Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Why Hillary Clinton is dangerous
Posted by: McQ on Monday, October 01, 2007

This is important.

Conversationally, Clinton throws out an ideological indicator that may slip past many if they're not paying attention. It demonstrates why putting her in a position of power would be one of the more dangerous threats to our liberty we've seen in years (especially with a friendly Congress).
At a Congressional Black Caucus forum, Clinton said, "I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time. So, 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 put that down payment on their first home, or go into business."
"I like the idea of giving ..."

Of course the obvious answer to that is, "well then do so, Ms. Clinton, but use your own money - in a free country, no one will stop you". But that's not the sort of "giving" she's talking about, is it? Instead, she plans on using your money to 'give' to others to the tune of about 20 billion dollars a year. All in the name of an idea she likes. And it is wrapped in what? Yes, another "for the children" moment.

Now this is the most blatant of the many hints she's thrown out there during her campaign about her philosophical roots and agenda. The casualness with which she uses the word "give" should scare you to death. Do you understand yet that she considers what you earn or own to be fair game for her schemes? Do you understand that she, - like her husband to a lesser degree - has no use for property or individual rights and that her commitment is to the group and its "common good", however she chooses to define that?

The point?
“The baby bonds proposal is one of the few mistakes Hillary Clinton has made in her campaign,” according to University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato.
Why is it a mistake? Because it is as clear an indicator of her real agenda as one can find in all the carefully scripted and couched political rhetoric she's offered to date. That is the real Hillary Clinton. And if the GOP doesn't use that constantly to remind voters of what hides under the "moderate" veneer, they deserve the political exile they'll have earned. And we'll be in for at least four years of huge expansions of government and the liberty smothering intervention which comes with it.


As an aside, I find it disturbing that almost 30% of Americans polled by Rasumssen found the idea to be a good one. Disturbing, but not surprising. There is certainly a well cultivated "something-for-nothing" group out there, and I, unfortunately, believe it is growing.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

It might be a good idea if it were in replacement of other programs rather than a new benefit. Replacing college financial aid up to the amount, for example.

But what’s interesting is that Hillary thinks an 18 year old should be allowed to spend a government US$ 5,000 bond, but at the same time shouldn’t be able to have a privatized social security account for their earned income.
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
As an aside, I find it disturbing that almost 30% of American polled by Rasumssen found the idea to be a good one. Disturbing, but not surprising. There is certainly a well cultivated "something-for-nothing" group out there, and I, unfortunately, believe it is growing.
I found it surprising. I found it surprising that the figure isn’t higher.

After all, the "something-for-nothing" group out there was as high as 70% when they thought that the Iraq war would last “I doubt six months” and that we would be “greeted as liberators” and only cost “$50-$60 billion” that “Iraqi oil would pay for”.
Hmmm… I wonder where they got that idea.

Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I have to say that it bothers me that she, or any potential leader, would not have an idealogical block against saying or doing something like this.

It’s a sweet idea, but she seems not to have any recognition (or care) of where this money would come from.

Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
This stuff makes me sad, mainly because i have no idea how to combat it. I do try to instill personal responsibility and accountability ideals in people i deal with, and i will do everything in my power to raise my future children in this fashion. But some people truly believe they have a right TO happiness, provided by the government. I wish there was a way to change this mentality.
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
As an aside, I find it disturbing that almost 30% of American polled by Rasumssen found the idea to be a good one.
She scares the hell out of me for sure, but I’m wondering if this isn’t a case of the person on the other side of the phone thinking ’yes, it would be good if my son/daughter had a $5K account at birth’ - without thinking about where the $ came from.

It’s a great idea for parents to provide for their offspring - it is NOT a good idea for Hillary to steal from me to give to someone else.
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Sure - We can probably arrange for the children of illegal immigrants to get this bonus too, along with a discounted college education (that I can’t get for my college age sons - talk about class warfare)

Oh yeah, I’m loving the sound of "President Hillary Clinton" more and more every day, and wow, we’ll get TWO Presidents for the price of one!

Written By: looker
URL: http://
There is certainly a well cultivated "something-for-nothing" group out there, and I, unfortunately, believe it is growing.
Growing in size, gullibility and "generosity" — at least that’s what Clinton’s advisers would seem to be telling her. As remembered here and about, she tested these waters last year by proposing a mere $500 bond for the little ones. Too chintzy in the eyes of today’s Dem voters, I guess.
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
I agree that if this were done with stocks instead of government bonds and was used to replace government financial aid for school or some other offset social welfare program, it would be a lot more palatable — in fact I might even support it. It is also true that if I was a marmoset, I would be highly active, live in the upper canopy of forest trees, and feed on insects, fruit and leaves.
Written By: Sean
There is definitely part of the War on Self-Reliance. Give every child born 18 years to drool over that government handout so they soften up to the idea in general.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Don’t forget that if that $20 billion is in US Bonds that would be another $20 Billion a year in income (fictious) that the Congress could spend with out raising taxes.

Congress would be loaning themselves $20 Billion a year that furure generations would have to make good on. Long after most present members are gone.
Written By: Jay Evans
URL: http://
Man, you could really pimp yo ride for $5k.
Written By: Don
URL: http://
if you don’t have 5 grand of your own cash to put into a bond for your kids future, then perhaps you shouldn’t be having a kid. they are expensive and take time and energy, and alot of sacrifice. If your poor, don’t make it worse with a kid. Get yourself out of the gutter, THEN have the kid. But, how can we EXPECT people to think before having sex? That puts responsibility on them! I am such a horrible human being.
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
It’s amazing the disconnect when it comes to someone stating that the "government will give". I can’t believe how many people fall for this crap all the time. People who should really know better.
Written By: Teresa
josh b,

My kid from day 1 had the max amount of savings bonds possible. But a whole lot of poor folks have kids that turn out just fine and even make a contribution to society. Its why we have free public schools and offer scholarships based on both academic performance and financial need. (disclosure: full ride scholarship to UC San Diego based on academic performance and financial need.)

In fact, one of things I sort of liked about this idea (if it was being paid for reducing other programs) would be that it gives kids who are not going to college money as well - they could use that to start a small business or buy a house, and start with a leg up to becoming valuable citizens.

But most likely Miller Brewing, Custom Paint, and Best Buy would make the most off this deal.

Oh, and how about putting it into stocks and not being able to use it until you are 60 years old? But cut social security benefits at the same time. Stealth private accounts?

Written By: Harun
URL: http://
My kid from day 1 had the max amount of savings bonds possible. But a whole lot of poor folks have kids that turn out just fine and even make a contribution to society.
I never made any judgment against the kids abilities. Only the selfish nature of the parents who EXPECT the government to provide for their children.
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
I remember a Peanuts cartoon from years ago, where Linus decided he wanted to be a great philanthropist. When Lucy informed him that philanthropists needed a great deal of money, Linus replied, "I’m going to be a great philanthropist with someone else’s money!" Linus, meet Hillary...

Written By: Steverino
I seem to recall some science fiction stories by Mack Reynolds had a similar theme. At birth, every citizen received a certain amount of non-transferable stock, which could be augmented. Like a negative income tax. Ah, well, it’s been a few years.

"a great philanthropist with someone else’s money"

That’s pretty much a definition of the standard politician.
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Why not just cut taxes enough that families can save $5,000 dollars for their kids?
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Why not just cut taxes enough that families can save $5,000 dollars for their kids?
Seems to me I remember another Clinton answered that before. To paraphrase, because they would end up "not spending it the right way."
Written By: McQ
Another interesting angle on this:
But has anyone thought about what effect this might have on abortion and birth rates among the poor? Her husband bill took a lot of flak from his own party to take on welfare reform, and reduce the financial incentive for poor single women to have babies. So now, Hillary is going to revive this incentive? Every woman who goes in to have an abortion is basically torching a $5000 bill. She may do more to limit abortions than George Bush.

Postscript: Yeah, I know, the program would probably be structured as some sort of bond that doesn’t come due until age whatever. If so, how long do you think it will take payday loan companies to figure out how to factor this bond and pay out now in exchange for the bond’s future value.

- Coyote Blog
Written By: Bryan Pick
It does not surprise me that 30% of people polled consider this a great idea. The bottom 50% of working folks pay little if any fed inc tax so they consider "govt" money to be "free".
Written By: Paul
URL: http://
Powerline had another interesting take on this story.
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Why are we surprised when there are guys printing books about ’free money’ from the government and making a fortune doing it.

And when the Dems are dashing around more or less claimings -
"If we just took away those tax breaks for those rich guys, we could pay for this program, still have enough left over for Universal Health Care and Social Security, all while paying down the deficit!"
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Maybe she is trying to get the Mormon vote...
Written By: Harun
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks