I.O.U.S.A - Now available as free 30-minute edition

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:04 pm

I never did see the full-length DVD version, but they now have a 30-minute edition posted on youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo

It's a video addressing America's problem with debt. The last time the US was debt-free was 1830, and although our current 64% of GDP is no where near our peak of 122%, the future is not bright here since the old peak was at the end of WWII and owed almost entirely to Americans, so we were paying outselves the interest on our debt. Now foreign countries hold 44% of the debt, resulting in a huge money transfer, separate from our regular trade deficit. Worse still, our large and growing commitments to social security, medicare, medicade, and the growing interest on the debt threatens to put the country effectively "out of business" in no more than 30 years, if we even make it that far without making significant changes. It's worth a watch!

EDIT: I should also include the link to the website of the company that produced the video. At the time the video was made, the total future liabilities worked out to $53 trillion. Their website, http://www.pgpf.org/ now shows future liabilities stand at $56.4 trillion thanks to the recent bailouts and new deficit spending. They show that works out to $184,000 per American. That's like a substantial home mortgage for every American - on top of whatever your bills are already!

Redzo · Post by **Redzo** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:11 pm

AZBrandon wrote: TEXT........

Worse still, our large and growing commitments to social security, medicare, medicade, and the growing interest on the debt threatens to put the country effectively "out of business" in no more than 30 years, if we even make it that far without making significant changes. It's worth a watch!

You are kidding right ? "Commitment" has got nothing to do with the crisis. Don't wage war like every year and economy will be just fine, not to mention that world would be a more peaceful place.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:21 pm

Dont talk to the people of Britain about YOUR debt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm

Andy

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:57 pm

Gee, all the CEOs that have been outsourcing white collar jobs for decades don't seem too upset about the lack of SS funding.

And besides if people really were concerned about future runaway medical costs for the elderly they would be folding right now.

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:19 am

Redzo wrote:You are kidding right ? "Commitment" has got nothing to do with the crisis. Don't wage war like every year and economy will be just fine, not to mention that world would be a more peaceful place.

Watch the video - the US budget on military is only something like 25% of or current budget and that is guaranteed to shrink with Obama president. However, our social security and medical spending is going to grow by a LOT due to the fact the US has something called the "baby boomers" (not sure if that term is used in Sweden or not) which is a huge portion of our population that was born in the decade following World War II. Those people are generally well educated, high income, and healthy. Right now, they have high paying jobs contributing a lot of money in taxes to the general tax structure and the retirement and medical plans of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade.

It's been 64 years since the end of WWII so we're just starting to move into the decade where the majority of boomers are starting to retire and instead of contributing, they will be receiving money. Watch the video - bottom line is that those expenses along with the interest on the debt will soon dwarf all other expenses.

Tobias · Post by **Tobias** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:20 am

I'm sorry, AZ, but I kinda had to butt in. ONLY 25% of budget? Thats freaking huge! Inspired by you I looked at the Swedish 2009 numbers (as you mentioned Sweden) and the Swedish expenditure on military is about 0.5% of budget.

The following areas receive more (or the same) spending than the military in Sweden:
Healthcare
Pensions
Child support (more than 50% more compared to the military)
Unemployment aid
Universities and research

Yes, we have the baby boomers in Sweden as well and they are about to drop out of the loop and we are going to have some trouble with it. However, as you point out, most will be given the possibility to drop out of the market during the credit crunch, there are a lot of youths that needs to find their first job and the has been a surge of immigrants in the wake of the recent problems in the middle east, so it might not be that big of a problem. In Sweden, the deficit will not bloom as a part of the baby boomers wants to stay at their jobs and the government didn't underfund the pensionsystem as much to begin with.

Matija · Post by **Matija** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:38 am

aristide1 wrote:And besides if people really were concerned about future runaway medical costs for the elderly they would be folding right now.

Medical costs for the elderly are tiny compared to the costs of having them alive. Sounds extremely cruel, but it would be in everyone's interest for people to live shorter lives.

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:26 am

Tobias wrote:I'm sorry, AZ, but I kinda had to butt in. ONLY 25% of budget? Thats freaking huge! Inspired by you I looked at the Swedish 2009 numbers (as you mentioned Sweden) and the Swedish expenditure on military is about 0.5% of budget.

The following areas receive more (or the same) spending than the military in Sweden:
Healthcare
Pensions
Child support (more than 50% more compared to the military)
Unemployment aid
Universities and research

The top items you listed are the same top items in the US. Healthcare is called Medicare/Medicade in the US, which is a larger item than the military. Pensions are called Social Security, which it too is, or is about to be in 10 years a much larger expenditure than military. Unemployment, especially in this time, is a huge expenditure, although that is deceptive because its largely funded at the state level, not federal. In Arizona for example, employers pay an extra tax to the state government which funds a sort of bank account from which unemployment benefits are paid out. That helps it kind of slide under the radar, so to speak.

As for things like child support, child support in the US is paid for again at the personal level. I can't even count how many times I've heard guys complain about having to pay child support for years and years after they get a divorce. Again, because it is a program where wages are garnished (deducted before your paycheck) directly from the individual and transferred to the parent with custody of the child. It's yet another program that slides under the radar because the money changes hands without really being in the hands of the government. It too is a state managed effort. However, one of the other huge expensive programs we have is called welfare, and that is the program that pays poor people to have kids. The more kids they have, the more welfare money they get. Believe it or not, it is not a popular program in the US since it encourages people who already can't afford the kids they have to have more kids.

So yes, I use the word "only" because it is easily overshadowed by quite a lot of other things we spend money on. It's not like military is a black hole, either. That money goes to provide jobs at all levels, everything from the desk jobs in the pentagon to troops sent out on UN peacekeeping missions, to the minor wars like Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. The trucks, guns, ammunition, armor, etc is all stuff that is made by Americans, so its providing jobs here at home and all our fancy stuff helps drive the high-tech industry by their continued efforts to make more and more technologically advanced vehicles, unmanned aircraft, weapons, and so on. That technology and the skills developed by those people have value, so like I said, it's not just a black hole or anything, and yes, military spending is guaranteed to go down with our new president and congress anyway.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:27 am

AZBrandon wrote:The top items you listed are the same top items in the US.

Sure, but how many of them gets 25 % alone?

AZBrandon wrote:That technology and the skills developed by those people have value, so like I said, it's not just a black hole or anything, and yes, military spending is guaranteed to go down with our new president and congress anyway.

Do you honestly think that the "military spending" wouldn't go down if the republicans had won the election?
It's about time the MIC monster gets less money.

Here's one favorite about the recession. Some of you have probably seen it before.

AZBrandon · Post by **AZBrandon** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:00 am

Mats wrote:Sure, but how many of them gets 25 % alone?

Officially defense spending was 21% of the budget, which made it equal to Social Security already at 21% and less than medicare/medicade which together ran 23% of the current budget. That's not counting the fact that military spending is expected to decrease and SS/medi are each expected to at least double in the next 15-20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._ ... Y_2007.png

Yes, I realize that's a Wikipedia graphic. I spent the last 10 minutes on the CBO website and no where on the website does it actually say where the money went. I then tried a few other government websites and none of them showed where the money went either. I even tried irs.gov, which used to show where the money went, but guess what? They don't tell you either! It seems that the government doesn't want to tell anyone where the money goes anymore.

At any rate, you should really watch the video. It's hardly relevant where we are now, it's where we are headed that is the problem. The fact that no one else in this thread cares about the future is exactly why America is doomed. Nobody cares where we're headed apparently, all you care about is where we are now. Guess what? Tomorrow is today, just a day from now. Where we are now is yesterday's tomorrow. I'm stunned nobody cares about the future and it's obvious that nothing I say can make anyone else prepare for the impending disaster or try to avoid it.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:17 am

AZ: I will watch the whole video when I can.

A good example of people who doesn't care or understand is in the video I posted.
Nobody except Peter Shiff understands the situation, and they're all laughing at him

I don't really care what you think about me, just don't get too personal, please.

Eyedolon · Post by **Eyedolon** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:18 pm

The simple fact is a large large (majority?) of Americans are too stupid to care about the future.

We really should take that defense budget and funnel it into education, because our economy is a service economy which revolves around *providing services others want*. As much as "Buy American" is patriotic, it's stupid when you can get the same steel from china for an infinitesimal fraction of the price.

We cannot possibly maintain our world status and standard of living without effectively leaving manufacturing and raw goods behind. The reason China is getting so big so fast is they're doing the exact same things we do for a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately, we currently are getting thrashed on the service side by India, because our educational system is so far below what a country of our level should have - India is able to produce the same level of knowledge at a fraction of the price.

I can't understand why the "patriots" seem hellbent on ruining America by decapitating our educational system. Right now, when the **** is hitting the fan and gradually people are waking to the reality that we cannot maintain course as it had been, they're slashing college budgets. Worst move in history. We certainly could rebuild America into a manufacturing/raw goods economy. We'd have to give up most everything that we love about our country to do it.

I never for a minute of my life figured I could succeed in life without going to college. Without an advanced degree and skills/understanding that set me apart from Joe from New Delhi, I certainly would be crazy to ask to be paid 10x Joe's wage. CEOs outsourcing are not America-hating crazies, they're doing their jobs. America currently doesn't do a good job of supporting Americans in their quest to be employable. This has to change.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:49 am

Eyedolon, taking your paragraphs 1 at a time.

#1 - There's a difference between "not caring and not knowing" and "knowing and feeling helpless." The phrase is "learned helplessness" and it's a bad thing.

#2 - When China and the rest decided on capitalism the labor pool increased from 1.5 billion to 3 billion. Wages will go down via supply and demand, which is why we don't make anything in this country anymore.

#3 - There's more involved than just throwing money at education. Culturally in China and India education is important, here the Bart Simpson attitude is present. People there care about smart and having pride, here they want to be clever, to make a fast and easy buck, with as little effort as possible. Sure there are hard working people here, but the trash element is just too high. And why pick from the trash ridden labor pool when you get pick from the other pools?

# 4 - Before placing all your bets on education see if their is a growing number of educated unemployed, skilled workers with no jobs, and is the skill level of that group growing. What I was exposed to around 2003 in IT was experience and skills meant more pay, as the firms hiring wanted nothing more than cheap bodies. It's the ClearChannel mindset, fire the experts in the department except 1, then hire brainless twits at $1/hour above minimum wage, and have the one expert try to make them productive. Oh that one expert? He was fired and then rehired for 1/2 pay and no benefits.

# 5 - While it's true you won't get far without an education there is no guarantee you will get anywhere with one either. The entire supply and demand aspect of the field you pick in college can change by the time you graduate.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:53 am

Matija wrote:
aristide1 wrote:And besides if people really were concerned about future runaway medical costs for the elderly they would be folding right now.
Medical costs for the elderly are tiny compared to the costs of having them alive. Sounds extremely cruel, but it would be in everyone's interest for people to live shorter lives.

Setting aside the unethical aspect of what you state it would be in everyone's interest for people to lead healthier lives. Those old people can volunteer and fill aspects of the economy and lives that are routinely overlooked.

xan_user · Post by **xan_user** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:58 am

USA budget
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:07 am

Hi,

Military spending hurts the economy: if you buy a bunch of guns, tanks, airplanes, ships, and bombs; at best they just sit there, and at worst, they are used an people die.

If instead, you buy windmills, health care, trains, and infrastructure -- it produces something very useful, and the benefits are greatly multiplied.

xan_user · Post by **xan_user** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:10 am

NeilBlanchard wrote:...
If instead, you buy windmills, health care, trains, and infrastructure -- it produces something very useful, and the benefits are greatly multiplied.

and education.

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:09 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:Hi,

Military spending hurts the economy: if you buy a bunch of guns, tanks, airplanes, ships, and bombs; at best they just sit there, and at worst, they are used an people die.

If instead, you buy windmills, health care, trains, and infrastructure -- it produces something very useful, and the benefits are greatly multiplied.

Between the two world wars Britain and France did the following:

France spent a fortune on enormous defensive lines along the German border.

Britain spent little on defence and entered WW2 with a small out of date military. Some also believed that appeasing Hitler would avoid a war.

Meanwhile Germany threw all it's resources into developing a large modern well equipped military.

What happened? Germany outflanked the French defenses by invading Belgium and Holland and 6 weeks later the French surrendered. If it were not for the English Channel, Britain would have gone too.

The lessons from History are that defenceless countries get invaded by armed aggressive ones. If the whole world decides to lay down their arms, great. Otherwise the best defence is to have a bigger and better military than anyone else.

In the whole of history I don't think there has been a country with the overwhelming military advantage such as the US possesses today, that did NOT try to conquer it's neighbours/take over the world by force of arms.

That to me speaks volumes about America and it's attitude towards democracy and freedom.

And to all of you that spend so much time and energy slagging off your own country, don't you realise how lucky you are to be living there?

nutball · Post by **nutball** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:39 pm

judge56988 wrote:Britain spent little on defence and entered WW2 with a small out of date military. Some also believed that appeasing Hitler would avoid a war.

Meanwhile Germany threw all it's resources into developing a large modern well equipped military.

That's a slight mis-reading of history I'd say.

- Britain didn't have a small military. It had a military which was structured to protect a global empire, not the home nation. If you want an example of a country which developed a military force directly aimed at defeating the core of the British military you should point at Japan, not Germany.
- in 1939 the German army was almost as out-of-date as it's opponents, and arguably even in 1940 it was behind Britain + France in terms of eg. tank technology. The difference was in tactics. (Tactics are what, for example, allow 20 dedicated blokes to butt-fuck the world's most powerful nation publicly, live on international TV. Shouldn't be under-estimated).
- Britain had the first large-scale integrated command-and-control system... which is why we won the BoB. That's a non-trivial advantage that defeated a larger and, from your one-liner, more modern and well equipped military.

Overall I don't think it's as simple as you're trying to make out.

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:24 pm

Nutball,

I admit I''m no military historian, I'm just going by a few documentaries I've seen that seem to always show the Stukas and German Tanks pounding the hell out of the opposition. Then you'll see a squadron of antiquated British bombers get shot to pieces. (Talking about pre Dunkirk here.)

The point I was trying to make was about being defenceless, and yes, tactics are vital too.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:48 pm

nutball wrote:Overall I don't think it's as simple as you're trying to make out.

We've established that's a pattern, but thank you anyway.

judge56988 wrote:In the whole of history I don't think there has been a country with the overwhelming military advantage such as the US possesses today.....

As the quick and decisive win in Iraq bears this out.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:56 pm

aristide1 wrote:
Matija wrote:
aristide1 wrote:And besides if people really were concerned about future runaway medical costs for the elderly they would be folding right now.
Medical costs for the elderly are tiny compared to the costs of having them alive. Sounds extremely cruel, but it would be in everyone's interest for people to live shorter lives.
Setting aside the unethical aspect of what you state it would be in everyone's interest for people to lead healthier lives. Those old people can volunteer and fill aspects of the economy and lives that are routinely overlooked.

Hey Judge - how's my cynical attitude doing here?

xan_user · Post by **xan_user** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:41 pm

aristide1 wrote: As the quick and decisive win in Iraq bears this out.

and Vietnam. another shining example of our military superiority.

war's a bit different when you can't just carpet bomb or nuke the opposition into submission.

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:52 am

xan_user wrote:
aristide1 wrote: As the quick and decisive win in Iraq bears this out.
and Vietnam. another shining example of our military superiority.

war's a bit different when you can't just carpet bomb or nuke the opposition into submission.

Because the US fight with one hand tied behind their back. If they wanted to, they could nuke the opposition or reduce Baghdad to rubble with conventional explosives, as the Russians did to Berlin. My point is that they exercise some restraint and do NOT do that. Obviously there are civilian casualties but nothing like the numbers in past wars.

The original point I was making was that a nation needs to be able to defend itself, and I stand by that.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:56 am

More like they war simply to test the effectiveness of their weapons and to replenish supply with new ones. Or did you forget Eisenhower's warnings?

xan_user · Post by **xan_user** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:32 am

judge56988 wrote:
The original point I was making was that a nation needs to be able to defend itself, and I stand by that.

sure that makes sense.

we need to defend ourselves here at home, not attack sovereign countries under the premise of hate filled lies..

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:07 am

judge56988 wrote:Because the US fight with one hand tied behind their back. If they wanted to, they could nuke the opposition or reduce Baghdad .....

Now here's a response with well thought out consequences.

judge56988 · Post by **judge56988** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:38 am

aristide1 wrote:
judge56988 wrote:Because the US fight with one hand tied behind their back. If they wanted to, they could nuke the opposition or reduce Baghdad .....
Now here's a response with well thought out consequences.

Context?

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:44 am

xan_user wrote:
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

I just have to add my favorite:

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. âˆ’ George Bernard Shaw

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:00 pm

judge56988 wrote:
aristide1 wrote:
judge56988 wrote:Because the US fight with one hand tied behind their back. If they wanted to, they could nuke the opposition or reduce Baghdad .....
Now here's a response with well thought out consequences.
Context?

Relatively small countries.
Radioactive fallout.
Shifting winds.
Nearby friendly countries (unless you want to nuke all of them, doesn't fit any definition of conservative I have seen) which also have the following:
Collateral damage - immediate deaths, defined as < 1 month.
Collateral damage - increased cancer rates.
Collateral damage - increased birth defects.

Do I really need to continue?

I.O.U.S.A - Now available as free 30-minute edition

I.O.U.S.A - Now available as free 30-minute edition

Re: I.O.U.S.A - Now available as free 30-minute edition

Re: I.O.U.S.A - Now available as free 30-minute edition