“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas

Saturday, September 29, 2007

The Entitlement Nation

Think we live in a welfare nanny state now?

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.
Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

My wife just did he math on this since Hillary didn't want you to know the price tag...that's $20billion per year. Billion with a "b". Guess who pays for that? The same people who pay for all fabulous cash and prizes that get handed out to the shiftless degenerates who'd rather take some of what somebody else earned, instead of earn it themselves.

Wait 'till Hillary gets elected queen. You will see America plunge from a wealthy nation based on the accomplishments and rights of the individual, into a collection of minority tribes clamoring for ever greater government handouts, paid for by the shrinking productive class.


CJ said...

And the war against the man who WAS NOT behind 9/11 and DID NOT have WMD costs...?

Kevin said...

We weren't fighting him because we thought he was behind 9/11 nor were we fighting him for speculation that he had WMDs. The official name of the Iraqi war is Operation: Iraqi Freedom. Its about freeing a group or nation of people from an oppressive leader who was, if you can remember, charged, convicted of, and executed for genocide, which if you don't know, is the mass killing of innocent people. He committed crimes beyond imagine, and we went there to help free them. Our motives may not have been pure, but they were economical, and the outcome has been magnificent for the people of that nation.

Kevin said...

He committed crimes beyond imagine, and we went there to help free them.

The them refers to the Iraqi people, sorry that was not clear.

Capt. America said...

Honestly, Kevin - you are not a complete idiot. Don't treat us like ones.

ed said...

Our reasons for going into Iraq were myriad. To mention a few...
1. 17 unheeded UN mandates to allow inspectors unimpeded access to weapons development sites,
2. the use of chemical and/or biological weaponry on thousands of his own people,
3. intelligence from many sources and believed by ALL American politicians that Saddam had ready WMD to use or sell to terrorists, 4. the knowledge that Bin Laden had deals going on with Saddam and that even if Saddam had no direct hand in 9/11, he certainly played a hand in directly or indirectly financing it or acts like it against the US.
5. the overall stability of the middle-east and the oil supply therein is economically vital to the US right now. the continued availability of petroleum is a perfectly valid reason to go to war to me.

Did I support the war? Yes

Did Rummy and Bush prosecute the war effectively? No

Were they abysmally naive in thinking the post-war insurgency would be manageable? Absolutely

Are we committed to seeing this war through to whatever end comes about, because doing anything less would be a political catastrophe if we ever want help from our allies in the future?

Kevin's basically right. Regardless of the arguable presence of WMD or of Saddam's lack of direct collusion in 9/11, it was a good idea to depose Saddam. We've managed to botch many things since, but it was the right thing to do back then.

Kevin said...

I also think it is important to note what the devastating effects of pulling out of Iraq now would be. It would seem that spending money to help that country would be futile but pulling out the troops before the job is done is only going to leave the country in more turmoil than it was in before we got there.

Anonymous said...


based on your argument, may we assume that you think it's appropriate that Iraq war money be spent on this european-style socialism idea of Hillary's?

How about we declare victory in Iraq, get out, and then cut taxes by the amount of the war and let the american people put that money to use rather than the corrupt government?

why trade money poorly spent on the war for money poorly spent on an even worse program?

Kevin said...

Declaring that the War in Iraq isn't going to suddenly make Iraq better. We have to finish the job otherwise we will find ourselves back in Iraq 10 years from now when its back to where it was 5 years ago. Look at how we handled the Gulf War. We left early and then ten years later we had to return. And no, spending 20 billion a year to give to children won't do any good because that money won't get spent on college or a house. The majority of that money will be spent on drugs, guns, and alcohol because the majority of todays youth isn't interested in anything else.

David said...

It began around 1965.