Justus For All

I find the proposal to be pandering for votes of the lowest order. It brings up the maxim about democracies not lasting once 51% of the people realize they can vote themselves distribution from the treasury.

It’s doubtful this proposal will actually have much benefit, since colleges expand their tuition to fit the funds available for college education.

A good way of buying votes.

She should talk to Rob Muldoon – I can recommend a good medium if she needs one.

Of course this isn’t voting ‘themselves’ anything. It is voting to give something to other people, in this case people that don’t yet exist.

I believe strongly in equality of opportunity. While this sort of program doesn’t help at middle class children all that much, and it certainly provides no noticable benefit to the wealthy, it would make quite a difference to poor people, who without assetts and the tools for wealth creation are exactly the people who would be most tempted to vote themselves ‘bread and circuses’ as adults. Giving them tools to be as productive as possible, and giving them what so many of us got for free anyway, assetts from the very beginning of our lives, seems a profoundly good idea.

As for rising cost of college, that is somewhat true, although a seperate problem and their are a variety of educational opportunities that are not so subject to the inflated costs of universities. It seems likely to me that if the market for such things were increased, people would find a way to fill that need.

Of course this isn’t voting ‘themselves’ anything. It is voting to give something to other people, in this case people that don’t yet exist.

I would like to see a breakdown of the total cost to implement such a plan, with safeties in place to insure that the monies were not spend in such a manner that was not laied out in the original intent of the bill.

Just giving out that money based on age would more then likely mean that the majority of it would be spend less then wisely. I guess my biggest beef with this is all in all, it’s a handout. It’s an entitlement. People value that which they earn more then that which they are given. Rather then hand out those monies, lower taxes on the targeted people, let them work and earn that money. Less cost to the taxpayers, more bang for the buck.

The cost would, $5,000 per baby born each year. Of course the law doesn’t exist yet, and there would be some additional administration expenses, but pretty much if the basic idea was followed, the cost would be quite predictable.

I am enough of a libertarian to think that telling people how to pursue happiness isn’t a very good idea. I can imagine some modest restrictions, like until the age of 25 it could only be spent for education, but after that if they still have anything left over and really want to blow it all on a big party, well and good.

As for it being an ‘entitlement’ I suppose that is true, and perhaps they won’t value this properly. It is of course a one time gift by society to each person, to help them get started in life. We all recieve vastly more then that as ‘gifts’ from our society. For example, I am pretty pleased that my society has given me a democratic nation and capitalism, and everything else that is availible. Perhaps I would value these things more if I had earned them myself, but it seems pretty obvious that starting out each new generation in a state of utter primitavism isn’t the best way to ensure survival of the fitest.

Of course all of us start out with these ‘gifts’ or entitlements if you prefer. Some of us though start out with more then others. Rich kids have a better shot and more opportunities then poor kids. This seems to me to be a way to even that out a little.

Perhaps more importantly, from a self-interested point of view I am better off when others reach their fullest potential. I want more people to have a college education, to be able to produce more and create more. That benefits me.