The Intense Lobbying Frenzy Over Stimulus Dollars in Congress

Reader Comments
Back to article

No one is obliged to agree with Peter's argument but he has laid out a rational, fact and data driven argument. So what does J.M. of W.I do? He resorts to ad hominum insults, calling Peter "dumb" and employing fear campaign tactics when he implies there is "...massive effort to take America without firing a shot." Well, at least Peter used his full name.

Kevin of KY 1:28PM January 09, 2009

After reading the great oratatory on how well Social Security is doing, I wonder if he took into account that nearly 40% of the population will be able to draw from this system because of the age of our Boomers. Along with that at least 20% is under the age of even contributing. Build into that the fact we have a shrinking economy built on the premise that we are the largest debtor nation in the world that has our moneyprinted by an organisation of Banks that won't let us audit them, and he thinks we're doing better now that Bush and his heirs are out of office? I notice he failed to mention the changes that the Clinton administration implemented to reflect better unemployment numbers after he and Gore approve the NAFTA and GATT agreements. Or the fact that he improvised a new way to allow the removal of the M3 in inflation figures to fudge matters. To get back to how well Social Security is doing and the 40% who remain to pay the bills. 2-5% of the population is wealthy enough to not worry about it while up to 10% are on welfare in our country. Nearly 2% are in prison and the remaining 25% are worrying about their jobs who actually pay one half the money going into the system. Wow! What a great future to look forward to when we now have a president who wants to run trillion dollar deficits to boost the economy with more fiat dollars. I have to wonder if their on blinders on those are claiming to be in charge or if this is a massive effort to take America without firing a shot.

J. M. of WI 3:22AM January 07, 2009

Kevin Phillips in BAD MONEY, and many others, have documented how in 1990, as part of their campaign to destroy Social Security and force everyone to “invest” (give) money to Wall Streeters, Alan Greenspan, with the approval of the first Bush administration replaced the measurement of inflation that determines Social Security COLAs with a bogus measurement that deliberately understates inflation. This actually served two purposes. It made it appear that Greenspan was doing a great job managing inflation when in fact he was doing a terrible ob, and, it gradually reduced the purchasing power of Social Security recipients to in some cases, virtual starvation levels.
Since 1983 the Bureau of Labor Statistics has maintained an experimental consumer price index for seniors (CPI-E) that tracks seniors expenses more closely than the formula currently used to calculate today’s COLA, which is calculated based on the habits of young, urban professionals and doesn’t take into account the rising health care, insurance, and energy costs America’s seniors are currently struggling with. ccording to the (CPI-E) seniors have lost as much as 40% of their buying power since 2000.
For twenty years now Republicans have conducted a fear campaign suggesting that Social Security was insolvent and that the only safe and secure way for Americans to plan for retirement was to hand over their money to Wall Streeters like Bernie Madoff ,on a regular basis. Of course today we know which was the Ponzi scheme. Many who have seen their private 401K accounts dissolve before their eyes are now reduced out their retirement on Social Security. Fortunately Social Security is fully solvent for years to come.
Actually if people who make more than $250,000 a year had to contribute their fair share into Social Security, it would be able to restore the huge cuts in benefits that Greenspan and the Republicans covertly introduced, and still be fully solvent for the next 50 years, or longer! This would not only enable American to retire with dignity, as Canadians and Europeans already do, but would of course immediately inject tens of billions of dollars of consumer spending into the economy which our economy t needs soon it is to avoid deflation. Unlike the bank give away program which cost middle and low income Americans more than the wealthy, and only benefited bank executives, requiring everyone to pay their fair share of the Social Security tax would only affect the wealthy who can most easily afford to pay, while benefiting middle and low income Americans who have seen their private retirement accounts disappear, and it is guaranteed to provide a huge, immediate stimulus to the economy.

Peter Christiansen of CA 12:12AM December 31, 2008