Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mr. Peterson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mr. Peterson

    IMF-Style Austerity Comes to America

    By ELLEN BROWN
    When billionaires pledge a billion dollars to educate people to the evils of something, it is always good to peer closely at what they are up to. Hedge fund magnate Peter G. Peterson was formerly Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and head of the New York Federal Reserve. He is now senior chairman of Blackstone Group, which is in charge of dispersing government funds in the controversial AIG bailout, widely criticized as a government giveaway to banks. Peterson is also founder of the Peter Peterson Foundation, which has adopted the cause of imposing “fiscal responsibility” on Congress. He hired David M. Walker, former head of the Government Accounting Office, to spearhead a massive campaign to reduce the runaway federal debt, which the Peterson/Walker team blames on reckless government and consumer spending. The Foundation funded the movie “I.O.U.S.A.” to amass popular support for their cause, which largely revolves around dismantling Social Security and Medicare benefits as a way to cut costs and return to “fiscal responsibility.”


    That raises the question, are the advocates of “fiscal responsibility” merely misguided? Or are they up to something more devious?


    The Peterson/Walker plan would have slashed social security entitlements, at a time when Wall Street has destroyed the home equity and private retirement accounts of potential retirees. It would have increased the social security tax, disguised as a “mandatory savings tax.” This added tax would be automatically withdrawn from your paycheck and deposited to a “Guaranteed Retirement Account” managed by the Social Security Administration. Since the savings would be “mandatory,” you could not withdraw your money without stiff penalties; and rather than enjoying an earlier retirement paid out of your increased savings, a later retirement date was being called for. In the meantime, your “mandatory savings” would just be fattening the investment pool of the Wall Street bankers managing the funds.

    And that may be what really underlies the big push to educate the public to the dangers of the federal debt. Political analyst Jim Capo discusses a slide show presentation given by David M. Walker after the “I.O.U.S.A.” premier, in which a mandatory savings plan was proposed that would be modeled on the Federal Thrift Savings Plan (FSP). Capo comments:
    “The FSP, available for federal employees like congressional staff workers, has over $200 billion of assets (on paper anyway). About half these assets are in special non-negotiable US Treasury notes issued especially for the FSP scheme. The other half are invested in stocks, bonds and other securities. . . . The nearly $100 billion in [this] half of the plan is managed by Blackrock Financial. And, yes, shock, Blackrock Financial is a creation of Mr. Peterson's Blackstone Group. In fact, the FSP and Blackstone were birthed almost as a matched set. It's tough to fail when you form an investment management company at the same time you can gain the contract that directs a percentage of the Federal government payroll into your hands.”


    What is really going on behind the scenes may have been revealed by Prof. Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University. An insider groomed by the international bankers, Dr. Quigley wrote in Tragedy and Hope in 1966:
    “[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”
    If that is indeed the plan, it is virtually complete. Unless we wake up to what is going on and take action, the “powers of financial capitalism” will have their way.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/brown03022010.html



  • #2
    Re: Mr. Peterson


    http://littlesis.org/person/33849/Pe...son/interlocks

    PETER G. PETERSON

    Blackstone Group chairman and co-founder; CFR chairman; former Lehman CEO

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Mr. Peterson

      Originally posted by Yaowarat View Post

      http://littlesis.org/person/33849/Pe...son/interlocks

      PETER G. PETERSON

      Blackstone Group chairman and co-founder; CFR chairman; former Lehman CEO
      ...and formerly Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and formerly head of the New York Federal Reserve. And some are still puzzled how it works....

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Mr. Peterson

        Originally posted by don View Post
        ...and formerly Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and formerly head of the New York Federal Reserve. And some are still puzzled how it works....
        Bastard.

        They doing us the same way they've done so many other countries. Run up the debt, "privatize" (into their hands, cheap) anything of value, and leave the residents poor, sick, stupid, unemployed and enslaved with debt and taxes.

        Cultures that thrive for many centuries learn to take good care of their land, animals, seeds, tools, and heritage.

        These elite bastards haven't learned that lesson yet, and we are being treated like cows on a large "industrialized" farm. Once the cow gets too sick to produce large quantities of milk, it is sent off to slaughter.
        Most folks are good; a few aren't.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Mr. Peterson

          I so miss this man....




          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Mr. Peterson

            I agree- love this clip from Carlin.

            But the punch line should read -we don't give a f**K about it -at all - at all at all. Try bringing up anything within the slightest whisk of these perspectives and you will get that -uh oh -gotta go look.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Mr. Peterson

              Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
              Bastard.

              They doing us the same way they've done so many other countries. Run up the debt, "privatize" (into their hands, cheap) anything of value, and leave the residents poor, sick, stupid, unemployed and enslaved with debt and taxes.

              Cultures that thrive for many centuries learn to take good care of their land, animals, seeds, tools, and heritage.

              These elite bastards haven't learned that lesson yet, and we are being treated like cows on a large "industrialized" farm. Once the cow gets too sick to produce large quantities of milk, it is sent off to slaughter.
              Here's one suggestion to deal with the problem...
              Feed Pete Peterson to the Whales

              [Warning: This link has little to do with Pete Peterson and more to do with whales...although I must say I rather fancy the idea that the title suggests...]

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Mr. Peterson

                Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                Here's one suggestion to deal with the problem...
                Good idea.
                Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Mr. Peterson

                  You have to appreciate how badass their agitation-propaganda campaign is.

                  They can trot the likes of Mitt Romney out onto Neil Cavuto's show on Faux News. Neil tosses a few softballs (fair and balanced) toward Mitt. The only bloated parts of the federal government according to both of them are the entitlement programs. Defense spending is never mentioned accept to say that it won't be even be considered as something that can be touched in a Romney administration.

                  And in a friendly, online publication, Max Boot, another famous neo-conservative, calls for increased defense spending.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Mr. Peterson

                    Originally posted by babbittd View Post
                    You have to appreciate how badass their agitation-propaganda campaign is.

                    They can trot the likes of Mitt Romney out onto Neil Cavuto's show on Faux News. Neil tosses a few softballs (fair and balanced) toward Mitt. The only bloated parts of the federal government according to both of them are the entitlement programs. Defense spending is never mentioned accept to say that it won't be even be considered as something that can be touched in a Romney administration.

                    And in a friendly, online publication, Max Boot, another famous neo-conservative, calls for increased defense spending.
                    Right on point, Babbittd:

                    The MICC Moves to Hose the Taxpayer One More Time

                    Eisenhower's Nightmare Arrives

                    By FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY
                    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
                    Dwight D. Eisenhower,
                    President of the United States
                    Farewell Address, 17 January 1961
                    As I indicated in CounterPunch on 3 February 2010, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) just released by the Obama Pentagon is a bad joke. That bad joke is about to be given the good housekeeping seal of approval by a special panel appointed jointly by the Secretary of Defense and the defense barons of the Armed Services committees in Congress. When this happens, rest assured, any desire to get control of the out-of-control defense budget will plunge far below its already low level. Chalk up another victory in the Military - Industrial - Congressional Complex’s (MICC’s) war on the Constitution, the American taxpayer, and programs like Social Security and Medicare, which are hallmarks of civilized society.

                    To understand why this QDR review panel is gearing up to paint lipstick on the QDR pig, it is first necessary to describe what the QDR did not do.
                    Today, the Pentagon is now spending more in inflation-adjusted dollars than at any time since the end of WWII to support a military force structure that is much smaller and older than at any time since the end of World War II. But the QDR did not even acknowledge the three mutually reinforcing problems that are now combining to produce a catastrophic meltdown of the Pentagon’s budget plans, let alone the cynical modes of conduct that virtually guarantee even more force structure reductions, even if defense budgets will continue to increase:

                    First, with a few exceptions, the Obama QDR approved a defense budget and a long range program plan that will not buy enough new weapons to replace the weapons in the inventories of the military forces in a timely manner. Consequently, the average age of these weapons, already at a post WWII high, will continue to get older at an accelerating rate. Given this situation, the only way to reduce the growth in average age will be to retire the oldest weapons without replacement, thereby shrinking the size of the forces yet again, in effect continuing a devolution that began as early as 1957 (see Defense Death Spiral, especially pps. 21-25).

                    The economic roots of the force structure meltdown lie in the MICC’s obsession with modernizing with ever more costly and technically complex weapons. This obsession creates a political economy wherein unit costs (i.e., the cost of the “parts”) always rise faster than budgets (i.e., the cost of the “whole”). This creates a situation a little like cancer cells metastasizing in a body; something has to give.

                    The asymmetric economics of defense lead to the declining production rates and age growth described above which, in turn, create extortionary political pressure (caricatured by vacuous slogans such as the “hollow military” in the late 1970s or the so-called “procurement holiday” in the mid 1990s) to justify increases in the total defense budget. But increasing the budget, as we did after 1976 and after 1994, actually accelerates the rate of cost growth and thus restores the cancerous asymmetry between cost and budget growth, albeit at a higher budget level. This sets the stage for yet more political pressure to increase the defense budget even further, as the extortionary loop folds back on itself to amplify itself -- over and over. Over time, cynical gaming strategies, evolved though trial and error, create and/or exploit this pattern of economic behavior that benefits the “parts” at the expense of the “whole.” Whether these strategies, now known as front loading and political engineering, are the “chicken” or the “egg” is now immaterial, because today, they are ubiquitous and lie at the center of an organic, self-regulating devolution.

                    So, the asymmetric economics of cost growth greater than budget growth create continual political pressure to bail out a collapsing modernization program. There are essentially two short-term ways for responding to this pressure: (1) decision makers can reduce current readiness for combat in order to transfer money out of, or by slowing the future rate of money growth into, the operating budget (by reducing training tempos, purchases of spare parts, etc.) and then pump the “savings” into the modernization budget, or (2) they could simply increase the total defense budget.
                    Generally, decision makers opt for a combination of both in the short term, but over the long term, the only option is to change their obsessions, which is unthinkable, or to increase the budget, which is the real name of the game.

                    Second, the Obama QDR also failed to address how the modernization problems described above (i.e., increasing technical complexity + increasing age of weapons) mutually reinforce each other to compound the DoD’s economic problems by creating a phenomenon known as the rising cost of low readiness.

                    and much more....at site

                    Franklin “Chuck” Spinney is a former military analyst for the Pentagon. He currently lives on a sailboat in the Mediterranean and can be reached at chuck_spinney@mac.com


                    http://www.counterpunch.org/spinney03032010.html

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X