Article Image
IPFS News Link • Economy - Economics USA

I.O.U.S.A., I Want a Refund

• LRC Blog
The book offered several options for dealing with the debt; the movie had only one: more government. The post-movie 'town hall' was silly and took only a few minutes before new taxes were proposed under the guise of "forced savings.

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:
de-FAULT! *clap* *clap*
de-FAULT! *clap* *clap*
de-FAULT! *clap* *clap*

Contracts for known or should be known stolen property are not enforceable contracts. Since anyone who purchased government debt knows the debt can be repaid only by theft they are entitled to nothing.

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:
And 2nd opinion, and third opinion and fourth opinion.

Was it really that bad? Yes. There were good points. But who brought up the idea of Social Security 50% privatization? CATO Institutes' representative.

Which of course did not make the AARP CEO happy.

Buffett was a self described Pollyanna. The free market engine will keep on providing prosperity. While I agree with the sentiment, we do not live in a free market. We live in a fascist nation. One whose economy is regulated and taxed to death. Foreigners will keep providing money because they have no choice. Unless of course they cash out and buy up property in the USA.

If this movie serves to alert young people of just how bad the promised debt that they are expected to shoulder it will have provided a service. But the solutions of buckle up for a bumpy ride are patent statist supporting horsecrap. Rebellion is a solution not contemplated by the producers.