True, but it's still not a good statistic, and the sevenfold disparity between whites and blacks is not de minimis. Plus, although I don't have the statistic at my fingertips, I believe the more alarming--if one is disposed to be alarmed--statistic is the number/percentage of black men under supervision, i.e., in prison, on probation or on parole.

In thinking about this whole Hillary 5000 per baby thing, it really, really angers me. The reason? It costs nothing during her Presidency.

I admit I am no expert in the bond market or how they work, so it is possible I'm missing something.

Issuing a 5000 bond costs nothing. When it matures and comes due 18 years later when she is long gone, each of those bonds will probably be worth something like 12000 (that assumes a rate of around 5% compounding annually). I find it morally repugnant to promose a new entitlement program that will have no impact in terms of cost or the books (again, figuring it will be kept off the books like social security is) during her administration (should she be elected).

I don't think that's right. Someone has to purchase the original bond. Typically it's the individual who pays the base price of the bond. Under the Hillary plan the initial $5,000 still has to be paid, it's just the cash is coming from the Government not you (Which of course really means from you.)

It's Nanny government at it's best. Now the all caring Government will watch after you directly from birth all the way through retirement. How sweet.


Oh and don't forget to translate the propsal from Hillary speak...

"I like the idea" = "I'm just saying I like it, I'm not promising anything"

"A $5,000 bond" = "Of course I'm not saying where the $5,000 would come from, perhaps the babies parents?"

Makes sense, but if the government issues a government bond to someone, do they have to put up the 5000 upfront into some account, or is it just a promissary note to give out the money to the bearer once it matures?

Why would anyone give a fig about anything any candidate proposes while campaigning for any office? I mean, sure you can use it as a guide to gauge that person's principles ... but taking it as an indication of what that person will do, or even propose to do if elected is simply not based remotely in the real world of what happens.

If you are talking normal Government bonds you purchase them and are guaranteed a specific rate when they mature. You get the security of a safe investment and the Gov get's the cash now. (Note with 'I' type bonds that rate is adjusted for inflation over the life of the bond)

If you are talking Hillary's then it appears you purchase them with hot air.

I'm terrified of Hillary getting the nomination. If she does, it all but guarantees a Republican win in the general election.

It would sure make a true republican out of me in a Jiffy.

I'm going against my Contrary to Oprah* campaign and going with Obama. I just can't stand Hillary, although it would be amusing to see the First Husband and all it's resultant complications. (Such as how would he be addressed? Mr. President is the norm for retired presidents, but ....? Would he bake cookies?)



*I automatically reject anything recommended by Oprah, unless I discovered it first or didn't know she had already applied the Oprah stamp of approval.

I'm right there with you, WB. Everything Hillary does is entirely reactionary for the sake of furthering her political career, can't stand her and think she'd be a terrible President. Obama, thus far, has struck me as the most straight forward and genuine (as politicians go) candidate in the whole field and I think he'd make a great President.

What's really pissing me off is that most Democrats seem to be once again falling into, "But which one's more electable in the general election" debate. Yeah, 'cause that strategy worked out great in '00 and '04 :rolleyes: