MAKE babies... GET money from the Government!!

[BubbaCatts]

Even when you cannot afford to care for them on your own.

WHAT is this all about??

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/aspire_act_bill_summary


The America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education Act of 2009 ("The ASPIRE Act of 2009")

Purpose of the Bill

To encourage savings, promote financial literacy, and expand opportunities for young adults by establishing a Lifetime Savings Account for every newborn child.

Lifetime Savings Accounts

Every child born after December 31, 2009 will have a Lifetime Savings Account opened for them automatically when their Social Security card is issued. Each account will be endowed with a one-time $500 contribution, and children in households earning below national median income will be eligible for a supplement contribution of up to $500. Additional savings incentives include tax-free earnings, matched savings for eligible families, and financial education.

The ASPIRE Fund

The bill establishes the ASPIRE Fund within Treasury, which will be governed by a Board of Directors similar in structure to the Board overseeing the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), the retirement program for federal employees. The Director of the Fund will be appointed by the Board and shall have the same powers and responsibilities as the Director of the TSP.

[LouC]

With all that is going on I wouldn't sweat a bill that hasn't even been introduced in the current 111th Congress and one that has died in committee in three previous Congresses.

[merickson]

From the link
"Withdrawals can be made until the accountholder reaches the age of 18. Between the ages of 18 and 25 the only allowed use of the funds will be for post-secondary education with distributions being made directly to post-secondary education providers. After reaching the age of 25, homeownership and retirement security will be the additional allowed uses. "

Providing a financial help to kids, regardless of their parent's finances, thoughfullness or wisdom, seems like a way to even the starting point, decreasing the advantage that kids of successful, thoughful parents have over kids of poor and/or dumb parents.

Before someone goes off half-cocked, consider;
Which is the American way: that a person's sucess in life should depend more on their parents or on their own actions?

Why should a child of poor (or dumb or lazy) parents need to make up the lack that their parents passed on to them?

What is "American" about one's lot in life being more strongly influanced by ones parent's than one's own actions?

Doesn't letting a parents success determine a child's starting point in life lead to aristocracy?

Doesn't providing health care and education to the children of poor (or lazy) parents help achieve the american ideal of a person's character counting more than their being born into the aristocracy?

But, as LouC pointed out, this is more a theoretical disussion than a response to pending legislation. The politicians heard the Tea Party and are not likely to enact that law. (Was it McGovern or McCarthy who wanted to write a $1000 cheque to everyone.)

[LouC]

I think it was McGovern.

[Getty Girl]

who comes up with this crap...?

[LouC]

who comes up with this crap...?

People that we the electorate send to Washington D.C. by way of November elections every two years.

[RogerDodger]

I thought the government had been giving folks money to have babies for years.

[LouC]

I thought the government had been giving folks money to have babies for years.

They have.

The thread title should have said: MAKE babies... GET more money from the Government!!

[psyko kat]

They have.

The thread title should have said: MAKE babies... GET more money from the Government!!

mo' welfare handouts?????

[merickson]

Another quibble with the title:
From what I can see in the link, the makers of a baby don't get any of the money. It's put in an account for use by the kid, after its 18th birthday.

[Buschb]

From who are we borrowing it?

[FidelisAdMortem]

This is nothing new, take a walk in an inner city and enjoy the view.

[DougBH]

From the link
"Withdrawals can be made until the accountholder reaches the age of 18. Between the ages of 18 a....
.... (Was it McGovern or McCarthy who wanted to write a $1000 cheque to everyone.)

My guess is that it was neither. My guess is that they wanted to make the taxpayers write such a check.

[sircharliebrown]

Well, we were thinking of trying for one more next year. Maybe we should have a few more. :think:

:rolleyes:

[angelicmadrigal]

Even if the government gave me money to have kids it still wouldn't be worth it to me.

[Panhead0422]

With all that is going on I wouldn't sweat a bill that hasn't even been introduced in the current 111th Congress and one that has died in committee in three previous Congresses.

Which of those past three congresses were entirely controlled (with a filibuster proof majority) by the Democratic Party?

Which of those congresses had as high a profile smokescreen as cap and tax and health care to hide the passage of yet another hideously expensive abortion?

[jeepers]

These people are literally insane.

We are in debt up to our yahaas. There IS NO MONEY. But HEY, let's start government sponsored TRUST FUNDS!

:)) :(( :))

These are our elected officials. The "smart people" that we put in charge to completely and utterly screw things up beyond any ability to measure.

This is just as moronic as the old California proposal to provide a free college education to all illegal aliens, when that state's own school system for children was in the proverbial ****ter.

Is there something in the air in Washington that causes brain damage? The EPA should look into that.

[birddog1]

From the link
"Withdrawals can be made until the accountholder reaches the age of 18. Between the ages of 18 and 25 the only allowed use of the funds will be for post-secondary education with distributions being made directly to post-secondary education providers. After reaching the age of 25, homeownership and retirement security will be the additional allowed uses. "

Providing a financial help to kids, regardless of their parent's finances, thoughfullness or wisdom, seems like a way to even the starting point, decreasing the advantage that kids of successful, thoughful parents have over kids of poor and/or dumb parents.

Before someone goes off half-cocked, consider;
Which is the American way: that a person's sucess in life should depend more on their parents or on their own actions?

Why should a child of poor (or dumb or lazy) parents need to make up the lack that their parents passed on to them?

What is "American" about one's lot in life being more strongly influanced by ones parent's than one's own actions?

Doesn't letting a parents success determine a child's starting point in life lead to aristocracy?

Doesn't providing health care and education to the children of poor (or lazy) parents help achieve the american ideal of a person's character counting more than their being born into the aristocracy?

But, as LouC pointed out, this is more a theoretical disussion than a response to pending legislation. The politicians heard the Tea Party and are not likely to enact that law. (Was it McGovern or McCarthy who wanted to write a $1000 cheque to everyone.)

Where have you been for the last 40 years, state and federal governments have been subsidizing the lazy and stupid for decades and thus cheating natural selection. It is only a matter of time before hard working and intelligents American's are bred out of existence due to govenment interference. After all you can have a lot more kids when you don't have to pay for them and you can stay home all day to bred.