Please stay on topic. And while we may not always agree with the ideas of others, please stay polite and no personal attacks. Thank you.
IOUSA paints a grim picture of America’s financial future: Basically we are drowning in a sea of debt, a crisis of unprecedented dimensions that will leave America at the mercy of foreign governments and potential political upheaval. Cited as causes: Unpaid debts, imbalanced trade, living beyond our means as individuals and as a country, and expanding government without a way to pay for it.
The film emphasizes that deficits and debt are wrong and bad. America’s growing federal budget deficit, our national trade deficit and our failure to save money could bring out the end of the American way of life.
IOUSA follows Robert Bixby, director of the Concord Coalition, and David Walker, the U.S. comptroller general–who has resigned to be a more politically active exponent of paying down the debt– across America on their Fiscal Wake Up tour. Intercut with their discussion of the film’s thesis–that today’s federal budgets absurdly combine big programs with low taxes, which means inevitably that taxes must skyrocket or the federal budget must shrink–are interviews with people on the street who reveal their lack of comprehension about our national debts. Snappy charts and graphics help reinforce the film’s points.
IOUSA’s solutions to America’s debt: broad entitlement overhaul, tough budget controls, conservation of energy and not buying things you can’t afford, which seems pretty sensible.
Warren Buffett is interviewed, as is William Bonner, whose book Empire of Debt inspired this film. There are clips of Allen Greenspan and other economists and an historical look back at presidents addressing the national debt. All the experts seem to agree that higher taxes and less spending are necessary.
The main criticism of the film and its proponent Pete Peterson– who made tens of millions running a Wall Street private equity fund, much of which he was able to shelter from normal taxation–is the focus on “fixing” Social Security which the film claims will be bankrupt soon if it continues to pay out like it is now, and if the government continues to borrow from Social Security to help cover parts of the national debt, thus making the federal deficits seem smaller than they are–around $200 billion a year smaller.
However, each time the government has dipped into the Social Security trust fund this way, it issued a legal obligation to pay back the money with interest whenever Social Security needed it to pay benefits. Could the government not be able to afford the pay back? That is one question the film raises.
The “entitlements” mentioned as needing overhaul are Medicare, Medicaid and the self-funded Social Security. And while the need to reform Social Security is discussed, there is little call for health care reform. Currently the government picks up roughly half of the tab for health care through programs like Medicare and Medicaid, making them potential budget destroyers.
One excellent take-away: As the economy digs out of its hole, restoring household savings will be crucial for ultimate recovery and for reduction of our dependence on foreign capital.
And a great piece used effectively: A sketch from Saturday Live where a economic recovery plan is proposed: Don’t Buy Stuff You Can’t Afford.



101 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Quick reminder, pups: PLEASE stay on topic. While there’s always lot’s of breaking news, this isn’t the place to drop it and discuss it. Also, while we may at times disagree with each other, please no personal attacks/ad hominem comments. And kindly keep cross talk on topic as well.
#####
Hi Patrick, thanks for joining us tonight to discus IOUSA. The film presents some insights into the state of the national debt–like how much it is and how quickly it’s rising. And it presents some solutions: Some obvious–save more spend less…and some more controversial.
Hi Lisa, Thanks for having me.
Patrick
Maybe we can touch on some the facts in the movie, the amount of the US debt reached 10 trillion while you were making the movie?
Patrick – one of the messages that has been going around, unfortunately, from some quarters is that our problem now is that people are saving too much and not spending enough. Personally, I feel that the problem has been for the past 25 years that easy credit has encouraged people to spend money to accumulate ’stuff’.
Hi Patrick, thanks for coming to the Lake.
Hoe did you come to be involved in the project?
And who wrote the script and did the “storyboarding” for the film.
and thanks for hosting Lisa.
(btw math is a weak point of mine–so is typing)
We produced the film from January 2007 through July of 2008. It was during production of the film that the financial system started to fall apart…
Here’s the problem I have with “IOUSA”: Their proposed “solutions” to our economic problems comprise of many of the same failed Milton Friedman-esque policies that got us into this mess. Slashing the social safety net? Leaving more people vulnerable to crushing poverty? I can’t think of stronger evidence against the premise of “IOUSA” than the current budget crisis in California. Have deeper and deeper spending cuts helped?
Part of our probem in CA s that we need 2/3 majority to pass a budget and neither party has that
I’ll try to keep up with several questions at once (and combine my answers as best as possible). When we started making the film the US National Debt was around 8.7 Trillion (Feb 2007). Today it’s around 10.6 Trillion.
The Catch 22 we are all living in today is that Americans have stopped saving and need to start doing this again… yet at the same time we need to spend again to get the economy on track again. It feels a little like asking someone with a drinking problem to keep drinking and everything will be OK.
That must have made making the film challenging, staying up with the changes…
Btw, here’s the link to William Greider’s AlterNet article on Peter Peterson, the Republican billionaire who financed this movie…
http://www.alternet.org/workpl…..11;_right/
And his plan to diminish Social Security by using this false meme of “we can’t afford it”.
Did you meet with Pete Peterson?
I learned some things form the film like where we borrow money from and how huge the deficits are.. I sorta think increasing corp taxes, restucturing them a bit and changing the AMT might help.
atdleft, thanks for question #8.
Some people who criticize our film like to describe it as a “slash Social Security” film. It really isn’t. What the film points out is that our federal government has made more promises than it can afford to keep and that the sooner we address this issue the better off we will all be. The film also points out several times that our biggest financial problem is the rising cost of health care. If we don’t figure out how to get better health care for less money we are all going to be in trouble.
If the financial crisis occurred just as you were finishing the film, is the film still relevant? What would you change in the film, if you remade it today
?
True, and that’s why we need to rethink that 2/3 rule in CA. But since I don’t want to take this conversation off topic, I’ll move back toward the proposals pushed by “IOUSA”. While I do think there are plenty of good reasons to encourage more personal savings, the last thing our economy needs right now is divestment from the federal government. If anything, our economy needs MORE spending, MORE stimulus, MORE aid to the working poor who are most vulnerable.
I’m concerned about the huge deficits too, but it’s times like this when deficit spending is necessary.
The last eight years of deficit spending was completely unnecessary though and to make it worse the reduction of tax revenue at the same time really made a mess. Republican economic policy seems to be like a family increasing their spending and voluntarily cutting their hours at work at the same time.
Welcome Mr Creadon… What a difference 6 or 8 months makes… since the end of making your movie.
Though I think we should always watch what we are spending on… but spend now and spend big we (government) must!
Also I don’t see Social Security as entitlement money… I’ve gladly paid into it since the day I was old enough to be able to. It’s my investment and I am thankful for the program, but I had no choice.
Not an entitlement.
And was made by people who are invisible when Republicans roll up huge deficits with tax cuts and wars, and then come out of the closet with dishonest scare propaganda when Democrats are in charge. The message of the film isn’t that we’ve made more promises than we can keep, it is that the old need to go on the trash heap to afford more billionaires, bombs, and weapons systems.
If the film were remotely honest it would have been made in 2001 when Bush was about to push through a batch of budget busting revenued reductions which did nothing to improve the economy, and did a great deal to make worse the long term deficit picture.
As a long time deficit hawk, this film gives deficit hawks a bad name, simply because it is the most mean spirited and egregiously dishonest chunk of propaganda put on the subject of the budget ever made.
I did meet Pete Peterson on several occasions. As a life-long Democrat I can honestly say that never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I would team up with Mr. Peterson on something like this project. But I can assure you that Mr. Peterson has almost as many enemies within the Republican Party as he does in the Democratic Party.
One more thing about Mr. Peterson I’d like to point out: Our film was produced independently in 2007. It was accepted into the Sundance Film Festival (we were one of 16 films chosen from 953 submissions). The film was very well received at Sundance but it was not sold. Months later Mr. Peterson and his Foundation offered to buy the film and pay to have it released. Our one caveat was that for them to keep our names on the film we would have to have final cut of the film. The Foundation agreed and we moved forward.
Patrick, did you agree with all the theories in the film? Or some? You did find a way to make the subject interesting and catchy
Thank you, Mr. Creadon, for responding to my question. Still, I’m concerned about the notion that we should first take on the deficit when we’re facing a massive economic collapse. How do you respond to William Greider’s critiques of Peterson’s fiscal policy proposals?
http://www.alternet.org/workpl…..age=entire
And of FDL’s resident economist proposing more spending rather than less?
http://firedoglake.com/2009/02…..-recovery/
At what point does economic necessity trump ideals of balanced budget?
I agree with all the comments about big federal spending at the moment. There’s seems to be very little debate that running a large federal deficit this year and perhaps for several years into the future makes perfect sense. Everyone who appears in IOUSA that I have spoken with recently agrees.
Quick reminder, participants: if replying to a comment, hit the Reply button then type comment (it took me weeks to remember that!)
Eureka Springs… forgive me. You are absolutely right. I hate the term “Entitlements” too when it refers to SS. It’s an utter and complete misnomer.
Dear Stirling:
If the film were remotely honest it would have been made in 2001 when Bush was about to push through a batch of budget busting revenued reductions which did nothing to improve the economy, and did a great deal to make worse the long term deficit picture.
Forgive me, but this makes no sense whatsoever. If I made the film 7 years ago it would be “honest”. What are you talking about.
Also, have you seen the film?
The news story today about 28 new Marine One helicopters for over 11 billion… now that is an outrage.
atdleft:
like I said, everyone we interviewed for the film (that I have spoken to recently) agrees that large federal deficits right now makes perfect sense.
Ahh so you made this film independent of Peterson & Co., they came in after the fact?
So do you not agree with Mr. Peterson on the type of “entitlement reform” needed? Do you think President Obama’s suggestion of revising the payroll tax structure is a better idea?
There is waste and foolishness in our govt..and stronger oversight might help. but then you have to hire people to do the oversight, and will those hires cost more?
Both of you may hate the term, but take that up with Blackstone: an entitlement is, in the law, an entitlement is an individual’s right to a benefit provided by law. Thus social security being an entitlement is not a misnomer, it’s a law.
Yet another exmaple of how the film makers sow fear, confusion, disinformation and dishonesty.
One story that light help illustrate the past year I’ve had screening this film:
At Sundance in January 2008 we screened the film several times. The film was very-well rec’d (we had standing ovations at a few screenings). But at one screening a woman accused me of “taking money from the (ultra-conservative) Heritage Foundation to make the film.” I told her that obviously was not the case.
Several months later David Walker (the star of the film) held a screening of the film at the Library of Congress for members of Congress and others. One of the top economists at Heritage attended and HATED the film. We went too hard on President Bush (according to this gentleman).
Making a film that both the far left and the far right do not like is exactly what we set out to do. In my opinion the solutions to this problem lie somewhere between the 30 yard lines — not near either end zone.
Why did you choose to focus on Medicare and Social Security in the name of “fiscal responsibility? Did you think about addressing defense spending at all?
Please be respectful of our guest. We appreciate him taking the time to show up here.
atdleft:
can you be more specific… I have not read Greider’s story on Peterson. And what exactly is it about Obama’s tax policy you’d like me to comment on?
Is it the cost of health care that is the problem or the cost of insurance?
Are there any companies offering health insurance that are struggling financially?
I really enjoyed one expanding spending graphic, superimposed over a penny… where the programs you mentioned ( medicare SS etc) grew so much that military spending disappeared.
If only.
Stirling:
Specifically, which part of our film upsets you so much? And you never answered my question: Have you seen the film and if so where?
Social security caps are set at 102,000 which is a lot. And alos I have a problems with people drawing public pension (retired police, civl service for instance)then goig and getting another job. which pays even more..like pick one. If you dont work full time or make below x$ then your pension stays; if you do then when you leave your second gig you can collect your first job pension (public pensions)
I trust it will be possible to have a discussion on the merits of the film without calling into question the honesty of the filmmaker.
Hi Patrick, thanks for chatting today.
Does your film discuss the impact of President Obama’s proposal to raise the income cap on Social Security taxes? Do you evaluate whether eliminating the cap would make Social Security “solvent” again?
Finally, did the Peterson Foundation play any role in getting your film its CNN debut?
Making a film that both the far left and the far right do not like is exactly what we set out to do.
I’ll admit, this confuses me – I can see making an honest film which did both of those things, but I can’t quite understand how it could be one of your goals, unless you’d gone into this with a preconception that both sides were not only wrong, but worthy of offense.
IMHOTEP asks:
“Is it the cost of health care that is the problem or the cost of insurance?
Are there any companies offering health insurance that are struggling financially”
The whole system needs to be overhauled, from health care to the cost of insurance to the Medicare system. But of all of these the worst offender has to be Medicare D. It’s an absolutely flawed system. It was signed into law in December 2003, just as President Bush’s re-election campaign was kicking off. Rep. Billy Tauzin pushed it through Congress and then retired from Congress to become a 2 Million per year lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry.
and at that, it kept the government from using its position in the marketplace to bargain, which is to say the very least profoundly un-capitalist, while leaving odd lapses in the actual coverage provided.
My aunt is Medicare and there is that weird time period where she is not covered because her drug use exceeds the limit, then a couple months (and numerous rxs later) she’s back being covered..so freakish
No problem. Here’s the part of Greider’s article dealing with Peter Peterson and his plans for Social Security:
And here’s Obama’s plan:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agen….._security/
I’m just asking which proposal for SS you think is a wiser approach. Peterson seems to want Obama to weaken SS, but Obama has said on the WH web site that he doesn’t to downsize or privatize SS.
I believe that many of the problems in our political system come as a result of the fact that many of our politicians refuse to compromise. So as I said, if the extreme left and the extreme right are both upset by our film then I’m OK with that. One need to look no further then our last president (Bush) to see that leading from one political perspective can be disastrous.
Will do. I’ll do my best to disagree without being disrespectful.
which is where the leadership deficit comes in
Julia:
Thanks for your comment. You’re exactly right.
Films such as this are thought provoking. I began to see how much a part personal income tax plays in in the govt, more than corporate taxes, and the necissity of saving (but then agian you save in order to spend…)
atdleft:
thanks for posting this… give me a moment to read it before I respond.
I’d like to point out to all of you that I am not — and never will be — a policy expert on these matters. I made the film because the topic was interesting to my wife/partner and I. Christine and I both felt it was time we learned (or tried to learn) how our federal government works.
But I am happy to have this conversation with all of you… I hope you find it enlightening.
Thank you. This is something we can agree on. IMHO, Medicare Part D has been a horrible trap for seniors like my father, people who now pay more for less health care. This is one real “entitlement crisis” in need of “reform”.
But isnt the issuance of bonds a form of debt creation and to an extent a necessity in order to move projects forward: airports, water disrtricts cities and states issue them, and owning them reduces taxes and provides these entities wiht cash. Of course they have ot pay interest and they are gambling that whaever they are creating will make a profit so they can pay tht intrest…
Good point. Now it’s unfortunate that Bush didn’t allow us to save any. Still, we can’t afford NOT to spend now that we’re facing a $2.9 trillion hole in the next 3 years.
I don’t know if making everyone unhappy is a sign that you’re doing something right — how would things be different if you were doing everything wrong?
I’ll ask again — if you strongly feel that there needs to be more fiscal responsibility, why did you decide that the cuts need to come in the social safety net? Why not the defense budget?
We also know that the passage of Medicare Part D was a deeply corrupt process, with the vote held open late into the night while bribes and threats were ladled out by the Minority Leader, Tom Delay.
Patrick, do you think that the up-or-down vote proposed for Congressional disposition of the Entitlement Commission’s recommendations is a step forward for accountability and democracy, or a step back?
WADR, Sir, I believe you’re presuming a great deal (I assume you’re responding to my comment).
You’re presuming a polarity of response from the extremes on the left and right – and yet, someone with a strong record of doctrinaire conservative activism chose to distribute your film, and polls show that his chosen remedy for what he perceives to be the problems in the system are strongly opposed by a majority of citizens in what I’ve heard is a centrist nation.
That said, even if a goal of causing equal offense wasn’t achieved, I’m not sure what made it a goal. Surely the facts are bipartisan?
atdleft:
Thanks again for posting this…
A few things. No one involved in our film — or anyone at The Peterson Foundation — wants to “dismantle” Social Security. Saying so is a gross misrepresentation (talk about “scare tactics”). They are talking about reforming SS, and to a MUCH GREATER EXTENT reforming health care and Medicare.
Secondly, were it up to me I would do two things: slowly raise the age limit for SS. When I mean slowly I mean it — perhaps one or two years over the course of the nest 75 years (Bill Bradley mentioned this during the CNN broadcast). And secondly, I agree with Obama’s proposal to raise taxes slightly on the most wealthy. The last time we had disparity of wealth in our country at the kinds of levels we have today was in the late 1920’s. And look where that got us.
I also think the AMT shold be adjusted upwards…it was never meant to affect the peopl is does not; it was created bak in Ye Olden Days
And Patrick, how do you feel perosnally about flat taxes (I think they would negatively impact charities as the deductions are an incentive)
I’m not an economist, but won’t raising the SS tax on the most wealthy “entitle” them to a larger distribution at retirement and thus defeat the purpose of the tax increase?
Good questions, Teddy. The proposal for the “fiscal responsibility commission” and how to implement their recommendations is more than a little troubling. Why can’t Congress be allowed to propose its own solutions? Didn’t we elect them to govern?
Mr. Creadon,
Thanks for coming. Where I live, among the rural poor, many people will not live to see 67, much less 68 or 69. They have lived in poverty most of their lives while working at low wage jobs. They are trapped.
Is your proposal for raising the age of eligibility fair?
I think that by the time they retired, they would be earning off their investments well abut the SS caps…ideally. Right now SS caps at 102,000. There is talk of raising it by $5,000
“What the film points out is that our federal government has made more promises than it can afford to keep and that the sooner we address this issue the better off we will all be.”
Agreed, we’ve been over budget since Bush was appointed to govern our country. However, how is it that you address health care and ignore our military spending which provides nothing positive to our dead soldiers and many innocent people living in Iraq and Afghanistan? To say nothing of destroying the infrastructure and social fabric of both nations.
from JANE HAMSHER:
“I don’t know if making everyone unhappy is a sign that you’re doing something right — how would things be different if you were doing everything wrong?
I’ll ask again — if you strongly feel that there needs to be more fiscal responsibility, why did you decide that the cuts need to come in the social safety net? Why not the defense budget?”
Several of you seem to be stuck on my point about offending people from the far left and the far right. Let me try to put this point to rest: I’ve shown the film across the country to thousands of people. In any given situation approx 80-90 percent of the audience supports the films and wants to figure out a way to move forward. The film was also extremely well-reviewed by film critics from across the country:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_o_u_s_a/
So NO, our one and only goal was not to offend anyone. But we were also realistic about the fact that not everyone would like the film. Our only other objective was to not make a Michael Moore-type film that plays well to half the country and not the other. I do not find those kinds of films to be very educational or productive. Entertaining, yes. But I like documentaries that do more than just entertain.
Lastlty Jane, YES, I agree that our country spends too much money on the military. We mention that several times throughout the film, most notably when Secty Rumsfeld talks about the fact that “$2.3 Trillion in military spending has gone unaccounted for.” The US spends 5 times more on its military than all the other countries in the world COMBINED. That’s too much.
So would you say William Greider’s article was false in depicting Peter Peterson as anti-entitlement? And even if it’s false, would you still say that the proposals pushed by “Taking Back Our Fiscal Future” could weaken our social safety net and introduce anti-democratic measures that would take power away from our elected representatives to give it to unelected technocrats?
Just to reiterate what I mentioned earlier…. I am about as much a “dove” militarily as you will find. My nickname in college was “Gandhi”. I can assure you that I am not — nor will I ever be — a supporter of more military spending in this country.
But of course our country does need a military — and an efficient one at that. Hopefully Obama and his team will be willing to take on the Pentagon and try to reign it in.
Try to rent “Why We Fight” if you can… my colleague Eugene Jarecki directed it. It’s brilliant.
Have you or your sponsors studied Congressional candidate Tom Geoghegan’s proposal to raise Social Security benefits?
Since Wall Street has shredded Middle America’s 401k savings after weaning us off defined-benefit pensions, do the Petersons of the world fear confiscatory policies to take back what was stolen from the middle class over the past thirty years?
As Patrick has pointed out, Peterson came in after the film was made and agreed to distribute it.
Then why, as a dove, do you not focus on the fiscal irresponsibility of our military spending in the film?
atdleft:
“anti-entitlement” is a very loaded term. If someone is trying to make SS sustainable for the next 75-100 years I would consider them “pro-entitlement”, if anything. But back to your question about Peterson, I am of the opinion that the last thing Mr. Peterson or his foundation wants to do is weaken the social safety net. There is simply no truth to that. He wants to make it strong for this generation and future generations and is not afraid to ask the wealthiest among us to pick up some of that tab.
IMO, that’s a whole other movie! I am glad it was touched in IOUSA, and to me a more efficient military and fixing our health care system will go a long way to helping our deficit.
What, now?
Your understanding of Peterson’s motivations and goals is, um, quite different than any I have ever seen.
greenwarrior:
we do focus on military spending. but what we also illustrate is that under current rules our three major social spending programs (SS, Medicare, and Medicaid), along with interest on our debt, will make up ALL of our federal spending within the next 20-25 years. You don’t have to be a dove like myself to realize that that isn’t a desired consequence.
the movie was about the deficit and solutions to it. my question to mr. creadon remains.
This calculation presumes no new revenue and discounts the possibility of universal single payer health care.
Teddy:
“Have you or your sponsors studied Congressional candidate Tom Geoghegan’s proposal to raise Social Security benefits?”
Is this the same Tom Geoghegan who’s a lawyer from Chicago? I knew him back in the early 90’s. I am not familiar with his policy… please expand.
The California budget meltdown is the first and most important example of the American problem. I hope Teddy P does a diary on it. The structural problem of super-majorities for sensible budget decisions and Republican intransigents remind me nothing so much as the behaviour of the French elites on the eve of the Revolution. California is just a state, so we don’t have to worry. And it can’t print money, thank God for that. But if Calilfornia goes belly up, we are looking at the bankruptcy of the sixth largest economy in the world.
That’s something to ponder, pups.
I have not seen your movie but do have a question. Given that it was during the Reagan administration that the SS started getting counted as part of the general budget fund (to offset HIS deficit spending) and that folks my age (56) have been paying more into SS for the specific reason to keep it solvent through the Boomer retirement years and that SS was set up to collect more specifically knowing it was going to pay out more than collected starting in about 10 years and that even if nothing is done at all, it will still be paying 75% of current benefit levels after it supposedly goes “broke” around 2045, where do you get the “it will be all of federal spending in 25 years?”
I didn’t see the film but I can assure you that I favor the right solution the, the rational solution and that would be far to the left. That is the intellectually honest conclusion that a rational person makes when looking at our financial system which believes in profits and exploitation of workers is as American as apple pie.
That is simply and competely not true. The government financially is ‘us’, the tax-payers. And we can pay what we think it is worth to finance the things we think are worth financing. The ‘government’ is our agent. It is not an independent actor. The true statement of your proposal is that ‘the powers that be who have the income that can be taxed, are unwilling to be taxed to cover the deficit they created when they raided the social security fund.’
You have to get the story straight, or you will never get it right.
So, Parick, before we wind down–what is your next project, what are you working on now?
TomThumb asks:
“Mr. Creadon,
Thanks for coming. Where I live, among the rural poor, many people will not live to see 67, much less 68 or 69. They have lived in poverty most of their lives while working at low wage jobs. They are trapped.
Is your proposal for raising the age of eligibility fair?”
Thank you for your question Tom. AS I’ve mentioned earlier, the disparity of wealth in this country is great than it has been in over 80 years. Warren Buffett said during our interview with him that “a high tide raises all boats, but the yachts are raising a lot faster.” He and I have almost nothing in common but for the fact that we are both Democrats and we both agree that the rich — and especially the super-rich — in our country need to start giving more than they have been. This alone will not fix our long-term fiscal situation, but it won’t hurt it either. At the same time we need to engage in comprehensive Spending Reform and Tax Reform.
As for your comment, there is no question that many of us in this country need — and will continue to need — strong social safety nets.
keep after it jane, the warmongering expenditures are the prime cause of the economic distress of the usa[and many other parts of the world, i care to add].
in the scheme of economic affairs, defense spending is a monetary sewer.
as concerns social security, the cap on contributions has never made any sense. the caps should be removed. if you earn $1,000,000 you should still be paying FICA taxes. you eliminate the caps, social security has no problems. and believe me, no one earning more than the current cap limits will notice the increased tax burden.
i conclude this way….remove american forces from europe, okinawa, iraq, afghanistan, diego garcia. close all the foreign bases of empire. reduce the general staff by 60%. eliminate all military pensions and benefits if the retired military goes to work for a military contractor. litigate all instances of military contractor fraud under RICO statues – no plea bargaining unless the contractor pays the full amount of the fraud. and the contractor is removed from eligibility lists for any other usg contracts.
eliminate the dea. stop the pursuit and incarceration of citizens using cannabis[perhaps even opiates]. legalize those substances and establish a dispensing authority not unlike the distribution of alcohol. pardon all incarcerated for consumption of these substances, release them from prison.
either the capital gains tax rate needs to be raised to the level of personal income tax rate for worker earned income, or the worker earned income rate needs to be lowered to the capital gains tax rate.
buy up all junker automobiles that cannot meet emissions requirements. issue a credit that can be redeemed for any automobile manufactured in the usa.
eliminate the tax dodge where corporate officers[politicians] report usage of corporate aircraft as if that usage corresponds to the cost of commercial air travel.
so few things need to be done that would transform the economy of the united states. regrettably, “change” was only an advertising slogan.
FDL and Patrick, we are starting to wind down. Patrick THANK YOU SO MUCH for coming in and answering our questions and clarifying things and discussing the movie and surrounding issues with us.
Tom Geoghegan explains why he’s running for Congress
Patrick, thank you for stopping by the Lake and discussing your film with us.
KNUT:
“Some people who criticize our film like to describe it as What the film points out is that our federal government has made more promises than it can afford to keep.
That is simply and competely not true. The government financially is ‘us’, the tax-payers. And we can pay what we think it is worth to finance the things we think are worth financing. The ‘government’ is our agent. It is not an independent actor. The true statement of your proposal is that ‘the powers that be who have the income that can be taxed, are unwilling to be taxed to cover the deficit they created when they raided the social security fund.’
You have to get the story straight, or you will never get it right.”
As to your comment Knut, we are locked in a financial downward spiral where one party will not entertain spending cuts and another party will not entertain raising taxes. If either or both sides began to budge on these issues we could make some progress.
We are not in control of our tax allocation.
Our lobbyists are and they direct most of it for the MIC and that is sucking the life blood from this nation in more ways than you can even imagine.
We have a tax system which puts the burden on working people who get very little for it my friend.
It’s time for a do over. And it won’t be another plate of cake.
yeah thanks — good luck in your future endeavors.
and DAKINE01:
What the film presents is that by 2030, if we do not revise our tax policies and/or our spending policies, we will have 4 items on our annual federal bill: SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and Interest on our Debt. That sounds like a raw deal to me… you?
to the whole FDL family… thanks so much for having me. It’s been a privilege. If you’d like to schedule a screening of the film in your community go to the website:
http://www.IOUSAthemovie.com
Go under “Events” and put in your request. They are very good about coordinating screenings.
Best,
Patrick Creadon
Los Angeles, CA
Does anyone really think the young people onto whom the current debt is being shoved will honor it? Because I don’t.
Thanks, Patrick, and thanks, Lisa.
Great chat tonight.
I don’t think we solved anything, but I really enjoyed your perspective, Patrick.
your very welcome Teddy. Best to Tom G. from Chicago… that must be the same guy. He’s a good egg.
Here’s an excellent take on what military expenditures have wrought on our economy…!
How much input did Kate Incontrara and Addison Wiggins have in making the movie?
Tons… it was Addison Wiggin’s idea to make the film in the first place. IOUSA was based loosely on the book “Empire of Debt” which he co-wrote with Bill Bonner. Kate Incontrera worked with us for over a year on IOUSA as a producer and writer on the project. Without the two of them the film wouldn’t exist.