I.O.U.S.A.

naturalist.atheist · #1 09-07-2009, 04:53 AM

I.O.U.S.A.: The Movie

Is this movie baloney or frightening? The movie appears to call for a doubling of taxes.

Jerome · #2 09-07-2009, 08:32 AM

100% taxes for all people for all things will not be enough.

There will be a new currency. They will default the US Dollar.

Dingfod · #3 09-07-2009, 11:21 AM

It's a ways from setting any records as a percentage of GDP.

Jerome · #4 09-07-2009, 03:42 PM

You do know the WWII was a temporary circumstance and that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are perpetual programs?

LadyShea · #5 09-07-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You do know the WWII was a temporary circumstance and that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are perpetual programs?

What about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely the 900 billion dollars (and counting) spent on those added to the current debt load?

Jerome · #6 09-07-2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You do know the WWII was a temporary circumstance and that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are perpetual programs?

What about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely the 900 billion dollars (and counting) spent on those added to the current debt load?

Absolutely they should be ended, in fact the American military should be removed from it's bases in over 100 nations around the world and returned to it's Constitutional purpose of the defense of America, not the holding together of an Empire.

The good news here is that could be done, the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are another story all together.

naturalist.atheist · #7 09-07-2009, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You do know the WWII was a temporary circumstance and that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are perpetual programs?

I suspect that if Social Security collections were put aside rather than treated as general revenue that we would not have a social security problem. The program is mostly sound. The main problem is that apparently we have been electing irresponsible representatives for several decades that can't keep their hands out of the Social Security money jar.

Jerome · #8 09-08-2009, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You do know the WWII was a temporary circumstance and that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are perpetual programs?

I suspect that if Social Security collections were put aside rather than treated as general revenue that we would not have a social security problem. The program is mostly sound. The main problem is that apparently we have been electing irresponsible representatives for several decades that can't keep their hands out of the Social Security money jar.

Yes, the government did and continues to defraud the payers into the Social Security system.

That statement does not solve the problem.

There literally could be a 100% tax on everybody and everything and the Federal government still can not pay it's debts and obligations.

The only solution is to default the US Federal Reserve Dollar.

naturalist.atheist · #9 09-08-2009, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

There literally could be a 100% tax on everybody and everything and the Federal government still can not pay it's debts and obligations.

Where to you get this from?

Quote:

The only solution is to default the US Federal Reserve Dollar.

The only solution? Why is that?

Miisa · #10 09-08-2009, 09:47 AM

Jesus, you guys are fucked.

Baby boomer death panels not looking so bad now, eh?

But they are talking about solving the problem by raising the taxes to around 42%? And this is terrifying? Srsly? With progressive taxes that means less than that for most people, and more, around 50%, for the filthy rich (assuming you could ever implement something so socialistic in a place like that where the rich have all the power), and make sure companies also pay enough. It's a tightening of the belt, not a collapse of civilization as we know it.

Jerome · #11 09-09-2009, 01:55 AM

UN wants new global currency to replace dollar - Telegraph

naturalist.atheist · #12 09-09-2009, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

UN wants new global currency to replace dollar - Telegraph

The UN wants a lot of things, so what?

Dingfod · #13 09-09-2009, 05:28 AM

What would be wrong with having a common global monetary unit? It would cut out a trading market that currently makes money from fluctuations in valuation of world currencies. Boo-fucking-hoo, cry me a river [of money]. A common currency would solve a lot of problems, stabilizing the value of commodities for one thing.

Miisa · #14 09-09-2009, 08:52 AM

The article isn't talking about having a global currency, but rather NOT having the US dollar as the reserve currency that all other currencies are tied to. So actually sort of the opposite: that way economic fluctuations in the US wouldn't bring the global economy up or down.

The problem with unified currencies lies in the situation where one or some countries do something that undermines the currency. It means the damage is spread out over more countries' economies, but the people in those countries might not be too happy about their economies being dragged down, especially if the offending country is a major economic force (though there is little complaint or even comment when smaller economies are boosted upwards by larger ones). That was the case a few years ago with the Euro area, when (IIRC) Germany was doing stuff the others disapproved of.

Watser? · #15 09-09-2009, 11:50 AM

Don't confuse him with the facts.

Adam · #16 09-09-2009, 03:45 PM

The difference between a "currency" and a "reserve currency" has been pointed out a number of times already. It's never stopped him from lying about it yet.

Adam · #17 09-09-2009, 03:51 PM

FWIW, Krugman's take on the debt issue:

Quote:

But what about all that debt we’re incurring? That’s a bad thing, but it’s important to have some perspective. Economists normally assess the sustainability of debt by looking at the ratio of debt to G.D.P. And while $9 trillion is a huge sum, we also have a huge economy, which means that things aren’t as scary as you might think.

...

The numbers tell you why. According to the White House projections, by 2019, net federal debt will be around 70 percent of G.D.P. That’s not good, but it’s within a range that has historically proved manageable for advanced countries, even those with relatively weak governments. In the early 1990s, Belgium — which is deeply divided along linguistic lines — had a net debt of 118 percent of G.D.P., while Italy — which is, well, Italy — had a net debt of 114 percent of G.D.P. Neither faced a financial crisis.

naturalist.atheist · #18 09-09-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miisa

It means the damage is spread out over more countries' economies, but the people in those countries might not be too happy about their economies being dragged down, especially if the offending country is a major economic force (though there is little complaint or even comment when smaller economies are boosted upwards by larger ones). That was the case a few years ago with the Euro area, when (IIRC) Germany was doing stuff the others disapproved of.

One country's damage is another country's economic policy. I don't think there is any country that actually wants a common currency. Like it or not, playing games with money is one of the tools in the box of tools that countries have to implement social policy. There is no replacement I know of so it is unlikely that a country would be willing to give it up unless along with that single currency a global federal government were to come with it.

Watser? · #19 09-09-2009, 07:03 PM

12 countries did in 2002 and 4 others have joined them since: Eurozone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

naturalist.atheist · #20 09-09-2009, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watser?

12 countries did in 2002 and 4 others have joined them since: Eurozone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yup, and they are well on their way to a federal system.

Miisa · #21 09-09-2009, 07:24 PM

Federal system? Well, no, not really. Certainly not at any percievable speed. But the money thing has ben handy. I expected to hate it, but I :heart:

the Euro now.

Watser? · #22 09-09-2009, 07:28 PM

Yeah, me too. It sucked a bit at first with prices rising.

As for the EU being on its way to a federal system, definitely not. If the constitution had been approved, maybe, though I doubt even that. As it is now, the EU is still very much a loose confederation of independent states and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future. Not all EU countries use the euro anyway.

naturalist.atheist · #23 09-09-2009, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watser?

Yeah, me too. It sucked a bit at first with prices rising.

As for the EU being on its way to a federal system, definitely not. If the constitution had been approved, maybe, though I doubt even that. As it is now, the EU is still very much a loose confederation of independent states and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future. Not all EU countries use the euro anyway.

Give it another fifty years. The US started out as a loose federation. What happens is that eventually the central government gains more taxing power. It then uses that money from taxes to lure states into to giving up control to the central government in exchange for money. Eventually the branches of each state government becomes a branch of the federal government, following the same rules and administering the same national programs.

Miisa · #24 09-09-2009, 08:02 PM

Meh, could be, though it doesn't seem evident. Yet even so, I find myself not minding. Which is odd, as I was all "Member States Independence and Differentness, ru-rah!" just a decade ago.

We seem to be getting along a lot better than I thought. Not perfect, of course, but it turns out the Nether people aren't all that bad after all.