Talk:The Peter G. Peterson Foundation

Nonpartisan

I removed the "nonpartisan" description from the links below because it is unnecessary and not entirely reflective of the nature of the documentary I.O.U.S.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.89.129.162 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Undefined references

Reference 4-6 in the body are not defined in the reference section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcarnese (talk • contribs) 16:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There are only three references in the article: one in the infobox and two in the Other Campaigns section. There are also six bare, inline external links in the article; all six of these should be converted to references. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Why most of this article is bullshit

I would like to see a clear statement of what the Peterson Institute's ideas are, how they defend them, and how other people criticize them.

Instead, most of this article looks like it was written by somebody who had a collection of Peterson Insitute press releases and summarized them all into a big meta-press release.

For example:

In 2010, the foundation launched an annual Washington, D.C. event aimed to draw attention to America’s long-term fiscal issues. The now annual Fiscal Summit brings together top U.S. leaders, such as Bill Clinton, Chris Christie, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, Paul Volcker, Alan Greenspan, and Patty Murray, to discuss challenges and solutions to U.S. fiscal sustainability.

Duh. Well, what are the challenges and solutions to U.S. fisical sustainability? Give me an answer that isn't a meaningless platitude. This article doesn't say.

It is well known in public relations that the executives of most organizations, government and private, don't care about communicating the mission of their organization or why it does any good for the world. They mostly care about sending out press releases and slick 5-color glossy brochures that first of all mention their names. And second of all, mention their names and flatter them. And third of all, are filled with platitudes that are unobjectionable and don't mean anything, so nobody will get into trouble by advancing an actual idea. You can get a well-paid job in public relations by pandering to them, and those are the people who write those press releases, brochures, and annual reports. That's why I throw all that stuff in the garbage and go directly to the SEC and IRS financial filings and Wall Street Journal (until Murdoch bought it).

So this article is just a list of big names.

Really, this page is stupid. The mission of the Peterson Institute is "to increase public awareness" blah blah blah. Well, here's your chance to increase public awareness. What does the Peterson Institute actually believe in? This page is mostly a list of big names that attended their meetings (did they get an honorarium, and if so how much?). I don't care about a list of celebrity names. I care about policies.

I think we should delete the 2010-2014 fiscal summits. It's 2017, and times have changed. The only good part about them is the links to stories in Bloomberg etc. which actually summarize what they said (but aren't in the Wikipedia entry). Wikipedia policy is that you shouldn't have to click on a link to get essential (or even meaningful) information. So it would be useful to describe from secondary sources like Bloomberg what they actually said at the current summits. --Nbauman (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• [[User:|Nbauman]], I couldn’t agree more. 68.117.243.134 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's an explanation by Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman of what Peterson really wanted to do: Cut and/or privatize Social Security.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/22/opinion/notes-on-excessive-wealth-disorder.html

Notes on Excessive Wealth Disorder; How not to repeat the mistakes of 2011.

By Paul Krugman

New York Times

June 22, 2019

Now, 2011 was an especially dramatic example of how this happens, but it wasn’t unique. In their recent book “Billionaires and Stealth Politics,” Page, Seawright, and Matthew Lacombe point out the enduring effects of plutocratic political influence on the Social Security debate: “Despite the strong support among most Americans for protecting and expanding Social Security benefits, for example, the intense, decades-long campaign to cut or privatize Social Security that was led by billionaire Pete Peterson and his wealthy allies appears to have played a part in thwarting any possibility of expanding Social Security benefits. Instead, the United States has repeatedly come close (even under Democratic Presidents Clinton and Obama) to actually cutting benefits as part of a bipartisan ‘grand bargain’ concerning the federal budget.”

--Nbauman (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Advisory Board

Paul Volcker is dead 65.254.4.141 (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed him. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)