Social Security deception paid by taxpayers....

[whistle]

Social Security deception funded with taxpayers' dollars

by MARK WEISBROT
Published: January 19, 2005


Using taxpayers' dollars and government employees to deceive the public is generally prohibited, but lately it seems this has become standard operating procedure. The latest outrage is the Bush Administration's conscription of federal employees at the Social Security Administration in its effort to convince the public that Social Security is in "crisis."

This comes on the heels of a scandal involving the Department of Education payment of $240,000 of taxpayers' money to commentator Armstrong Williams to promote the Administration's "No Child Left Behind" education agenda.

Last September the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that Tom Scully, former head of Medicare in the Bush Administration, broke the law when he threatened to fire Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster. Mr. Foster had wanted to disclose the agency's new estimate of the Medicare prescription drug bill, but backed off when Scully threatened to fire him. At the time, the Bush administration was telling Congress it would cost no more than $400 billion, but Medicare's actuaries had put the cost at $500-$600 billion, which was later accepted as more accurate.

<snip>

The Bush team's public relations efforts took a comical turn last Sunday when Senate majority leader Bill Frist, appearing on ABC's "This Week" told host George Stephanopoulos that Social Security faced a $10 trillion shortfall.

<more>

<link> http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/lowwage.html

[Sugarbleus]

1. I remember the Armstrong case. With your post, I suddenly

realize what a true SCANDAL this is: Paying pinheads, with OUR tax dollars, to bamboozle US!

I wonder what other government agencies are being put up to this...how much more is being spent at said agencies to get them to FREAK THE PEOPLE OUT WITH distortions and lies--and on OUR DIME!! Gawd, that pisses me off :grr:

[whistle]

2. Well, the defense department budget is a big one and for 2006FY

....budget spending is pegged at $420 billion with a supplemental budget that if off the regular budget numbers, but in a footnote that is for an additional $87 billion or 21% more than they want people to be aware of. The supplemental has no details and congress has only been given general explanations as to what these numbers represent. Make no mistake, the Pentagon will spend the entire $507 billion in 2006FY and probably request more funding before the year is done as they have done for the last four years.

[Sugarbleus]

3. "We gotta build up that military cuz those Evil Doers are out to git us"

If we'd stop irritating the world perhaps we'd have less need for such a humongous military complex. $507 B?????????!!! Geezus H. Christ!

I fantasize about the Pentagon being dismantled and turned into a shopping mall or apartments for the low income...:grr:

[whistle]

4. $507Billion could build over 6.8 million bungalows valued at...

...$75,000 each, and that would be every single year as far as out as we can project. Those are real assets that can be passed on to future generations. What does a tank, a missile, bombs, jet fighters and aircraft carriers give us? At the end of 10 to 20 years its junked or used up in a fabricated war. I get pissed thinking about the waste in resources and the cost in human lives such foolishness perpetuates.

[Sugarbleus]

5. OMG, that is JUST astounding!!!!

In terms of the WASTE, you've fleshed this out very succinctly.

I'd sure as hell like to know what our Dem leaders think of this massive waste!! It just makes me SICK to know that our people could benefit so much more but for the likes of warmongering profiteers in Government. :grr:


BTW: can I ask where you got your stats? I'm going to bookmark this lovely bit of info. I'd like to send this info (and your sentiments) on to those "who need to know". Thanks

[whistle]

6. I'm not sure I can find a link, this was from testimony that Rumsfeld

...and the generals gave before the congressional budgetary committee a few weeks ago. The following is a link to general summaries and includes a statement on the $419.2billion defense budget for 2006FY:

http://www.csa-dc.org/publications-press/ppc_update/2-11-05/1.htm

Then someplace else he was questioned on the $87billion supplemental and asked why was it called "supplemental" when in fact they knew they were going to spend it. Rumsfeld's reply was, "...because if we put it in the line item budget, it could take months of review for the appropriations to be approved. As supplemental it goes through without being questioned". Or words to that effect!

[Sugarbleus]

7. Thank you MUCH...this will do

bookmarked thread.