[Spect]

What about those of us who don't like children in the first place? I pay taxes for public schools, welfare programs (WIC, ect) and now I'm supposed to pay MORE money so every kid can get 5000 dollar birthday present... over my .

Even if I did want children I'd never be able to afford them!

[SeanGAR]

I think Hillary is misguided in her attempt to buy votes, and I have come up with an alternative plan for her.

I grew up in Nova Scotia, where you could call one of the 2 main parties for a "ride" to the polling station. When they drove you back home, you'd get a pint of rum as a thank you for ostensibly voting for their candidate. In fact, you couldn't find any rum in pints in the liquor store a week before the election. So I prefer the direct approach of vote buying.

So with no further ado, I am proud to announce my new vote buying .. uh ... government program to help Americans. I expect the first two politicans to support my proposal will be senators Kennedy and Clinton.

It's called .. HAVE A DRINK ON US.

All Americans, when they turn 21 will be provided a HAVE A DRINK ON US card, which is redeemable for booze of any type in any bar or resturant in the country. The card will be redeemable for up to 2 drinks a day because drinking cuts the risk of heart disease. If you drink red wine you can have 3 drinks, because that is better for you than other alcoholic drinks.

People who don't drink for documented religious reasons will be able to buy milk with their cards.

[SIZE="1"]Government inspectors will take note if you are not using your card to drink and come ask "why are you not improving your health", ideally by kicking your door down at 3 AM wearing ski masks.[/SIZE]

It has been a pleasure to introduce the new Clinton-Kennedy "Have a Drink on US" program to you and hope that you vote accordingly.

[qwerty1500]

Don't usually jump in on political discussions ... have an aversion to being tarred and feathered ... "feathered" ... that's a parrot joke ... oh well, anyway ...

Buying votes is a time-honored American tradition practiced by both parties. Where I live, they seem to prefer the more direct immediate approach.

In 2004, on the Monday before the election, I was in line at the bank behind a precinct committeeman. He cashed a $2,000 check and wanted it all in $5 bills. Votes go pretty cheap in his part of the world. He already knows they will vote for his party's candidates ... just in case they can't read or something, I'm sure he helps a little by handing them a pre-marked sample ... but the $5 just motivates them to vote.

This little motivator has even been recognized by our US Attorney who managed to indict a couple of political hacks but probably hasn't stopped the practice. You see, this has been going on in that community for well over 75 years. The people there are trained now. Most of them probably have no intention of going to the polls until they get their $5 bill. I wonder how many of them complained that they were under paid?

Really makes me proud to be an American.