Well worth watching.. I.O.U.S.A 30 minute version

U

unphased

New member
If you're interested in a non-partisan, well done look at the (almost) current state at our national finances (I say almost because it's gotten worse since this production), it's well worth the 30 minutes it takes to watch this:

http://www.iousathemovie.com/

Give it an objective watch and if anybody would like to dispute it's conclusions, I would really like to read them.

Enjoy !
 
unphased said:
If you're interested in a non-partisan, well done look at the (almost) current state at our national finances (I say almost because it's gotten worse since this production), it's well worth the 30 minutes it takes to watch this:

http://www.iousathemovie.com/

Give it an objective watch and if anybody would like to dispute it's conclusions, I would really like to read them.

Enjoy !
Click to expand...

I can't dispute the conclusion but this film is singing to the choir where I'm concerned. I've long been a deficit hawk and have been since the late 80's.
 
We need two new constitutional ammendments. The first is a balanced budget ammendment that requires a super majority or even a 75% majority to authorize deficit spending in a time of crises. The second ammendment we need is a prohibition against unfunded mandates. That would invalidate several of the major spending programs which would have to be reconfigured and refinanced.
 
Mottleydude said:
We need two new constitutional ammendments. The first is a balanced budget ammendment that requires a super majority or even a 75% majority to authorize deficit spending in a time of crises. The second ammendment we need is a prohibition against unfunded mandates. That would invalidate several of the major spending programs which would have to be reconfigured and refinanced.
Click to expand...
I agree with this almost wholly.

I don't vote for people any longer that don't support the balanced budget amendment. Needless to say, it seems to limit my choices.
 
Mottleydude said:
We need two new constitutional ammendments. The first is a balanced budget ammendment that requires a super majority or even a 75% majority to authorize deficit spending in a time of crises. The second ammendment we need is a prohibition against unfunded mandates. That would invalidate several of the major spending programs which would have to be reconfigured and refinanced.
Click to expand...

I would add that we need to move away from our antiquated tax system and go to the Fair Tax Act.

The "tea party" people could put their support behind a bill that is already in congress and do more to shift power back to the people than anything we have had since 1776.
 
Solitary said:
I would add that we need to move away from our antiquated tax system and go to the Fair Tax Act.
Click to expand...

Wow. Did you hear that people? A progressive income tax is now "antiquated" in comparison to a simple excise tax. That's the new line from the propaganda machine, I guess.
 
Mottleydude said:
We need two new constitutional ammendments. The first is a balanced budget ammendment that requires a super majority or even a 75% majority to authorize deficit spending in a time of crises. The second ammendment we need is a prohibition against unfunded mandates. That would invalidate several of the major spending programs which would have to be reconfigured and refinanced.
Click to expand...

Good idea, Newt! :clink:
 
Solitary said:
I would add that we need to move away from our antiquated tax system and go to the Fair Tax Act.

The "tea party" people could put their support behind a bill that is already in congress and do more to shift power back to the people than anything we have had since 1776.
Click to expand...

If the "Fair Tax Act" is another regressive flat tax scheme I'd oppose that.
 
Mottleydude said:
If the "Fair Tax Act" is another regressive flat tax scheme I'd oppose that.
Click to expand...

The Fair Tax Act is a consumption tax. It does away with the IRS and the $500 million spent annualy on tax compliance.

Basically it is a 23% tax on all new goods and services. No more hidden taxes. No more business or corporate taxes passed on in the pricing.

And you tax the drug dealers, illegal immigrants, hookers and day laborers too.
 
Mottleydude said:
If the "Fair Tax Act" is another regressive flat tax scheme I'd oppose that.
Click to expand...
I prefer a flat rate with a standard deductible. It makes it naturally progressive. The problem is that one side will consistently try to tweak it in order to buy votes.
 
Damocles said:
I prefer a flat rate with a standard deductible. It makes it naturally progressive. The problem is that one side will consistently try to tweak it in order to buy votes.
Click to expand...

The main thing I like about the Fair Tax is that no one pays taxes on the basic necessities, and everyone pays the same rate on what they spend.

If the gov't wants to raise taxes they can't do these little segments, they have to raise them for the entire population.
 
Solitary said:
The Fair Tax Act is a consumption tax. It does away with the IRS and the $500 million spent annualy on tax compliance.

Basically it is a 23% tax on all new goods and services. No more hidden taxes. No more business or corporate taxes passed on in the pricing.

And you tax the drug dealers, illegal immigrants, hookers and day laborers too.
Click to expand...


Sorry but that's a regressive flat tax or more correctly VAT tax and it's a regressive taxation scheme. Our present "antiquated" tax system is vastly superior to any inherently unfair regresive scheme that shifts the burden of taxation from those who can most afford it to those who can't.
 
Mottleydude said:
Sorry but that's a regressive flat tax or more correctly VAT tax and it's a regressive taxation scheme. Our present "antiquated" tax system is vastly superior to any inherently unfair regresive scheme that shifts the burden of taxation from those who can most afford it to those who can't.
Click to expand...

Where did we get the idea that we should soak the people who worked their asses off to earn more money, and give everyone else a break?

The ultimate fair tax is the one where everyone pays the same percentage for their purchases.

And no one pays taxes on what they save.

It also takes away all the deductions, loopholes and tax-dodges. And since everyone pays the same tax, the politicians won't raise them unless they are willing to raise taxes on everyone.
 
An amendment requiring a supermajority to pass deficit spending would have led to the Republicans stopping the stimulus spending and a huge amplification of the recession we're seeing today.
 
Damocles said:
I prefer a flat rate with a standard deductible. It makes it naturally progressive. The problem is that one side will consistently try to tweak it in order to buy votes.
Click to expand...

Personally I prefer to just eliminate the income tax altogether after all we don't need it and it amounts to nothing more than legalized plunder by groups of citizens seeking to fund their pet causes and social experiments at the expense of other citizens via the use of forced confiscation.

All that is required to do so is that the Federal Government actually abide by the constraints placed upon it by the U.S. CONSTITUTION. After all we did just fine with out it for well over a hundred and twenty years and ever since it was instituted the state has gradually eroded our individual liberty and engaged in global empire building, take away the money and all this federal nonsense goes out the window. We're basically paying for the "privilege" of enriching corporations and the political class while at the same time screwing ourselves and our children over financially..... time for a new plan, time to try freedom again. ;)
 
unphased said:
Personally I prefer to just eliminate the income tax altogether after all we don't need it and it amounts to nothing more than legalized plunder by groups of citizens seeking to fund their pet causes and social experiments at the expense of other citizens via the use of forced confiscation.

All that is required to do so is that the Federal Government actually abide by the constraints placed upon it by the U.S. CONSTITUTION. After all we did just fine with out it for well over a hundred and twenty years and ever since it was instituted the state has gradually eroded our individual liberty and engaged in global empire building, take away the money and all this federal nonsense goes out the window. We're basically paying for the "privilege" of enriching corporations and the political class while at the same time screwing ourselves and our children over financially..... time for a new plan, time to try freedom again. ;)
Click to expand...
The erosion began at the end of the Civil War before the tax was instituted when States' rights were stripped and it became a State with separate regions that we happen to call "states" rather than a group of States in a Federation.
 
Damocles said:
The erosion began at the end of the Civil War before the tax was instituted when States' rights were stripped and it became a State with separate regions that we happen to call "states" rather than a group of States in a Federation.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that Damocles, although I think that the erosion of the 10th Amendment (civil war) and the erosion of popular sovereignty are basically two different "tracks" (so to speak) on the perversion of the initial idea (and genius) of the constitution... the one heralded the destruction of the republic , the other heralded the erosion of the fundamental genius that was the genesis of the U.S. in that it was the first nation state born where the people held all the power from the onset and gave a limited amount of authority to the state in pursuit of the common good.

After all look at Europe all the Nations there worked in the opposite direction (i.e. the people had to win liberty from "monarchs" over centuries of toil) we started out with ALL of it in our hands from jump... :)
 
Mottleydude said:
We need two new constitutional ammendments. The first is a balanced budget ammendment that requires a super majority or even a 75% majority to authorize deficit spending in a time of crises. The second ammendment we need is a prohibition against unfunded mandates. That would invalidate several of the major spending programs which would have to be reconfigured and refinanced.
Click to expand...

The first amendment we need is an amendment prohibiting a balanced budget amendment from ever being passed. Then we need to pass one to execute conservatives.

Seriously, most deficit hawks really have no fucking clue what they are really proposing. They don't have any idea how to put our debt in perspective. They rely on non-GDP, or even worse, non-inflation adjusted figures in order to give the sense of impending doom, when our debt levels are extraordinary in historical terms. And at the end of the day, all they do is handicap the nation by making it impossible to reverse a deflationary trap. Roosevelt created a second depression when he decided to balance the budget. Think about that for a second.
 
Last edited:
Watermarx said:
The first amendment we need is an amendment prohibiting a balanced budget amendment from ever being passed. Then we need to pass one to execute conservatives.

Seriously, most deficit hawks really have no fucking clue what they are really proposing. They don't have any idea how to put our debt in perspective. They rely on non-GDP, or even worse, non-inflation adjusted figures in order to give the sense of impending doom, when our debt levels are extraordinary in historical terms. And at the end of the day, all they do is handicap the nation by making it impossible to reverse a deflationary trap. Roosevelt created a second depression when he decided to balance the budget. Think about that for a second.
Click to expand...

What about the Second New Deal was deflationary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top