Ironduke

I think she may just be pandering to an audience that is supportive of redistributive programs.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

Julie

She did it in contrast to Bush's threat of vetoing kids health insurance (which I think he did today).

The contrast is targeted to show that she cares about the future of our children and Bush doesn't care if kids live long enough to have a future.

Shamus

Julie,it's still an empty political promise if it can't be funded.

__________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but
it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

Julie

Where did she say it was a promise? This is what was said:

"Blake Zeff, a spokesman for the senator's campaign, said a baby bonds program "is not a firm policy proposal but an idea under consideration."

Like I said, it was a proposal to show her passion for the future of our children. Children are our future.

Shamus

Political grandstanding is still political grandstanding and when children are used as pawns by either side it makes me want to vomit .

Julie

Vetoing kids health insurance does the same for me.

crooks

Doing the sums (4 million X 5000) it works out at about.......20 billion USD, per annum ?

Huge drain on any budget, and I agree, it would be a MASSIVE incentive for the immigrants to border hop - It reminds me of the French giving benefits for women who stay home and have children instead of going out working, though at least in that case it could be moderately justifiable (low birthrate and France's amibitious hopes of becoming Europe's most populated nation).

__________________
'I firmly believe that Ireland and history shall remember Michael Collins with reverence, pride and passion...and it shall be at my expense'- Eamon De Valera.

dalem

Your children are your responsibility, not mine. Put $5,000 into a savings account for them on your own hook.

-dale

dalem

Bush didn't veto "kids health insurance", milady. He vetoed the expansion of an extant program to cover families whose incomes do not justify the expense.

-dale

omon

my toughts exactly, before making kids make sure you can provide them.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

Julie

Drop in the bucket to the war in Iraq.

The cigarettes I buy would pay for it Dale, not you.

There are 9 million non-insured or under-insured children in this country. Bush only wants to cover half that many. You, mysir, are wrong.

omon

[quote=Julie;412576]The cigarettes I buy would pay for it Dale, not you.

i highly doubt, it will be the sole source of money(unless you want to pay $15 for a pack), it just poilitical talk to get votes.
isn,t all low income familys eligible for medicaid? including children.

gunnut

Bush didn't veto a "health program for low income kids."

Read the law carefully. The wording defines "low income" as a family of 4 with up to $83,000 annual income. The wording also defines a "child" as someone up to 23 years of age.

Bush didn't veto health care for poor kids. He vetoed a thinnly veiled universal health care system.

Isn't it funny how a family that has "kids" eligible for this program can also be subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax? A tax that was designed for the "rich?"

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

crooks

I would agree with you totally......if this was to give the US it's own public healthcare service, or something that's useful and worthy of it's cost - this isn't though, it's a pointless gesture that's not worth a damn and is far too expensive to maintain for what it is (essentially a small sum, I could easily afford to save up 5,000 Euro, roughly 6,500 dollars PER YEAR, not a one off, on such a fund pre-interest at my local bank, and give my future child a proper boost with a genuinely useful lump sum) - it's promise politics, we get similar crap over here, except our politicians talk about relevent stuff: more beds, more doctors, and more facilities, maybe like a few years ago when tution costs were finally abolished, giving thousands (including myself) a leg up, not crazy child-paying pipedreams.

gunnut

I think people should save up $5,000 in a trust fund for the new born, and then be allowed to have the child.

I know of someone who married a Dutch and moved to Holland. Holland has universal health care. But she had to pay $9,000 into the system before she's allowed in the country. Heh, not so universal is it?