There’s always something to howl about

If you don’t want to get trampled . . .

…do not come between the NAR and Hillary Clinton’s scheme to give every newborn child a $5,000 savings account:

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 magic words are “downpayment on their first home.” There is no liberty the NAR won’t trample to juice the housing market. The obvious fact that the people taxed to provide these “baby bonds” will buy fewer and smaller homes — and will have substantially smaller portfolios to invest in commercial real estate — will not dawn on the dolts.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Related posts:
  • Unchained melodies: “Don’t do it (Don’t you break my heart)”
  • Here’s my question for Obama: How can you have a cult of personality when you don’t have any personality to begin with?
  • Education? We Unions Don’t Need It.


    8 Comments so far

    1. Kevin Boer September 28th, 2007 8:47 pm

      Given the government’s track record in investing on behalf of its citizens (think Social Security), I think it’s a safe bet that the $5000 each baby gets will be worth about a nickel by the time college rolls around.

      Oh, wait a minute, wrong analogy. Social Security isn’t a government investment plan, it’s a legal ponzi scheme!

    2. Late Night Austin Real Estate Blog September 28th, 2007 9:48 pm

      I think the reason Social Security doesnt have any money isnt because it did a bad job investing but because congress keeps using Social Security funds as a slush fund to pay for stuff.

      The idea of using it for a downpayment is kind of silly if people cant save any money on there own buying a house is probably going to lead problems.

    3. Robert Kerr September 29th, 2007 8:48 am

      A ridiculous idea, but typical for Hillary.

      File it under “How To Buy Votes, Chapter 1.”

      If she wins, it will be a disaster for anyone with income and assets.

    4. Michael P. September 29th, 2007 9:36 am

      Alexander Fraser Tytler made an observation about democracy in 1776:

      “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.”

      Even though we don’t have a PURE democracy the above still applies I belive.
      Hillary is a socialist. She is pandering.

    5. Eddie D September 29th, 2007 11:38 am

      If Hillary wins I will most likely leave the country. And unlike The Baldwins or Barbara Sterisand I will really do it. The thought of tha communist as my president is just scary. I will not be a part of it.

    6. Kevin Boer September 29th, 2007 1:39 pm

      If I understand history and the law correctly, technically Social Security is even worse than bad investing on the government’s part: it’s mandated NON-INVESTMENT.

      Private pension plans, I understand, run something like this:
      a) Collect money monthly from workers’ pay checks
      b) Invest said money, hopefully wisely
      c) Upon retirement, send money monthly to retirees out of accumulated investment funds.

      The US Social Security plan [sic] runs something like this:
      a) Collect monthly money from workers’ pay checks
      b) Distribute money from SS taxes to current retirees
      c) Toss excess funds [such as those you get when there are, say, 3 workers for every retiree] into the general government coffers. Spend profligately. Pretend these excess funds still exist in some mythical “Social Security surplus” fund.
      d) When [eminently predictably at some stage in the future] demographics shift, and you now have, say, 1 worker for every 3 retirees, then pay retirees out of the “Social Security surplus fund.” Oh, wait a minute! That’s a phantom fund! Uh, let’s see…raise taxes! Raise the retirement age! Borrow more money!

      Didn’t Enron officials get jailed for schemes similar to this?

    7. LongIslandBubble September 29th, 2007 6:47 pm

      What is she going to call this?

      The Future Self-Entitlement Act of 2008.

      God I hope she doesn’t get in!

      Ron Paul 2008

    8. Michael Cook October 1st, 2007 2:32 pm

      Can I get that in Euros???