IOUSA: Anti-Social Security Propaganda Flick
In case you've missed the hype, IOUSA is a documentary making the case that the U.S. budget is hopelessly out of control and that our current spending patterns will bankrupt our children. The film features such noteworthy characters as Alan "Bubbles" Greenspan, Robert "Don't Regulate Credit Default Swaps" Rubin, and former presidential candidate Ron Paul.
This film should be viewed as part of a larger effort to dismantle Social Security and Medicare, the country's core safety net programs. The reality is that our budget is essentially fine, it is our health care system that is out of control. But fixing health care would require going after the drug companies, the insurance companies, and highly paid medical specialists. But those folks are all powerful, so the IOUSA crew went after old people instead.
You can get CEPR's movie review here.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Patrick Creadon, the director and co-screenwriter of I.O.U.S.A., has posted a response to Dean Baker's critique over on my blog, EconomistMom.com, where he now occasionally blogs as "DirectorDad":
http://economistmom.com/2008/10/patrick-creadon-directordad-responds-to-dean-bakers-critique-of-iousa/
The liberal response to this film fails to address a lot of the reality that IOUSA lays out.
The purpose of the picture IS definitely topaint the need for the smaller government.
But, this very real fiscal and economic crisis IS upon us, and that we need to do something about THAT.
And I do not hear a lot of liberal solutions.
Yeah, Bernie Sanders wants to tax the traders to the tune of a meager $500Billion.
(My apologies to Bernie).
Last evening I saw Galbraith the younger on Bill Moyers espousing bold FDR-like policies to protect homeowners and restore a proper government role now that laissez-faire capitalism has failed.
Galbraith's solution of having the government(ostensibly) create huge amounts of even greater debt is a denial of the financial reality laid out in IOUSA.
How in the Gods' name can we ever get out of the debt-hole that free market, fractional-reserve, debt-money capitalism has placed around the neck of this and several future generations?
The anser is NOT more debts.
The answer is debt-free, government-issue money.
That is the direct government action that was recommended to FDR, but that he ignored.
Which is exactly what brings us to where we are today.
Most liberals ignore the underlying message of the debt-money ponzi scheme that IOUSA lays out.
Implement the Chicago Plan for Monetary Reform that was recommended to FDR.
ABOLISH that ponzi scheme in the FED, or embrace our financial Armageddon.
While i agree that the right enjoys overstating problems with social security to further their own ends, i'm not ready to say that they're completely off base. The left continually says that there's no problem with Social Security, but if i remember correctly, the Democratic candidate in 2000 suggested that there was a problem with the system that would be exposed in the future...related to the way the government spends SS surpluses and replaces them with IOU's. That might have been an acceptable way to proceed, but not if we add untold billions to our collective debt through wars and bank bailouts. Moreover, a deep recession will bring higher unemployment and SS is funded through payroll taxes.
Singing don't worry be happy is not any better than crying wolf.
The destruction of empires comes from two things: military misadventure and fiscal irresponsibility. This is where we find ourselves right now. These things - war and debt - have been integrally connected to American policy since Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the military industrial complex in 1959.
The body politic involves not only those who make the war machine, run it and energize it (the rich in other words) but also tradesmen, unions, small businesses, professionals, creators of intellectual property and innovators such as green technologists, green car designers, green energy engineers. the poor and middle class have little to gain from continuing foreign misadventures and war.
A green revolution on the other hand can generate a new economics and a new economy. All the green technologies will generate jobs, provide export products, ensure a lower cost of maintenance, and help us avoid the military and security threat of losing control of our dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
Green technologies will need to be kick started, but then should be self sustaining. If we do not have the will to do this now, or if we go with the old economic models, we are sunk. These technologies will need to be supported in a unified "moon shot" type of social goa and the entire society will benefit from them. The economic theory to underscore this new model of government "stimulus" is being invented even as we speak. CB
That is a fine idea to target those mentioned but we have to remember the biggest player is actually the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services which sets the overall tone for drug company (Medicare part D), insurance policy and specialist reimbursement guidelines. Especially the latter which is based on a convoluted RVU based formula reimbursement scheme that inherently rewards medical subspecialists. So, put the CMMS at the top of that list as well.
Thanks Dean, we are all looking back a few years to the statement made by our esteemed leader about privitizing Social Security to Wall Street, talk about dodging the bullet !
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081023/ap_on_go_co/inside_washington_congress_retirement_3
AP, Meltdown retirement blow is softer for lawmakers, Oct 22, 08
Wonder why Congress is not too concerned over Social Security and Medicare ? They take care of themselves ! Remember this when you go to the polls in a couple of weeks, they are all up for re-election. They have tossed you overboard, time to return the favor !
It was about "partially" privatizing social security (like the current govt employee thrift savings plan). That plan did not mean folks would invest all their retirement money in stocks. It would have meant folks "could" put a "small percentage" of their retirement money in stocks, bonds, CDs, or whatever. Having that program in place now would create a higher floor for stock prices; and considering the market will go back up eventually, the returns would still be higher than the annual increases in the social security benefits.
Ummmm.....
So by "could put a small percentage of their retirement money in stocks," are you still talking about SS?
Because I didn't know that we could micromanage every single person's account to such an extent.
BTW, my mom is a federal employee. Her retirement was in stocks like AIG, Enron, and Bear Stearns. She had NO choice in the matter, not who she got to invest in or how much. She's been working for the federal government for over twenty years and has less than five thousand dollars to retire on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So I really don't think we need to let the feds give our retirement money to any other corporations, thank you very freaking much.
As it stands now the US can't affard to pay out SS or Medicare only because the US has been intentionally brought to the brink. Repugs always prove their mantra that gov doesn't work.
All this talk of privitizing SS took place at the same time they deregulated the markets, medicare part D also came in, a give away to the pharmies.
This is nothing short of the biggest and longest robbery in the history of the world.
The word was "do what you want, I don't care!" I hope you "have yours" because they do and they don't care about you.
I will speak for my generation of over-65 retirees who depend on Social Security and Medicare.
I have two words for them, and they aren't "happy birthday." Many of us are fit enough to start a domestic guerilla war if these vermin decide to starve us out, or cut the benefits we worked our whole lives to accumulate. Cut the bloated Pentagon budget.
Maybe the 1930s generation rode the hobo rails and then happily went off to war, but we we most emphatically aren't sheep. You can count on an insurrection.
Actually there is nothing wrong with Medicare. The problem is the rising cost of health care from the private sector such as pharmaceuticals and HMOs. These guys are the medical axis of evil.
Actually, they are santioned drug dealers.
Social Security ran a 230 billion dollar surplus last year. This was consumed in the Federal Budget and replaced with IOUs. The stated deficit, 460 billion, ignores this debt and the other 300 billion spent "off budget" on the Wars. The total deficit for 2008 was one trillion dollars. This as a direct result of Bush's tax cuts, Wars and crony capitalism corporate welfare. The Republicans have bankrupted the Nation and have sent the bills to those who did not participate in the looting. The illegal Wars for Empire must be ended and the Military/Security boondoggles cut by 500 billion dollars. The crony capitalism of privatization must be reversed and a surtax placed on all incomes over 250,000 dollars. We in the middle class do have our responsibilities also. The pandering for votes by "middle class" tax cuts, housing bailouts and so forth must be ended. Those economically below the middle class should be helped by the strict control of illegal immigration. This to provide more job opportunities and upward pressure on low skilled wages and benefits. Welfare should be replaced by these opportunities and the earned income tax credits. Medicaid should be fully funded at the Federal level to take the pressure off the States and to bridge the gap in health care.
"Upward pressure on low skilled wages and benefits" would just result in less investment in the US and more investment oversees. Lower income folks already don't pay federal income taxes, but those who work but don't qualify for Medicaid would benefit tremendously by govt healthcare. I think an Obama administration would put many more people on the govt healthcare dole in its first few years, and rightly so. I agree with the author of the article that costs are the most important issue. I'd like to add that folks should pay much larger co-pays for unnecessary medications and treatments like anti-depression/anxiety drugs, erectile dysfunction meds, and a lot of counseling. Why should all American subsidize such medications for those who chose to take them? They are largely unncessary and increase costs for the rest of us.
"would just result in less investment in the US and more investment oversees"
You can't outsource construction or service jobs. My approach is that gainfull employment is desirable.
I've seen this film and what I took away from it is the opposite of what the blogger heard. My understanding of what it said was that the country's current deficit, while enormous, is not as worrisome as the unfunded liabilities for our health care and retirement programs. These liabilities are a reflection of our runaway health care costs combined with an aging boomer population, not a separate entity that can be reigned in separate from health care. The film didn't in any way to promote an agenda that this cost burden that should be shifted to the public. In fact, in the town hall meeting following the film, Bill Novelli, head of the AARP, said the film had the same concerns as their organization about the future solvency of these programs.
The film explores four deficits -- budget, balance of payments (who can argue that we now consume more foreign products and sell fewer in return than ever before?) and household savings (which I believe the film points out is affected by health care costs) and finally a leadership deficit where politicians are afraid to look at the projected numbers and even more fearful of engaging the with the public of them. BTW, nobody got slammed harder in this film than George W. Bush -- if there is one message I took from it it's that when a politician tells you we can have guns, butter, and tax cuts he's lying. Who knew?
Your Guns and Butter remark is a complaint I've heard for the past 43 years. Lyndon Johnson has long since paid the price for escalating the Viet Nam War. At least he left the legacy of Medicare that has raised the standard of living for several generations of elderly Americans. Bush's legacy is far less kind with a deficit burden that our great grand children will be paying. It has been said that a culture can be judged by the way it treats it's elderly, Bush will ultimately have to face God who knows the evil in his soul.
Bush created Medicare Part D which gave old folks access to a lot of free drugs. Lyndon Johnson was also largely responsible for creating the massive wage of inflation that lasted from the late 60s until the early 80s. He increase spending to a massive degree and was completely unable to fight the unions who ran rampant as unemployment rode along at 3%.
there is no god - otherwise those crooks would not behave like there was none!
Well, I haven't seen the film -- it's not playing in Australia.
But next best, I did read "The Demise of the Dollar" which it was based on. But there's propaganda and propaganda. Although I'm not a republican (back in the day, I voted for McGovern!) it strikes me that "rightwing talking points" is just a leftwing talking point -- as are several of the misinterpretations of other commenters.
Official figure of Irak war: $564,681,031,840 as of today.
My radar went up as soon as I saw that several very right wing "think tanks" sponsored this film. It was an indictment of the American people, protection of military might, spend and waste and a scathing critique of Medicare and Social Security, claiming that eliminating the Iraq war only takes care of 2% or less of the deficit, while Medicare and other Social spending plus American's own personal deficit spending are at the root of our fiscal "recklessness". I had originally seen the film thinking it was an honest look at how we got into this fiscal mess we are in and it was so far from that and so much propaganda of rightwing talking points that I left the theater in disgust, though I made it to the end of the film.
Of course, nothing for the people and everything for them and more war, where they can get
richer off the backs of the poor. Makes sense to me!
You probably had to get your shoes cleaned after walking through the mounds of vomit on the theatre floor. Only the weakest minds will fall for this crap, unfortunately we have an abundance of those in this country !
I'm concerned about the deficit, but Social Security's got nothing to do with that. The bailout, stimulus checks and the war in Iraq are what are creating ungodly levels of debt in this country. I wonder what Greenspan and Rubin might have to say about those factors...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
