Anonymous wrote:Republican Senator Kasich and the Clinton administration were actually looking (separately) into something like this, back in the halcyon days of 2001 when we had a budget surplus and nobody knew what to do with it. The proposal was to give every kid under a certain income $1,000, because that's what was affordable. Not sure what counts as "rich" or "poor." Compounding $1,000 for 18 years would result in a larger amount, but not $50,000. Frankly, retooling the Pell Grant and other grant programs would probably make a bigger difference for poor kids.
Anonymous wrote:So we incentivize people not to work hard and rather just to be lazy and crap out more kids they can't afford. Great.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We offer financial aid for college. That is a lot better than just throwing 50k at every poor kid born without regard for what dumb things they're going to do with it.
+1. College is already free for those in poverty. You're expecting poor families who have made bad decisions for generations to suddenly start making good decisions when $50,000 falls in their lap? Have you ever heard of moral hazard? There would just be a bunch of entry level cadillacs appearing outside of peoples' houses when their kids turned 18.
Anonymous wrote:We offer financial aid for college. That is a lot better than just throwing 50k at every poor kid born without regard for what dumb things they're going to do with it.
Anonymous wrote:Republican Senator Kasich and the Clinton administration were actually looking (separately) into something like this, back in the halcyon days of 2001 when we had a budget surplus and nobody knew what to do with it. The proposal was to give every kid under a certain income $1,000, because that's what was affordable. Not sure what counts as "rich" or "poor." Compounding $1,000 for 18 years would result in a larger amount, but not $50,000. Frankly, retooling the Pell Grant and other grant programs would probably make a bigger difference for poor kids.