Let's Watch To See If Michael Astrue Goes On Peterson's Payroll Next Year
From
Huffington Post:
Peter Peterson, a Wall Street billionaire who has been calling for cuts to Social Security and other government programs for years, is hosting a "fiscal summit" Tuesday that brings together Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former President Bill Clinton, Rep. Paul Ryan, House Speaker John Boehner, Tom Brokaw and Politico's John Harris, among a host of other elites ...
The bipartisan luminaries will be carrying on a discussion to a large extent framed by Peterson, who has spent lavishly to shape a national conversation focusing on the deficit rather than on jobs and economic growth. ...
According to a review of tax documents from 2007 through 2011, Peterson has personally contributed at least $458 million to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to cast Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and government spending as in a state of crisis, in desperate need of dramatic cuts. Peterson's millions have done next to nothing to change public opinion: In survey after survey, Americans reject the idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare. ...
But Peterson has been able to drive a major shift in elite consensus about government spending, with talk of "grand bargains" that would slash entitlements, cut corporate tax rates and end personal tax breaks, such as the mortgage deduction, that benefit the middle class.
To put Peterson's spending in context, all corporations and unions combined spent less than $4 billion on lobbying in 2011. ...
Peterson has been pushing his fiscal arguments by spreading that half-billion dollars widely across the Washington spectrum, putting both Democrats and Republicans on his payroll. ...
18 comments:
"In survey after survey, Americans reject the idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare."
Proof that most Americans are clueless. Are the people who are rejecting cuts to benefit programs also willing to pay increased taxes?
When money coming in (taxes) is less than money going out (expenses), something needs to give. Regardless of whether people want to cut benefit programs, the reality is that cuts are necessary.
People don't want to see their Social Security retirement benefits or their Medicare benefits cut, but if they were better informed about how the programs work, especially the Social Security disability program, they would likely be in favor of reform. Do you really think that child SSI would withstand scrutiny if the public realized that it was nothing more than a welfare handout for a select group of the poor (considering that the cash payment is rarely going to be spent on any services designed to address the "disability"). Do you think most Americans would approve of giving people who are 50 or older and perfectly capable of working at the sedentary or for 55 and older at the light level disability benefits simply because they are "old" in the eyes of SSA.
Don't forget that there is no family cap or limits on Title XVI, so the more the merrier.. I think if the American Public knew what was going on there would be a revolution. However, as a wise friend of mine said, Title XVI is nothing more than a hedge against revolution from the have-nots..
"However, as a wise friend of mine said, Title XVI is nothing more than a hedge against revolution from the have-nots.."
Comment of the year! Spot on.
What bothers me about all of this talk of reform, is the fact that in the 1980's, they "reformed" the system with higher taxes to take care of the problems (that were foreseen) we are having today. No one is pointing at the Congress for the outright theft of the surplus that was built up and now the same people that paid in more for all those years, now hear that they will get less, or have to pay more (or both). I also agree that childhood SSI is a joke, and basically refuse to take those cases.
History tells us that there will not be any reform of Social Security benefits during an election cycle.In todays environment the election cyle begins the day after the last election. We should expect continued partisan bickering until the first Social Security check truly bounces for "insufficient funds".
The elites who want to end Social Security don’t pay into the Trust Fund. They want the money workers would put into the Trust Fund to go into the funds they control – on Wall Street.
His name is Peter Peterson? Really? Change your name to something less ridiculous and maybe you won't have to spend millions making people think you're important.
And yes, people don't want cuts to programs that they pay FICA taxes for. Lololol stupid Amuricans.
The rich don't elect politicians. Poor people do!
Case closed
by layman
Anon 7:39, 8:59, and 9:51,
I disagree with your opinion on the issue of cutting SSI child disability benefits. If you are interested in an objective look, and not just in dismantling government programs for the poor for idealogical reasons, look into the research on the extra costs of living for people with significant disabilities.
Or even better, sit down with some low income families with kids who have significant disabilities and go over their budgets. When I do that, I find that often the disabled child's uncovered costs are quite high. Also, the childs' extra care requirements can severely affect the parents' availability for work.
If being a "Clueless American" means I'm glad our government offers vital help to kids in such need, then call me clueless and proud. That beats being cruel and loud, like those beating the drums for slashing these important benefits and leaving these kids to suffer in an environment where private charity is unable to meet their existing needs.
The debate will never end and both sides make good points. Child's SSI, for one example, is a woefully abused system that was designed with only good intentions. Unfortunately, some people have learned to game those intentions and therefore have corrupted the well. That does NOT mean that every child on SSI is some poster child for Welfare cheats and greedy parents. If you only choose to see the negative side of life, you will never be disappointed. If you open your eyes all the way (I know, it can be tough sometimes) and take a look at the WHOLE picture, you might have a different take.
Better yet, imagine that your kid has severe asthma, or Asperger's, or some sort of learning disability, and requires much more intense, expensive, and time-consuming care than a normal child, and see how quick you would be to ditch that program then.
Two sides to every story....
make parents submit legitimate medical receipts and then compensate for them afterwards. kinda like we already do for backpays on kids.
no more free checks for kids cases.
make parents submit legitimate medical receipts and then compensate for them afterwards. kinda like we already do for backpays on kids.
no more free checks for kids cases.
Child SSI was not designed with good intentions. The Congressman who proposed it publicly stated that the purpose was to give more money to poor people.
From what I have seen, 10% (possibly 20%) of SSI-child families make substantial expenditures for care and treatment of the eligible child's condition that would not have been made without the added SSI check;
Up to half of the families use at least part of the SSI check in a way that broadly benefits the children in the family but not necessarily any one eligible child (i.e., buy a second widescreen TV to play cartoon and children's cable TV shows); and
and the remainder show no change in expenditure for the eligible child or children in the house resulting from the SSI check or checks in the household (meaning money to be spent for mother & boyfriend in the household, extended household, liquor store, neiborhood drug dealer, ...).
Just my observations for clients and families that I have seen. I would like to see a credible study of welfare family expenditures, with and without child SSI, and a child or children with problems in the household.
child SSI should be provided on a debit card that can only be used for healthcare.
Since most kids on SSI are also eligible for medicare, SSI expenditures would be greatly reduced...while at the same time ensuring that these "disabled" children are treated for their allegedly disabling problems.
Once parents realize that SSI is no longer equivalent to an ATM, the claims will diminish and truly disabled children will still get the benefit.
Children on SSI are not eligible for Medicare. Providing a debit card for medical expenses would be much more costly than the current cash assistance provided by SSI.
I think it's time to close the comments on this since the discussion has veered sharply into an issue that is not directly related to the original post. Wait until I post about SSI child benefits and then discuss as much as you want.
Post a Comment