When someone says "for the Children" you've got a problem.
Progressives and, well, most politicians are always talking about - for the children. So maybe one of them could explain to me how saddling a child with over $52,000 dollars of debt before their first birthday is in any way beneficial for the child.
Given the current spending habits of politicians and the desires of those that elect them, that one year old will be in serious debt by the time they graduate from high school, at the current rate of growth (last 12 years) we can expect to see that child's debt in the neighborhood $200,000. Obviously we all care about that child, why else would we be trying to teach them that massive debt is a good thing.
GNP growth has dropped from around 4.5% in 1960 to around 2.25% today so we're averaging 2.25% decrease every 50 years. By the time that kid graduates we'll be down to 1.45% growth. The CBO (congressional budget office) is projecting that we'll spend roughly 75% of our GDP this year. Think about that for a minute. 75% of EVERYTHING we produce, is consumed by the Government (or those who feed off the government). If we wanted to balance the budget for this year, we would be looking at a FLAT tax rate of 75% for every person and business - Hell even the progressives know that won't work. So they steal from the children they claim are the future. If the trend in spending continues, our government will be using 100% within 15 years.
Yep a lot of assumptions - like we won't increase spending which I suspect is what will really happen. Or that the added spending and drop in GDP won't result in additional increased unemployment (which it will) which will result in additional spending and a faster drop in GDP growth.
Sure - it's the children