Captain's Quarters -

Rick Santorum had discussed a similar proposal in his book It Takes a Family. The funding of this is troubling, obviously, but if that problem were solved, would the idea then be so bad?

If Satan is a lock for the nomination, why does she have to buy votes in such a craven fashion?

Pandering Politics? You mean like the President's plan to revamp Social Security? Why do you make such a big deal out of what the politicians describe as realistic policy goals? Did the President make all of his stump speeches turn into the real thing? Again, the GOP and it's defenders are sooo great at picking apart the opposition for it's details but when they had control to actually implement their own ideas they either didn't have the votes or the intestinal fortitude to vote against their own Party's leader. Honestly, I think with immigration the party gave him the pass but what about Social Security and smaller government? That was just flat out horrible leadership. It's pretty obvious that the GOP can't really thump their conservative chests anymore without looking like complicit buffoons to corruption, wasteful spending and horrible management of their OWN leader. Where's the clone of Ronald Reagan. I guess it's back to the ole Rush days, "The Way it ought to be". Vaccumesque pipe dreams being shouted to the players from worthless patronizing wannabes that couldn't get elected to hall supervisors, now that's elitist.

Keep in mind too how this would encourage pregnant women to come here, have a kid, get the account, and either stay or return home.

Since Mrs. Clinton said it is for babies born in America and not for babies born to Americans, my guess is she does not make the illegal/legal distinction.

Do we need to call Hillary's latest plan "Babies for Bucks" or "Hsucial Security"?

Perhaps if we sent the check to Mexico they'd stay there...

Here is an entitlement program created by our Foreign policy in action. Quote:"The cost of providing disability benefits and medical care, even under the most optimistic scenario that no additional troops are deployed and the claims pattern is only that of the previous Gulf War, would suggest that at a minimum the cost of providing lifetime disability benefits and medical care is $350 billion. If the number of unique troops increases by another 200,000 to 500,000 over a period of years, this number may rise to as high as nearly $700bn. (See Table 5) The funding needs for veterans' benefits thus comprise an additional major entitlement program along with Medicare and Social Security that will need to be financed through borrowing if the US remains in deficit. This will in turn place further pressure on all discretionary spending including that for additional veterans' medical care."

This is already happening, not some plan. What's 20 Billion if we ignore 350 that we basically have already spent? Well?
Here's my source:

SOLDIERS RETURNING FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN:
The Long-term Costs of Providing Veterans Medical Care and
Disability Benefits

Linda Bilmes
Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
http://www.epsusa.org/events/aea2007papers/bilmes.htm

" What's 20 Billion if we ignore 350 that we basically have already spent? Well?"

Hey Bong Boy, the time to shoot down a stupid idea is at the beginning. And if it wasn't pandering, what do you call it?

Kennedy School of Government - yeah, that's an impartial organization. Just read the 1st 3 paragraphs.

This New Deal is getting so old.

If this program comes about, I predict a sharp decline in the number of abortions, and a parallel increase in child mortality.

Simple economics.

Heck, why not just give everyone $1 million. We can all be millionaires! Yay!

The Kennedy School of Government? What's their motto? "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it"?

Once again, the right pulls things completely out of context. Clinton was responding to a program suggested by Time Magazine in which the gov't would set up this program, but kids could only withdraw the money IF they served in the military or some other national service organization first. And then, only if the money is spent of education, buying a home or starting a business.

Essentially a modern day version of the GI bill.

Oh, sorry, I forgot that CONTEXT is only available to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and is never supposed to be extended to a Democrat.

Since Mrs. Clinton said it is for babies born in America and not for babies born to Americans, my guess is she does not make the illegal/legal distinction.

Indeed, she can't: a child born here is a citizen and you can't give federal money to one citizen for getting born and not give it to another. Basic Fourteenth Amendment stuff.

More amusing is the brouhaha that'll break out when someone realizes that five thousand is a powerful incentive not to have an abortion. Shortly thereafter, 'Choice' activists will insist that government neutrality on abortion requires five thousand per abortion, too.

ya a little more government in your lives. won't that be great.

Teresa,

It still requires the initial outlay in the birth year. The entire intent was to generate enough interest from the $5000 bond to ensure that they could pay for college or a new home. You can't do that without generating the interest -- or by replacing it from government coffers, in essence creating an unfunded entitlement.

It's a disaster.

fly-man/bong boy:

That $350 billion is the present value of the next 40 years or so of expected payments, meaning that the annual cost is a lot less than Clinton's latest scheme for the looting and plundering of the taxpayers.

Besides, supporting the troops that are sent out to defend us IS a legitimate taxpayer expense. Child care is not.

Posted by Teresa

Oh, sorry, I forgot that CONTEXT is only available to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and is never supposed to be extended to a Democrat.

I have to take from that comment that you agree that Rush's statement was taken out of ''CONTEXT'' too. Funny, didn't see your post to that on the Rush thread.

Wonder if any politicians can do math?

If you assume that a college would charge $10,000 per year, (which is pretty close to tuition at the U of MN/TC campus right now), and the bond is given at birth in the amount of $5000, and pays out 10,000 per year, for 4 years, starting in the 19th year; the bond would have to earn a (tax-free) return of about 10.75% compounded annually.

Now if Government issued bonds are paying 10.75%, what would mortgage backed bonds have to pay to attract investment $? What would the underlying mortgage have to charge?

And if colleges knew that every student that applied was getting $10,000/year, what effect would that have on the tuition they charge? (Hint: Pressure on price would be upward.)

This idea was recently floated in CA:

Great California $500 Giveaway.

Hillary's just added another zero to the number...

Scary.

Best wishes,
Laura

I say, give 'em $42,000 and a slate of index/lifecycle funds to invest it in, say they can't spend it 'til 65... and kick them out of Social Security.

If they earn 5% after inflation, they'll all be millionaires in today's dollars, and won't miss it!

All for a mere 173 billion dollars a year, or 574 bucks a person.

Captain said:

It's a disaster.

It is also unjust and immoral.

It is unjust because it shifts the responsibility for one person's actions -- namely, the parents, who took the action of creating the child -- and transfers responsibility to others -- the taxpayers -- who had no part in the action, had no say so about it, were not consulted and never agreed to accept such responsiblity. Punishing one man for the consequences of another man's actions is the very essence of injustice.

It is immoral because it encourages people to bear children they cannot properly support, which violates a child's fundamental right to be raised and cared for by responsible parents and not be born into the world as an instantaneous ward of the state.

Like all welfare programs, it can only deliver $5,000 worth of good to one individual by doing more than $5,000 worth of harm to some other individual -- and it is nothing more than a pathetic, egregious attempt at vote buying by proposing still more looting of the country's most productive individuals.

Face it folks Dear Leader has single handedly created one of the country's largest entitlement programs. EVER. Do any of you care about how it will be funded? So why worry about what Mrs. Clinton is proposing? Seems like a drop in the bucket compared to Iraq and its' peripherals. Nasty ole Entitlements, they're evil for Liberals to propose them, but when Conservatives actually create them it sure gets quiet. I think the return on Mrs. Clinton's 20 Billion sure looks better than what we've garnered out of our Mission Accomplished debacle. Don't like my Harvard numbers, I'll gladly review anything you post, even if it comes from AEI or The Weekly Standard. See, I don't just discount sources, I read it all and then make my decsions.Sorry it's too dificult for you all to actually read something other than the scroll bar on Fox News.

As if our college system didn't need further incentive to far outstrip the rate of inflation!

Teresa said something about..

"CONTEXT" .. blah blah blah ...

That bit of context doesn't change a thing. It is socialism. Socialism is theft and therefore fundamentally immoral. Period.

All your blather to the contrary is just a liberal looking in the mirror congratulating herself for stealing from some people so she can feel good about giving it other people.

Uncle,

Exactly. That's why my plan (more money, but you can't spend it on college) is PERFECT.

Michael, I would disagree with you on the immorality of the idea. Children are a boon to the economy overall, so a little advance on their future earnings is fine with me.

I'm not sure it is a great idea, but Tony Blair (who I think a few of you love around here) instituted a similar program in Great Britain a while back. It would be interesting to look at how that program is structured.

At any rate, Hillary said it was an interesting idea, not a policy proposal. It may have been in response to a question from someone else and she was trying to be polite. I'd be interested in seeing the entire transcript from the event.

All these government youth service organizations are disturbing, they make me think of the Hitler Youth or the Soviet Young Pioneers.

Let me guess? Hillary still expects donations "packaged." And, while she gives out taxpayer funds, if she can. Where's her percentages? Because she does, in fact, see this as "her" income

Meanwhile, today's wacky academics have a lot on their hands. Because affirmative action is dying. The product DOESN't SELL!

And, we do, in America, benefit when things go BUST.

Unlike a lot of other economies; here, we're able to clean up the messes made by people who are clueless about buying stocks. But they think if they grab ahold of some, they'll get to profit.

Won't.

Reality hit the dot.com's back in the early 1990's.

True. Hasn't hit "academia," yet. But it's on its way! Because the debt is real. And, it wasn't worth the credential.

Meanwhile? The housing market saw a needed "return to earth" ... outcome. So, we've got a great supply of houses. Nothing to worry about, here.

And, I know from history ... because my grandfater bought "semi-attached" property in Brooklyn, in 1928. Only to have to let go of one of the "units," and keeping the other. Which gave my grandma a place to live well into her 80's. And, where the rents (though they were low) back in the 1940's and 1950's. It put food on her table. Before social security came along. And, kicked in.

STill, my grandma died in 1958. And, those units were sold. In 1958? The price for the semi-detached unit sold for exactly the same my grandpa paid for it, back in 1928!

Sometimes, prices move. And, sometimes? They do not.

We've been in an economy, now, with the "rising of all boats," but it was done on a sham. By greenspan. Who lowered borrowing rates to a point a lot of losers came in.

Losers lose their shirts.

Just like if you went to the horse track. And, bet your favorite number. But it wasn't the winning number.

TIme to change strategies?

I still think Hillary gets the nomination when pigs fly. (I don't even think Howie Dean likes her very much!)

The bigger secret? How the elites will deal with their "problem."

As to whatever the NY Senator is up to? Let me remind you, Bush has a veto pen.

And, he's soon gonna be out of office.

How will he be remembered? Like President Polk.

Nobody remembers Polk, these days. But without him? No Texas. No California.

As to popular "war," as I said; Ulysses S. Grant went off to fight the Mexicans, under the command of Zachary Taylor. He learned from Taylor that you didn't have to keep your uniform particularly clean. And, he also learned that a general could become President. (Ike would do this in 1952. And, again, in 1958.)

What would be the Bonkey's biggest coup? If they could get Petraeus to run at the top of the 2008-ticket.

You laugh? So, I presume you think the BOnkeys want a repeat of 1972? That's okay by me. That's when the CLintoon's jumped on board the Bonkey "express."

By then, though, Ronald Reagan had left the station on which he stood, for the Republican Party. And, then? Elected governor of California. TWICE.

Americans are very patient people. We keep waiting for the talent.

And, as I said? Bush? He'll be like Polk. Ushering in a re-design of the map. In Polk's case? The map of the USA. In Bush's?

Well, there's no civil war in irak! Arabs aren't Mexicans, either.

It's worse than it appears, because they won't have to spend a nickel for 18 years. then, after she's been beatified, the fiscal time bomb goes off.

nice to see you backtrack so fast teresa, from 'being taken out of context' to 'just a policy proposal.' As for Tony Blair, wasn't he the head of the Liberal party in GB? Just asking.

I also noticed that HRH said, "I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account..."

Now excuse me for thinking that every baby born in America would include those children born of illegal immigrants. Another reason for them to beat down America's defenses to get here.

So I don't get accused of taking things out of context, here is her paragraph regarding that:

"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.

Yea, she did say every baby. And the only stipulation is graduating HS in this quote, not any service time.

I am not locking her into this, I realize it is just her germination of an idea and the details can change, but this mandate is totally WACKY!!!! O, and look for her to morph this as the campaign goes on to only those children whose parents income are under $XXXX. Now thats more like it for a Dem.

First of all kingronjo , I'm not even a Hillary supporter. I just know better than to take one half baked AP story that is flogged on Drudge as literal truth.

Second, googling around, I found that many countries including Canada, France, Russia and Australia are paying women "bonuses" to have babies because they fear a demographic decline.

If, as so many of you want, the US gets serious about immigration enforcement we will have a negative birth rate in this country. (We will not be producing the number of children it takes to "replace" those who die.) This may be something we have to look at as well.

Also, 5,000 at 8% interest for 18 years is 20 bucks short of $20,000. Who thinks that'll pay for a year of college 20 years from now?

Teresa: I'll also add that Ramesh Ponnuru is recommending a $5000 child tax credit. And the PARENTS will get that money, not the kids. And I support that.

Joe says: I'll also add that Ramesh Ponnuru is recommending a $5000 child tax credit. And the PARENTS will get that money, not the kids. And I support that.

------------------------

I'm not sure I support this plan at all and would have to see a lot of details. One thing that I do worry about, having been a social worker, is that a lot of poor parents blow those tax returns on drugs, alcohol, etc...

I know, I know... I don't want a "nanny state" either, but every Spring social workers dread tax return season because the parents we work with go crazy with the money from the "earned tax credit". They don't have any idea about how to save money, few have checking accounts -- much less savings accounts. I'd like to see some of that money (about $4000) go into an untouchable account for their kids.

Hillary, beatified? Surely, you must first smoke an "odd" substance; to believe Hillary even has a Chinaman's chance of winning on a national ticket.

Even if it was a "fixed" beauty contest; Hillary's got problems.

And, ya know what? Far be it for me to alert the Bonkeys to what's flying about "their house."

But a "Chinaman's chance," was an expression that gained notariety back in the days when America was building railroads.

You might see train tracks as "level" ... But the truth be told, landscape just isn't. And, it was necessary to blow up "what stood in the way."

Usually, by taking a hired Chinese hand; and giving him the assignment to "go off the cliff's edge. In a basket. To light the fuse. That would make the appropriate "hole."

Even, here, I think Hillary won't cut the mustard. In other words? As affirmative action gets to be allocated where it deserves to go ... Hillary's "hole" won't be an opening for others, at all.

Ah, that, too, is inherent in affirmative action. Instead of building something that others can use; it's actually, like the Last of the Mohegans. One of those fights that are DOOMED.

Women just don't cut the mustard.

Okay. Blond bimbos do well with rich men. But that's not what gets you elected into the presidency, on female genitalia. It was, though, what got Warren Harding "selected."

The harms wrought from bad decisions? Well, you could look at the history of the USA. And, see how FDR capitalized on the mistakes made by the republican party.

These days? Both parties are prone to making errors.

The Bonkeys, however, are like vaudeville. Where the audience, stopped, first.

You thought it was the performers? Nah. It's hard to get even a carboard suitcase to fold up, when people want the limelight.

Teresa:

Possible solution: pay out the EITC monthly?

I don't mind the "education lockbox" idea, but I'd want it to replace our entire education subsidy system, in order to pay for it without raising taxes. And that would be awesome.

And, let's take your idea. if we stick 4000 a year into the education lockbox, let it earn earn 8% for 18 years, you get nearly $150,000 for education. If it's a bond earning 5%, it's about $112,000. That'll do.

Looks like Mama needs baby Hsus...

Joe -- Possible solution: pay out the EITC monthly?

-------------------

A good idea I think. Plus just more basic education in schools on basic finance. So many poor people get in with these crazy "cash advance" places and don't realize they are getting charged 30% interest on money, or don't know how banks works, etc...

$5000 is almost .. well it ain't enough.

The cost of a college eduation is running about twice inflation, so if you had a child today .. what could you get for $2500 today ? Not much. The best schools are now running almost $50,000 a year now for the full package .. tuition, room, board, fees, books. A clid born today will need about $350,000 to $500,000 a year for the same.

Worse yet, colleges are a demand service, so as the market of college bound students show up with more money, the colleges will raise their prices to absorb it all, while serving the same number of students. That in a nutshell is why college costs aren't tax deductable. There is no point. It won't help anybody except the schools themselves.

We need better pandering. I'd suggest $50,000 as a start.

Teresa, better financial education wouldn't hurt.

Hmm, you know if played right, this could be a financial boon to the government in out years. The key would be writing the law so that if the benefit is not claimed by the time the beneficiary turned, let's say 22, it would expire and the bonds would be turned over to the government.

If you figure that, at best, maybe 20% would complete military or other national service, that means the government would gain the other 80% of the matured bonds.

So lets see... $5000 compounded at a conservative 5% annually would be $14,626.30 at the end of 22 years. Multiple that by 3.2 million expired benefits and you get almost $50 Billion. Even if you take into account time value of money, the government would still tend to make a nice profit, and these numbers are meant to be conservative. Add into that the economic effects of pumping that much money into the economy and...

Of course I realize that the odds of it working out this way are slim to nil, alas.

StargazerA5

a child born here is a citizen and you can't give federal money to one citizen for getting born and not give it to another. Basic Fourteenth Amendment stuff.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not state that a child born here is a citizen.

The funding of this is troubling, obviously, but if that problem were solved, would the idea then be so bad?

The practical result of such a policy would be to increase the number of children born, especially to poorer families and single women. I believe that this would be a bad thing, yes.

Children should only receive the bond if they are gay, black or transgender.

White Jewish children are stritcly forbidden to be granted this benefit.

I don't support this program, but there is an economic side that is being neglected.

The universal old-age pensions in Europe have caused people to more or less stop having children. Many countries there are facing shrinking populations, meaning that there will be nobody left to pay taxes for those pensions. The affected governments have responded by encouraging immigration from poorer countries. This has opened the door to mass Islamic immigration, with all the problems that are regularly discussed here.

We need something to counter this. Much more generous relief for parents is a good idea, with (perhaps) some kind of match in tax credits (beyond the deductions) for long-term investment.

I say investment, not savings, because only investment will generate the wealth needed later in life. Here's an idea that I haven't heard: the amount of the credit would be considered a zero-interest loan to be paid back seventeen to sixty-five years hence when the monies were withdrawn for their intended purpose. This would encourage prudent risks in higher-yielding investments, instead of burying the money in government bonds. The rare total loss would be paid back many years later, in inflated dollars.

In the case of early death of the child, the tax credit 'loan' would come due in the next year, with losses forgiven (in large part or in whole).

With provisions like these, I would be willing to see tax dollars used.

The Republican candidates are welcome to take this idea, without attribution. For that matter, any Democrat brave enough to broach the topic is also welcome to it.

Creating more of Lennin's "useful idiots".

The universal old-age pensions in Europe have caused people to more or less stop having children. Many countries there are facing shrinking populations, meaning that there will be nobody left to pay taxes for those pensions.

True, but the correct solution is to end universal old age pensions.

Failing that, raising the retirement age to 70 would help ease the finiancal crunch.

The affected governments have responded by encouraging immigration from poorer countries.

And this compounds the problem, since poor immigrants take more out of the system than they put in.

NJ Commuter says: The universal old-age pensions in Europe have caused people to more or less stop having children. Many countries there are facing shrinking populations, meaning that there will be nobody left to pay taxes for those pensions. The affected governments have responded by encouraging immigration from poorer countries. This has opened the door to mass Islamic immigration, with all the problems that are regularly discussed here.
---------------------------------------------------

That is why I wrote about countries such as Australia and Japan paying women "baby bonuses" just to have babies. In Australia, you get $9,000US right now if you have a baby. In Russia, Japan, France and lots of other countries they are so worried about not vast areas being depopulated they are paying women to have babies.

If we did not have illegal immigration in this country, we would have NEGATIVE population growth and probably go to a system of paying women to have babies. These other countries seem to feel like it is well worth it to pay MORE than $5000 per child directly to the parents so there must be some economic arguments in favor of programs like this.

Clinton was responding to a program suggested by Time Magazine in which the gov't would set up this program, but kids could only withdraw the money IF they served in the military or some other national service organization first."

Well, while I'm not usually one to oppose benefits to the military, we already have the greatest education investment program in the world, the GI bill. For an investment of $1200 and a minimum of three years enlistment, you get a return of nearly $40k. If you kick in an additional $600 you get over $45k.

One also has to wonder how "flexible" the Government would get with the national service requirement. Guess that would all depend on how many votes the incumbent party was trying to buy.

Is it retroactive to 1951?

"If we did not have illegal immigration in this country, we would have NEGATIVE population growth and probably go to a system of paying women to have babies. These other countries seem to feel like it is well worth it to pay MORE than $5000 per child directly to the parents so there must be some economic arguments in favor of programs like this."

Oh really.

The fact that other countries make stupid choices doesn't mean we should follow in their footsteps. You progressives = socialists = communists = Stalinist = Leninist = Marist will use any excuse to increase the size of the government tit. Normally a periodic negative growth rate is a good thing. It is not now because we have created a governmental economic ponzi scheme that needs new investors on a continual basis to pay off the first investors. That's why they called it the "New Deal"!Meanwhile shills such as yourself miss no opportunity to make the problem worse.

Here's a thought to go along with some of the other stupid ideas being floated to support this graft. Let's give every childless couple who stay married 18 years a few hundred thousand dollars for not having children. Thanking them for the millions saved in other tax spending that won't take place because they don't exist. No social security, medicare, no schools, less crowded roads and beaches, less sewage, less water used, fewer criminals, more hospital beds, cleaner air, the list is endless.

If we did not have illegal immigration in this country, we would have NEGATIVE population growth and probably go to a system of paying women to have babies.

This is simply untrue.

The replacement rate is 2.1 births per woman. The rate in the US is given as 2.09 by the CIA fact book.

In any case a negative population growth number is not a crisis which requires government intervention. There is no law of sociology or economics which states that populations must grow towards infinity.

Flenser -- The number used by the CIA includes children born to illegal immigrants, so called anchor babies. If there are no illegal immigrants, they will not be having babies here. Thus our replacement rate will go down.

Patrick -- The US birth rate has been dropping since 1972. It is not a recent phenomena. And many countries -- like Japan -- are paying women to have babies. Japan, last time I looked, is not a communist country.

Flenser writes: In any case a negative population growth number is not a crisis which requires government intervention.

-----------------

Really, because last time I looked the whole social security insolvency problem was because we have a whole lot of baby boomers fixing to retire and not enough people working to support them.

And in other news, CNN Money reports: "Senate panel sets national debt limit at $9.82 trillion, $4 trillion higher than when President Bush first took office."

September 12 2007: 4:18 PM EDT

That's trillion folks, with a capital TRILL. Up $4 TRILLION since the conservative George W. Bush took office.

And you have the nerve to bad-mouth Hillary and her measly $20 billion?

Bush makes Clinton look like a piker.

Here is a link to an interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal last year about problems with negative population growth:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008892

The author is a nobel prize winner and with the conservative Hoover Institute.

Let me understand this plan. The government borrows (have to borrow as it doesn't have it) $5000 for each of 4 million babies a year and sets it aside for each of them for 18 years or so.

And somehow, the asset will grow faster than the liability?

Oh wait, the government will borrow it from itself, and the only cost will be the bureaucratic overhead, so in 18 years each kid will only owe a few grand.

Or the government borrows if from someone else and they protect it like it was Social Security.

Uh, no.

Really, because last time I looked the whole social security insolvency problem was because we have a whole lot of baby boomers fixing to retire and not enough people working to support them.

That's a political problem. Politicans constructed this Ponzi scheme and now they are stuck trying to keep the rickty thing together while not angering their constituients. It's not an economic problem.

The solution is cheap and easy. Raise the retirement age to 70. Then index it so that it keeps up with the lengthening life expectancy.

Why does Gary Becker, the "nobel prize winner .. with the conservative Hoover Institute" think that we need to maintain or increase our population?

He admits that the oft-cited worries about retirement funds going broke can be easily fixed by simple remedies, such as "shifting away from a pay-as-you-go social security system to an individual account system"

He still thinks that fewer people would be a bad thing.

Smaller populations reduce the amount of innovation partly because it leads to fewer younger persons, both absolutely and compared to the number of older persons. This shift toward a younger population is bad for innovation because the vast majority of important new ideas come from inventors and scientists who are younger than age 50, often far younger.

The problem with this is that it is not confirmed by experience. Much of the so-called Second and Third World has seen explosive population growth in the lst sixty years, with the resulting shift to a lower than usual average population age. And they saw no coresponding increase in innovation.

China and India had their populations increase by more than the total number of people in Anerica, and their innovation remained close to nil.

Russia, even with a falling population, remains far more innovative than any of the third world countries with increasing populations.

You want to know what countries have the lowest age populations?

Afghanistan
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Chad
Congo
Gaza Strip
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mayotte
Niger
Sao Tome and Principe
Sierra Leone
Uganda

I don't think Uganda is going to be the center for innovation in the 21st century. Our political elites desire growing populations for their own reasons. Our economic wellbeing is not one of them.

teresa,

I didn't say any of the countries were communist. I said your personal ideas were.
To repeat:

"The fact that other countries make stupid choices doesn't mean we should follow in their footsteps. You progressives = socialists = communists = Stalinist = Leninist = Marist will use any excuse to increase the size of the government tit. Normally a periodic negative growth rate is a good thing. It is not now because we have created a governmental economic ponzi scheme that needs new investors on a continual basis to pay off the first investors. That's why they called it the "New Deal"!Meanwhile shills such as yourself miss no opportunity to make the problem worse."

As to the article you linked to, it states very clearly why we don't have to increase your nanny state:

"When a country's birth rate is much below the replacement level, it must receive enough immigrants to maintain a stable or growing population. Since Japan has been especially reluctant to accept immigrants unless they are of Japanese descent, net immigration has been negligible. It is not surprising that Japan is among the first countries to be already experiencing a population decline. Russia, too, has a falling population because it not only has a very low birth rate, but also net outmigration of its population and high death rates--life expectancy for males is under 60 years. THE U.S., BY CONTRAST, STILL HAS A GROWING POPULATION BECAUSE IT HAS BIRTH RATES AT ABOUT REPLACEMENT LEVELS, and because it continues to attract many immigrants (and these immigrants on average have higher birth rates)."

(That's why I support closing the borders among other reasons. We don't need more people!)

Japan is offered as an example we need to avoid. But even with its slightly declining population, it's economy continues to grow. In other words, the typical Japanese person may be older, but is also richer.

And poor Russia, also with a shrinking population, has an economy growing a lot faster than ours. It's almost as if there is nothing to the whole "population growth drives economic growth" theory.

Which would not have surprised Adam Smith.

Me thinks, Hillary must be desperate to be reaching into her "kit bag" to offer bribes.

Ya know? This means her beauty products aren't selling.

Now, why would she be desperate so early in the game?

Flenser says: Japan is offered as an example we need to avoid. But even with its slightly declining population, it's economy continues to grow. In other words, the typical Japanese person may be older, but is also richer.
-------------------

Then why is Japan one of the countries paying women to have more children Flenser? If they are so happy with the way things are?

Lucianne has an interesting post up; an article from Denver, Colorado. Where a poll was taken. And, the results show VOTERS ARE WARY OF CHANGE.

Well, a female as president, is one hell of a change, right there!

And, this poll wasn't polling Hillary's negatives, either.

It was polling the lack of trust many in Colorado have of government. And, how much things are gonna cost. Turning voters attention to "pocket book" issues.

Also, no matter how Hillary is made up, she just doesn't come off as a fiscal conservative.

Now, how will the Bonkeys handle this, I have no idea.

Carol Herman says, "Also, no matter how Hillary is made up, she just doesn't come off as a fiscal conservative."

Let's see, the last time the budget was balanced, was, let me think, oh yeah, under Bill Clinton. And we have a (rounding up slightly) $10 trillion dollar federal debt. Which is almost entirely due to Reagan, Bush and Bush. (Look it up if you like, but that's the reality)

And you guys have the nerve to call Democrats big spenders? Are you willfully ignoring reality?

tersea,

What part of your brain is missing? Japan is paying for children because they don't have any. Stupid for paying? Of course. They should spend money to find out what in their society is driving them to commit hari kari as a group.

As previously stated we don't need to do any such thing here because we have adequate birthrates. Despite the tripe put out by the left Americans pretty much are happy and like having kids.

The truth is, the appeal of another entitlement is too irresistible for you to so pass up.

From todays Washington Post,

"Democrats were also critical about the debt limit increase, the fifth such increase since Bush took office. The bill would be the fifth debt limit increase totaling $3.865 trillion since Bush took office.

Bush's 2001 budget presentation promised tax cuts, spending increases and $2 trillion in debt buyback made possible by huge budget surplus forecasts estimates that proved very, very wrong."

Yeah, voters are wary of change. They want to continue adding $500 million of debt to the outstanding federal debt every year. Makes sense to me.

Teresa said

I know, I know... I don't want a "nanny state" either

I'd like to see some of that money (about $4000) go into an untouchable account for their kids.

You've got to make up your mind. Which do you want, a nanny state or no nanny state? The ultimate nanny state is the one that "saves" money for children by taking it from parents, on the principle that parents obviously don't properly know how to handle money.

On the other hand, I could be convinced, since the children will be paying social security to their parents anyway, right? It's a rather delicious scenario, in which we get the right to pick our kids' pockets because they once picked ours.

Well, "gab." President Bush doesn't come off as a fiscal conservative, either.

Besides, Hillary wasn't president when Bubba was in the Oval Office. As a matter of fact, Hillary probably wasn't IN the Oval Office any time when her husband was home.

As to "fiscal conservative," I was talking about "salesmanship."

So, just for you, I will put this statement another way: HILLARY RODHAM CAN'T CLOSE.

Her forte isn't salesmanship.

And, you can only go so far on "coercion." Which is why, today, she's throwing money out. Hoping she can "buy" voters. Well? Perhaps Soros called her and told her "he's getting desperate?"

Anyway, we're all entitled to our opinions.

My opinion holds that Hillary can't win a national presidential contest.

"gab," you want to tie yourself up in knots that Hillary is a budget balancer? Be my guest. The GRIFTER will balance anything you want.

But she still can't close. She can't get people to say "yes."

How the Bonkeys handle this information, however, I just have no idea.

I did pick up the article about the poll taken in Colorado; and it seemed to containing surprising enough data; that Blue staters were watching their pocketbooks.

I'd also guess that if we're in a recession; people will be more concerned about government, and taxation, ahead. NO FREEBIES.

Plus, the lady can't close.

flenser says

The Fourteenth Amendment does not state that a child born here is a citizen.

The Fourteenth Amendment says

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

I think flenser needs to re-read our Constitution; the words are fairly explicit.

I think unclesmrgol needs to reread the Fourteenth Amendment if he thinks it says that all children born in the US are citizens.

The man who crafted it inserted the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" specifically to avert the situation of children of non-Americans receiving citizenship. Look it up.

AmerIndians are born in the US. They get US citizenship not because of the Constitution but because of a law passed by Congress. This is all easily available on the web.

Why not give every child $5,000 plus a free college education and health care? It can all be funded by confiscating all property of, say, the richest 10% of Americans.

As time passes, Senator Clinton's attempts to position herself in the middle will become transparently absurd.

Oh heck, it's not HER money! She might as well give it away. Clinton's money just magically appeared as soon as they were out of office. Remember how they were so broke from legal fees as their term ended....then suddenly they were millionaires. What is wrong with people in this country? Why is everyone so eager to support the govt. taking all your money and deciding how much of it it gives back to you and what you can do with it? How do the Hillaries of the world convince so many people that they can "get them freebies!" Don't they work for anyone, or know any well off people? The Dems keep finding people that believe the Dems will take from the rich and give to them...Hello! The rich won't pay, they can afford to find ways to avoid taxes. Once again, those that work will have their money taken away and given to those that don't. People here are getting stupider and stupider. Can't they see this happening, again? It's getting so frustrating to even pay attention to these politicians....and all you can do is vote for the Republicans, cause they're not AS BAD as the Dems.

Incidentally, everyone does realize that making, say, $100,000 a year available to every student for college tuition means that state college tuitions would automatically rise to $100,000 a year, don't they?

Teresa:

"If we did not have illegal immigration in this country, we would have NEGATIVE population growth and probably go to a system of paying women to have babies."

Probably? I don't think so. Not when it would be so much easier to recalibrate the quotas and speed up legal immigration as needed. Much better and more flexible solution on soooo many levels.

The current welfare system isn't economically sustainable. Its roots are in the New Deal and Great Society programs that already have been proven failures.

Combined with HillaryCare II, Hillary Clinton's proposal would hasten the collapse of the welfare system by placing a crushing burden on the next generation of American taxpayers. That, in turn, stalls, and eventually tanks, the U.S. economy.

We should begin seriously considering Charles Murray's proposal to replace the welfare state with an annual payment to all adult Americans of $10,000.

From his book, "In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State" http://www.amazon.com/Our-Hands-Replace-Welfare-State/dp/0844742236/ref=sr_1_1/103-9329012-6171808?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191061743&sr=1-1

"Imagine that the United States were to scrap all its income transfer programs-- including Social Security, Medicare, and all forms of welfare-- and give every American age twenty-one and older $10,000 a year for life."

Murray "uses detailed analysis to argue that many goals of the welfare state-- elimination of poverty, comfortable retirement for everyone, universal access to health care--would be better served under [his] Plan than under the current system."

Murray's a heavy hitter intellectually-- we should pay attention.

Hillary Clinton's proposal, together with HillaryCare II, is incremental expansion of a welfare system that already is failing, and isn't economically sustainable. It's additional evidence that she's a child of the failed New Deal and Great Society programs of the past. In short, she has no new ideas. It's more of the same Stalinist control of the economic in slow motion.

Charles Murray has a better idea. In his book "In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State", he proposes eliminating all welfare and income transfer programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and all form of welfare, and replacing them with a $10,000 per year payment to all adult Americans.

The book demonstrates that the plan is financially feasible, "and then uses detailed analysis to argue that many goals of the welfare state-- elimination of poverty, comfortable retirement for everyone, universal access to health care-- would be better served under the Plan than under the current system."

This idea is clearly going nowhere although it's actually been espoused by politicians of both parties. What more interesting surely is the response it has evoked here. Accusations of Stalinism, the linkage with the expansion of Schip, the assertions that she will never be president in a million years. It's all so completely over the top which is a bit like the reaction to Schip. Schip, believe me is a huge trap for the Republican party. Why they have blundered straight into it when there were warning signs everywhere is completely beyond me. We have a measure that was invented by the Republican congress back in the nineties, that even conservatives agree is succesful, is backed by a large number of Republican senators and congressman and all democrats apart from a handful from tobacco districts, has the support of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, most governors of both parties, and just about every public interest group you can think of. It's going to cost about 6 billion a year over five years which is relative peanuts when the adminisration is asking for 190 billion for one year to pursue the war in Iraq. Add it all together and this is politically suicidal. It's a win win for the democrats because even if Bush's veto is sustained they will take the advice of Chuck Grassley (R) and keep bringing it to the floor from now till next November. Allegedly this was all dreamed up by Rahm Emmanuel. It must be working better than his wildest dreams. Meanwhile here we rant on about Stalinism. Bizarre if we want to start working our way back to power because on present form I'd say she was a shoo in for next year. This view will probably provoke a chorus of denials but we need to get out of denial and back into reality.

The movie might be new but it's the same soundtrack

Is there really any difference between Hiliary's plan and Bush's plan for partial privatization of Social Security ?

Both take money from the public coffers and put it aside in private accounts outside of the public system. Both create the sense that there is a safety-net to the safety-net.

If you eliminated the current welfare system, you'd have money for a new system. The problem is that this is IN ADDITION TO to the existing Stalinist mess, not in replacement of it. And "command and control" economies are Stalinist.

That's the difference between the Bush plan and this one. The President wants to REPLACE social security with a better system, giving current participants the option to remain in the system as it's phased out. Hillary's merely dumping a new entitlement on top of the failing old ones. That's the same tired, old thinking that dragged us to this mess. It's not a new idea, as you so "aptly" point out.

The argument that this will ONLY cost $20 billion MORE focuses on the tip of the iceberg. It's the bulk of failing programs lurking underwater that sinks the financial boat.

While as a conservative I don't agree with the $5,000 giveaway, Teresa is correct about the demographics--and our country has been fortunate
that immigration has helped keep our population growing and young.

Having said that, JM Hanes' point is an excellent one--that a major rewrite to our immigration laws (and enforcement) so we can benefit from large numbers of legal immigrants we have selected with rational criteria--now that would be wonderful.

I disagree with those commenting who have pooh poohed the demographic issues Teresa has raised--our country's future (and every country's) ultimately is controlled by demographics.

Nickess

..our country has been fortunate
that immigration has helped keep our population growing and young.

There is a lot of very dubious economic thinking floating around these days, and the notion that immigration fuels the economy is a big part of it.

A young and growing population is not an economic advantage.

.. a major rewrite to our immigration laws (and enforcement) so we can benefit from large numbers of legal immigrants

How exactly can we "benefit" from large numbers of legal immigrants? There was a time when people on the right had a sound grasp of economics. What happened?

>i? .. our country's future (and every country's) ultimately is controlled by demographics.

Yes, of course. But demographics does not refer merely to raw numbers of people, but to the specific details about those people. In other words, people are not a fungible resource.

Fenser: A young and growing population is not an economic advantage.

Well that’s an interesting theory! Apparently old and dying populations must be the type needed to spur economic development? Lets see…Japan is ageing nicely and as we all know their economy is kicking bootie! And china and other asian countries with their young workers are in the dumps…please don’t invest there for gods sake!

Or as recent studies have concluded:

To boost economic growth in the long-term (i.e. when the economy has reached its steady state), it is necessary to employ family policy as this increases both the fertility rate and the time individuals spend accumulating human capital. The main result for economic growth theory is that steady state economic growth is not possible when population is ageing. Steady state growth is only possible if the age structure of the population is constant. (Sandra Gruescu)

The ageing of the population presents a major fiscal challenge for the countries of Europe. The combination of increased longevity and a reduced birth rate will directly reduce the growth rates of the European economies by slowing the growth of the capital stock and by weakening the productivity of the labor force. This slower growth of GDP means a smaller tax base and less tax revenue. In addition, the current tax-financed systems of social pensions and health care will require substantial increases in the already high tax rates. The analysis in this paper shows that the common prescription of increased immigration would do little to reduce the future fiscal burden. The increased revenue from a large rise in immigration would finance only a small part of the coming rise in the cost of pension and health benefits. The only alternative to significantly higher tax rates or substantially lower retirement income is to shift from a pure tax-financed system to a mixed system that supplements the tax financed benefits with benefits based on increased saving financial investment. (Marty Feldstein)

Man, The.

Apparently old and dying populations must be the type needed to spur economic development? Lets see…Japan is ageing nicely and as we all know their economy is kicking bootie!

We could just swap colorful metaphors, but maybe it would be more instructive to look at some actual data.

Average increase in real GDP per capita in the US, 1979-2006 - 1.9%.

Average increase in real GDP per capita in Japan, 1979-2006 - 2.0%.

If you are interested in actual data, you can look it up here.

http://www.bls.gov/fls/flsgdp.pdf

You can also view the data for other Western countries which don't have our open-borders immigration policies. It turns out they are doing just as well without it.

To boost economic growth in the long-term (i.e. when the economy has reached its steady state), it is necessary to employ family policy as this increases both the fertility rate and the time individuals spend accumulating human capital.

Regardless of what is believed by Sandra Gruescu, a leftist college professor in Germany, economic growth has been understood by all free market economists since Adam Smith to be determined by increases in productivity.

If productivity goes up, the economy grows. If it goes down, the economy shrinks. If it is steady, the economy is static.

Population growth or shrinkage has zero impact on productivity. This can be seen in the fact that the fastest growing populations on Earth are not the most productive. In fact, the fastest growing populations are usually the least productive.

The ageing of the population presents a major fiscal challenge for the countries of Europe.

No, it does not. It presents a major political challenge. For lefties, the two are often considered to be the same thing. But they are quite distinct.

The combination of increased longevity and a reduced birth rate will directly reduce the growth rates of the European economies by slowing the growth of the capital stock and by weakening the productivity of the labor force.

There is no relationship between the age of a workforce and its productivity. If there were then Uganda would be the most productive nation on Earth.

In addition, the current tax-financed systems of social pensions and health care will require substantial increases in the already high tax rates.

Not neccessarally. He goes on to say;

The only alternative to significantly higher tax rates or substantially lower retirement income is to shift from a pure tax-financed system to a mixed system that supplements the tax financed benefits with benefits based on increased saving financial investment.

There is nothing in the principles of economics which state that all people in the US and Europe over the age of 65 should be able to retire on X amount of money. The opposite is true. Ask an economist what to do about SS and they will tell you to increase the age of eligibility. It's politicians who are always looking for a free lunch.

In any case even Feldstein disagrees with the notion that immigration is a solution.

The analysis in this paper shows that the common prescription of increased immigration would do little to reduce the future fiscal burden.

So in citing this did you not read it, or were you agreeing with me?

Sorry, The Man, I posted a reply but it is awaiting moderation it seems. I've never seen that message before.

If it does not show up I'll try posting it again.

College tuitions will immediately rise another $5K.

Then what?

The Man

Apparently old and dying populations must be the type needed to spur economic development? Lets see…Japan is ageing nicely and as we all know their economy is kicking bootie!

We could just swap colorful metaphors, but maybe it would be more instructive to look at some actual data.

Average increase in real GDP per capita in the US, 1979-2006 - 1.9%.

Average increase in real GDP per capita in Japan, 1979-2006 - 2.0%.

If you are interested in actual data, you can look it up here.

www.bls.gov/fls/flsgdp.pdf

You can also view the data for other Western countries which don't have our open-borders immigration policies. It turns out they are doing just as well without it.

More of The Man.

To boost economic growth in the long-term (i.e. when the economy has reached its steady state), it is necessary to employ family policy as this increases both the fertility rate and the time individuals spend accumulating human capital.

Regardless of what is believed by Sandra Gruescu, a leftist college professor in Germany, economic growth has been understood by all free market economists since Adam Smith to be determined by increases in productivity.

If productivity goes up, the economy grows. If it goes down, the economy shrinks. If it is steady, the economy is static.

Population growth or shrinkage has zero impact on productivity. This can be seen in the fact that the fastest growing populations on Earth are not the most productive. In fact, the fastest growing populations are usually the least productive.

The ageing of the population presents a major fiscal challenge for the countries of Europe.

No, it does not. It presents a major political challenge. For lefties, the two are often considered to be the same thing. But they are quite distinct.

The combination of increased longevity and a reduced birth rate will directly reduce the growth rates of the European economies by slowing the growth of the capital stock and by weakening the productivity of the labor force.

There is no relationship between the age of a workforce and its productivity. If there were then Uganda would be the most productive nation on Earth.

In addition, the current tax-financed systems of social pensions and health care will require substantial increases in the already high tax rates.

Not neccessarally. He goes on to say;

The only alternative to significantly higher tax rates or substantially lower retirement income is to shift from a pure tax-financed system to a mixed system that supplements the tax financed benefits with benefits based on increased saving financial investment.

There is nothing in the principles of economics which state that all people in the US and Europe over the age of 65 should be able to retire on X amount of money. The opposite is true. Ask an economist what to do about SS and they will tell you to increase the age of eligibility. It's politicians who are always looking for a free lunch.

In any case even Feldstein disagrees with the notion that immigration is a solution.

The analysis in this paper shows that the common prescription of increased immigration would do little to reduce the future fiscal burden.

So in citing this did you not read it, or were you agreeing with me?

That was average yearly increase in per capita GDP, if it was unclear.

flenser,

Consider the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Isn't every inhabitant of our country subject to our legal power except for members of the diplomatic corps of a foreign nation? We don't provide exemptions for landed illegal aliens, for example.

If you say that such people are not subject to our jurisdiction, then we have no means of restraining their activities, just as we don't for diplomats. That makes the actions of the INS illegal, doesn't it?

The moment you say we do have jurisdiction over them, you've just made them citizens.

Which path do you want to take, flenser?

Flenser,

The Man explained to you why our country has been fortunate that immigration has kept our population young and growing. If you had read anything about demographics you would know that you don't counter this by comparing our country with third world countries with terrible mortality.

You cite Japan's economic growth over the last 25 years or so. Think about the investment market, where past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Look at predictions of how Japan will be impacted over the next 25-50 years by its aging problem--hard to see how its economy will continue to grow.

Finally, you point out that the benefit to the United States all depends who the immigrants are [what skills they bring, presumably you mean]--that's why I referenced the prior commentator's hope for a rational immigration system which would seek out desirable immigrants.

Fenser:

The only comment of yours I was responding to was this one:

"A young and growing population is not an economic advantage".

I could agree with this statement if it said:

"A young and growing population is not an economic advantage unless it is given the tools and resources needed to thrive" (e.g. good education).

Younger workers generally work longer hours and are generally more productive than say people in their late 50’s and 60’s. Productivity then continues to fall as people age into their 60’s and 70’s. Creativity may increase or decrease depending on your field of expertise.

Almost every study or future forecast of economic growth in Japan and the US points out the danger an aging population will likely have on both our economies. Part of the reason is productivity, part retirement benefits as well as health care costs. Now you present some ideas to maybe change that…but that’s another topic.

Presenting GDP data since 1979 for our two countries does not account for the trends that one would observe over time in GDP if the ageing hypothesis is correct. Since Japan is ageing faster than the US, GDP differences should increase over time in favor of the US. So using your citation, from 1979-2006 US and Japan total GDP increased by 66% and 70% respectively (Japan wins). For 1990-2006, US and Japan GDP increase was 34% and 19%, respectively (We win!)

And who pays for this largess? We do, with higher taxes that she undoubtedly will not pay. She will say or do anything to get elected. I hope if she does, I will not be around to see the consequences.

unclesmrgol

The phrase "and subject to the juristiction thereof" was added to the 14th Amendment at the suggestion of Senator Jacob Howard. He stated at the time that the purpose was to make it clear that the mere fact of being born in the US did not confer citizenship.

In his own words, "The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include very other class of person."

I suggest you do some research on the matter before we continue this discussion.

nickess

The Man explained to you why our country has been fortunate that immigration has kept our population young and growing.

In fact, he merely quoted me what some other people have said. I responded to the substance of that those other people wrote.

If you had read anything about demographics you would know that you don't counter this by comparing our country with third world countries with terrible mortality.

I guess its lucky I did not do that so.

Look at predictions of how Japan will be impacted over the next 25-50 years by its aging problem--hard to see how its economy will continue to grow.

It's not hard at all, assuming you are economically literate enough to know that economic growth is dependent on increases in productivity, and not in the least on population.

that's why I referenced the prior commentator's hope for a rational immigration system which would seek out desirable immigrants.

The only people trying to get us to such a rational immigration system are people like Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter. The predominant desire in the GOP is for masses of poorly skilled and educated labor. For the Dems, it is that plus the desire for more and more chain migration.

The Man

Younger workers generally work longer hours and are generally more productive than say people in their late 50’s and 60’s. Productivity then continues to fall as people age into their 60’s and 70’s.

I'd be obliged if you could provide a cite for the study which found this. Given that many people in their 50's and 60's are retired I'd expect the productivity of that age group to be low. The same applies in spades for those in their 70's.

Presenting GDP data since 1979 for our two countries does not account for the trends that one would observe over time in GDP if the ageing hypothesis is correct. Since Japan is ageing faster than the US, GDP differences should increase over time in favor of the US.

This is true. But I'm pleased that you are now describing the aging theory as being merely a hypothesis and not an established fact.

It is difficult to isolate one factor from the many that contribute to changes in productivity. A look at such changes in several countries shows growth spurts and periods of slower growth.

But if you want to focus on a nore contemporary time perioid, look at 2000-2006.

Real GDP per captia increased by an average of 1.5% per year in the US, with its essentially open borders policy.

At the same time it increased by 1.5% in Canada, 1.8% in Australia, and 1.3% in Japan.

If large scale immigration is some sort of rocket fuel for a nations economy, it does not show up in the data.

from 1979-2006 US and Japan total GDP increased by 66% and 70% respectively

Total GDP is pretty meaningless. Per capita GDP is the true measure of whether or not we are getting better off.

Almost every study or future forecast of economic growth in Japan and the US points out the danger an aging population will likely have on both our economies. Part of the reason is productivity, part retirement benefits as well as health care costs. Now you present some ideas to maybe change that…but that’s another topic.

I'm not sure why it is another topic.

As even the economist you yourself cited believes, immigration is not a solution to the whole Ponzi scheme problem which the Western governments have created. This problem is not an economic one. It is a political one.

No credible economist believes that economic growth is based on anything other than increases in productivity. The question then becomes, does large scale immigration lead to increases in productivity?

The empirical evidence suggests that it does not. And if you examine the issue from the standpoint of ecomomic theory it is clear that there is no reason why immigration should lead to increases in productivity.

Increases in productivity are driven by a shortage of labor, not by a surplus. If it is cheaper to hire stoop labor to pick cotton than to buy machinery, then no machinery will be bought.

It's no coincidence that the industries which have seen the biggest influx of cheap immigrant labor have seen static or declining productivity.

"A young and growing population is not an economic advantage unless it is given the tools and resources needed to thrive" (e.g. good education).

I basically agree with this, if "good education" is properly understood. But there is scant evidence that "a young and growing population" possesses any advantage over an older and static population, assuming the people in each case have the same mindset.

There is nothing in economic theory which suggests that a growing population is any better than a static or even a declining one. There may be arguments to be made for a growing population but economics is silent on the matter. You will look long and in vain in the works of Smith or Ricardo or Hayek for any such notion.

Now, there may be non-economic arguments to be made in favor of immigration, and I'm willing to listen to them. But the idea that economic growth is driven by population growth is simply absurd. The only person I can think of who tried to float such an idea was Julian Simon, and he had to resort to metaphysics to prop it up.

Assume $5000 per birth. Assume 4MM births in the first year, and assume births grow 2% per year. Assume the bonds compound at 5%, reinvested tax free.

After 18 years the outstanding liability has grown to $652,248,657,410. For comparison, the social security administration currently holds $1.9T in government bonds.

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

So in 18 years we will have grown a new liability to 1/3 the size of today's Social Security. Of course, Social Security taxes will cover at least a portion of that program's liabilities. New taxes will have to be created to fund Hillary's $5K per child program.

http://tinyurl.com/2m4bce