Skip to main content

View Diary: That Platinum Coin Idea Was Incubated on Daily Kos (242 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It is a visionary idea and it is time. n/t (7+ / 0-)

    Poverty and Income Inequality isn't Democratic, Justice or American. It is Tyranny.

    by Wendys Wink on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:51:05 PM PST

    •  Visionary? (12+ / 3-)

      How can such a stupid thing as a trillion dollar coin be considered "visionary"? It's not as if the idea actually makes sense; at very best it is just a stupid technical solution to stupid technical problem.

      •  Well, it is very stupid, but even stupider when (7+ / 0-)

        considering that it would give Executive way to circumvent Congress and the people over anything. It's not just stupid, but a complete non-starter. I cannot believe how many people think this is a terrific idea.

        “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

        by jeff in nyc on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:43:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Stupid or not (9+ / 0-)

          it's a way to neutralize this minority of a minority party taking our entire country hostage.

          Refusing to honor the debt already incurred is unconstitutional. If this remedy can end the hostage-taking by economic terrorists, then it must be done for the good of this country.

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:50:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The debate needs to go back to the spending (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SpamNunn, Neuroptimalian

            that Congress has already spent. Obama already said his peace about what will be spent when he approved. Inventing a silly coin is, in my opinion, circumventing the intentions of the Constitution. The burden should not be on the President, but the Congress--who have, after all, legislated our expenditures.

            “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

            by jeff in nyc on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:24:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The debate (5+ / 0-)

              needs to move away from negotiating with economic terrorists.

              It is time to #Occupy Media.

              by lunachickie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:29:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  NO. We don't give up precedent and (3+ / 0-)

                our constitutional rights for expediency without consideration for the future of our Republic.

                “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

                by jeff in nyc on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:31:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Where is (3+ / 0-)

                  ANY of this unconstitutional? Please explain. Be specific.  

                  It is time to #Occupy Media.

                  by lunachickie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:37:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Preamble: All that I comment is meant only to (5+ / 0-)

                    reflect my beliefs, not those of the higher courts or of the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer, and you should not base your choice of representation on my comment.

                    It is yet to be decided, but I believe the coin is unconstitutional. It comes down to the precedent that just because a very literal reading of an act of Congress literally permits something does not make it Constitutional. So, if the coin were to be minted, the SC would hear it and, in my opinion, declare it unconstitutional.

                    Again, I'm not God, and do not determine future rulings of the SC.

                    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

                    by jeff in nyc on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:42:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not a lawyer either (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sharon Wraight, kalihikane, elmo

                    but Article I, Section 8 says:

                    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
                    ...
                    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
                    ...
                    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
                    Congress has that power. Not the Executive Branch. Given that, I really don't get how the trillion-dollar coin even gets out of the starting gate. I'm open to other views, but the more they can reference specific holdings in Constitutional law, the more I'll be open to them.

                    Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                    by Nowhere Man on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:44:25 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Congress passed a law giving a Treasury Secretary (3+ / 0-)

                      the right to mint a platinum coin in any denomination he saw fit.  One trillion dollars falls within "any denomination."  So Congress has already authorized this.

                      The coin is not spending.  It's a credit limit increase.

                      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                      -- Saul Alinsky

                      by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:42:26 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yeah, but that statute contemplates minting (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        doc2, SpamNunn, Neuroptimalian

                        commemorative coins, like the Franklin Mint. Not exactly the same sort of thing as this magic platinum coin you folks are talking about.

                        In your diary, you suggest this idea is being seriously considered. Is it being seriously considered by anyone in the Obama administration?

                        •  Admittedly,one of the reasons this argument exists (0+ / 0-)

                          is that platinum is the only metal that doesn't have the explicit "numismatic object" language attached to it, which (given the way it's written) seems more like an oversight than an attempt to leave open a loophole like this.  I'd have to know more about the legislative history of the statute, but like I said below, that's clearly not its intent.  Then it comes down to differing legal philosophies about whether intent matters in plain readings of the text.  The people defending the legality of the trillion-dollar coin do have the strict language of the text to back them up.

                          But I think the damage it does to Congress' clear constitutional jurisdiction is enough to weigh heavily on the intent over language side of things.  It's never been a problem because - until recently - no one had ever interpreted the statute to give this much power to the executive branch.

                          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                          by pico on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:09:04 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You'd find reading up on contemporary theories (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            radical simplicity

                            of legal interpretation to be fascinating reading, pico -- some of the most fun I had in law school.  (And no, that is not a sad statement.)  Scalia, for one, abjures use of legislative history for statutes.  This wouldn't expand current thinking on the area so long as the Treasury Secretary agreed with the interpretation.

                            Damage done to Congress's reputation?  I think that that ship has sailed.

                            Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                            -- Saul Alinsky

                            by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:36:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, for what it's worth (0+ / 0-)

                            Scalia was on the losing end of Clinton v. New York (versus Ginsburg, Thomas, and Kennedy).

                            Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                            by pico on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:41:42 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't recall, was that a case that hinged on (0+ / 0-)

                            the use of legislative history for statutory interpretation?  I doubt it.  He really, really hates it, on various grounds.

                            Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                            -- Saul Alinsky

                            by Seneca Doane on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:54:44 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm not a member of the Obama Administration (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          radical simplicity

                          so I can't really say.  I will say that there are only two ways that I know of for Obama to unilaterally satisfy his pledge that there won't be another debt ceiling crisis: this and the "bare 14th Amendment" argument that Armando has made.  So either his pledge is inoperative, or I'm missing something that everyone else has also missed, or one or both of those must be under consideration.

                          "Headings" aren't designed to be used in statutory construction.  And who's to say that this isn't a commemorative coin?  If we sell it for a trillion dollars, that will be used to pay down the debt directly.  (No commission to the Franklin Mint, though!)

                          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                          -- Saul Alinsky

                          by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:34:14 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  As I wrote to you below (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          radical simplicity

                          It's just about coins.  Subsection (k) is no more part of subsection (e) than it is part of subsection (a).  That it describes only commemorative coins is your insertion into the statutory scheme.  It's not there.

                          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                          -- Saul Alinsky

                          by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:56:45 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  Absolutely true (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ConfusedSkyes, elmo, Neuroptimalian

                It's just that, if we do it this way, the US will be a laughing stock for the next thousand years. And will richly deserve it.

                Couldn't we just have a nice, old-fashioned revolution, and simply guillotine the bastards? Do we have to make immortal asses of ourselves?

            •  Only one problem with what you think the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Seneca Doane

              resolution of this issue should be. Obama has specifically and repeatedly ruled out the 14th Amendment option.

              Wear it proud. Wear it loud. Outlaw concealed carry. That gun hidden under your coat won't deter shit.

              by WisePiper on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:40:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  That would be reasonable if Congress were... (4+ / 0-)

              reasonable, but it is not.  The Congress, particularly, The House of Representatives,  is dysfunctional.

              Our politicians are scrambling to deal with a mess that they created all on their own...
              Nate Silver's take on the House, and their inability to govern effectively:
              So why is compromise so hard in the House?

              ...the answer could be this...Most members of the House now come from hyperpartisan districts where they face essentially no threat of losing their seat to the other party...

              ...But redistricting alone did not account for the whole of the shift; instead, polarization has increased even after accounting for the change in boundaries...

              ...it is not clear that there have been other periods (in history) when individual members of the House had so little to deter them from highly partisan behavior...

              ...so few members of the House...(are) at risk of losing their seats...what motivates members first and foremost is winning elections. If individual members of Congress have little chance of losing their seats if they fail to compromise, there should be little reason to expect them to do so...

              ...As partisanship continues to increase, a divided government may increasingly mean a dysfunctional one...

              The House is dysfunctional, polarized, and paralyzed by hyperpartisanship and will likely remain so as long as its members know they face little consequence for incompetence, obstinance, and for doing nothing.

              If we wait for them to rationally solve the budget ceiling fiasco, we'll be waiting a long time.  At best they'll punt things down the road to another show down in a few months, then do the same thing again, and again.  

            •  What has been spent has been spent (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              radical simplicity

              The Constitution doesn't contemplate not paying obligations approved through the legislative process.  For that reason, a debt limit that is anything more than aspiration is probably unconstitutional.  The coin just lets us avoid the constitutional argument.  Honestly, read the previous diaries before you call this idea stupid.  It's quite insulting.

              Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

              "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
              -- Saul Alinsky

              by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:39:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The people who think this is a good (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jeff in nyc, SpamNunn, ConfusedSkyes

          idea are not bad people; it is not their fault that they don't see how stupid this is. I have no doubt that these people are doing their best. They just have no sense. But I wouldn't hold that against them; I'm sure that the people who like the trillion dollar coin idea are all good people deep down.

        •  I don't understand this (5+ / 0-)
          it would give Executive way to circumvent Congress and the people over anything.
          Not over anything; it would just give the Executive the ability to print as much money as it wants. They wouldn't actually get to spend it on anything unless Congress lets it.

          "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

          by TealTerror on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:07:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're right, although when the purse is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SpamNunn

            in the hands of the President, not Congress, then we are really a dictatorship because the Congress would be neutered. It's not going to happen, and the coin idea anyway could just be a "one off."

            “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

            by jeff in nyc on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:28:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It wouldn't be a "dictatorship" (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lunachickie, Egalitare, Seneca Doane

              And the purse would not be in the hands of the President. The President can only spend money on the things Congress tells them they can; that won't change. All that changes is that Congress can't tell the President to spend money, then also tell them not to spend money through some arbitrary "debt limit."

              (I would also like to mention that, if you're really concerned about executive overreach, there are other things Obama's done that are far more worrisome. But that's a different topic...)

              "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

              by TealTerror on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:31:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There have been other things that Obama (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                doc2

                has done that have expanded Exec. overreach. This, however, is a diary about something that he has not done, but that you are exhorting him to do. So, anyway...

                “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

                by jeff in nyc on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:37:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  . (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Seneca Doane
              It's not going to happen
              So someone from the Administration has specifically stated this on record somewhere? Please share, then we can stop all this silly discussion.

              It is time to #Occupy Media.

              by lunachickie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:33:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Apologies: I believe it will not happen. For (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sharon Wraight

                the future, nothing I say should be construed as speaking for the President of the United States, or anyone else.

                “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

                by jeff in nyc on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:35:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Congress *passed* this law (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              radical simplicity

              so what you're saying about neutering Congress makes no sense.

              Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

              "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
              -- Saul Alinsky

              by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:45:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  No it's not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Seneca Doane

              Congress used the power of the purse to vote to create the debt.

              Honoring the debts that were incurred by Congress does nothing to take away Congress' power to incur debt.

              Congress is still perfectly free to create budgets all they want - even budgets that don't have any debt.

              They also still have the right to create dollars all they want.

               They also have given the Treasury department the right to mint coins without separate approval by Congress. Minting coins to pay the debts Congress created is entirely within the treasury's role, courtesy of the law passed by Congress, and it has no effect whatsoever on what budgets the Congress may choose to pass in the future.

              Congress could vote to raise the debt ceiling. Even better, they could vote to rescind the law they created that forces them to vote separately to actually authorize themselves to raise money to pay the debt they already voted for.

              They can't, however, constitutionally prevent the US from meeting the debt obligations they already voted for. So, unless they raise the debt ceiling, or eliminate the debt ceiling law, the government must use other legal means to pay that debt.

        •  No it wouldn't, jeff (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          radical simplicity

          It deals specifically and solely with finance -- with the credit limit.  It does not give the President any ability to authorize any spending without Congressional approval.  I believe that you can't believe why this works -- but you should try harder.

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:37:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  How is minting a trillion dollar coin (7+ / 0-)

        any different than defaulting on a trillion dollars?  Why would DailyKos want to take credit for this?

        We should be trying to blame Redstate for this crap idea.

        The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. --Goya

        by MadScientist on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:52:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm going to attribute it to former (1+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          TFinSF
          Hidden by:
          Seneca Doane

          Daily Kos community members, who were banned for coming up with it.

          •  How about backing that up (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ian S, TealTerror, Sandino, Seneca Doane

            with something other than your opinion, maybe?

            It is time to #Occupy Media.

            by lunachickie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:59:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The person who did the most to promote it here (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lunachickie, Sandino, Seneca Doane

            Was Letsgetitdone, who as you can see is not banned.

            I have no idea where you got this idea from. (Well, I have a guess, but it's not polite to voice.)

            "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

            by TealTerror on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:28:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  They have no been banned. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Seneca Doane
          •  That went over the line (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radical simplicity

            No, the people who came up with this were not banned for the idea.  Be happy that I'm not on staff and an HR is all I can do in response.

            Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
            -- Saul Alinsky

            by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:50:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So the rule about not HRing (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              doc2, Sharon Wraight, Neuroptimalian

              in your own diary doesn't apply to you?  How nice it must be to have risen above the edicts that the rest of us must toil under.

              ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

              by TFinSF on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:10:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Forgot about that one (is it a rule or a custom?) (0+ / 0-)

                OK, go have me banned.  The false assertion that people were banned from DKos for a certain activity is far worse.  I'll take my lumps.

                Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                -- Saul Alinsky

                by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:58:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Go have you banned? (0+ / 0-)

                  Calm yourself, Watson.  I assumed you knew having been here a lot longer than me.

                  Re: rule or custom: not sure if it's in the FAQ, but it has been described as a rule by our benevolent overlord.

                  ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

                  by TFinSF on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:31:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, I'm not hide-rating for disagreement (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm hide-rating because that behavior is reprehensible.

                    Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                    "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                    -- Saul Alinsky

                    by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:23:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  1) having a different opinion (0+ / 0-)

                      than yours is not reprehensible.  If you don't want disagreement with your opinion, don't post it. 2) let me read the pertinent sentence from the linked comment to you that you are determined to ignore:

                      Don't HR people in your own diary.

                      ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

                      by TFinSF on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:58:14 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately (0+ / 0-)

                        dense.  This wasn't about his opinion.  It was about a blatantly false, and not even slightly "ironic" appearing, derogatory statement of fact about others being banned for misconduct, made to win an argument through ad hominem ridicule.

                        I can read the sentence.  Contact Markos if you think I've broken the rules.

                        Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                        "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                        -- Saul Alinsky

                        by Seneca Doane on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:53:09 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You can call me dense if you like (0+ / 0-)

                          -- and I'm happy to compare CVs with you if you wish to pursue that angle -- but alluding to some unnamed banned user that came up with the idea is hardly cause for you to break the longstanding rule against HRing in your own diary.

                          Why not just admit you were wrong, as you obviously were?

                          ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

                          by TFinSF on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:58:45 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You know, people have been banned for (0+ / 0-)

                            doing what you're doing right now.  Why not stop doing it immediately?

                            (Ha-ha -- "just kidding"!)

                            I refute it thusly.  It's a rotten tool to be able to employ in an argument here.

                            Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                            "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                            -- Saul Alinsky

                            by Seneca Doane on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:32:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your feeble threat is unconvincing. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Seneca Doane

                            ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

                            by TFinSF on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:01:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  If the "reprehensible" behavior (0+ / 0-)

                      to which you refer is the joke that the trillion dollar coin idea came from a banned user, then I really have to laugh.  It wasn't funny, of course, but the pearl clutching is laying it on a bit thick, no?  You just want an excuse to HR someone who thinks the coin idea is stupid.

                      ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

                      by TFinSF on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:03:21 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It had no earmarks of being a joke (0+ / 0-)

                        It was a plausible assertion of fact and stood as such until finally challenged.

                        No, I was not looking for an excuse to HR an opponent; no, it was not "pearl clutching."  It was community moderation.  Try to muster some civility.

                        Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

                        "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
                        -- Saul Alinsky

                        by Seneca Doane on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:49:45 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Offsetting abusive HR, not agreeing. n/t (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doc2, Sharon Wraight, Neuroptimalian

            ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

            by TFinSF on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:11:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  It's extremely different (7+ / 0-)

          If we defaulted, we wouldn't be paying our debts. If we mint a trillion-dollar coin, we'd use that to pay our debts. Fiat money is fun that way.

          "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

          by TealTerror on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:08:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  There is no default: the coin is exchanged... (4+ / 0-)

          for debt that the Fed already holds. Do yourself a favor and read up a bit more on exactly how it would work.

          Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

          by Ian S on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:35:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Because this isn't a default (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          radical simplicity

          This is preventing a default.  Congress, having authorized spending, now doesn't want to pay.  It refuses to ask for an increase in our credit limit.  It prefers a default if it can't get its way.  All the coin does is allow Obama to say:

          hey, pursuant to legislation that you've already passed, I have the right to increase our credit limit myself without your further action.  It's not spending, it's allowing us to pay for spending that you've already authorized.
          To be part of this discussion, you ought to learn the difference.

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:48:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It makes perfect sense (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lunachickie, Ian S, Sandino, Seneca Doane

        The dollar is fiat money. The US Government has the ability to print as many dollars as it wants; it's only limited by the rules it itself passes.

        "He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing."--Socrates

        by TealTerror on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:05:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, it's so "stupid" that Paul Krugman is... (8+ / 0-)

        promoting it as the way to get around the dire consequences of the hitting the debt ceiling.

        Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

        by Ian S on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:13:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Proving once and for all that all of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SpamNunn

          those people who think that Paul Krugman is perfect were wrong all along.

          •  OK, I get it, your mind is closed tighter than ... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lunachickie, Sandino, Seneca Doane

            a teabag on this. It does say a lot though that your hand waving has not been backed up by any specific analysis.

            Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

            by Ian S on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:30:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Can I ask you a question and get an (0+ / 0-)

              honest answer? Do you think that Paul Krugman has ever been wrong about anything? Not something specific, but just in general. If he says something, does that make it a fact, or is it possible that he could be wrong about something?

              •  Of course he can be wrong but he was poo-pooing (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sandino, Seneca Doane

                this idea until very lately. Presumably, he's looked into it more and realized what many others have that this "trick" may actually be quite viable as a means of dealing with the debt ceiling farce and also defensible in court.

                I will just say that when someone presents a novel idea, I expect to see detailed analysis of how that idea would work. Likewise, if someone thinks the idea is preposterous, it's not enough to just say so, that also has to be backed up by detailed analysis.

                Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

                by Ian S on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:40:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist (0+ / 0-)

          He isn't a lawyer, and he's not a politician.

          I would trust his judgment that this would work out economically, but not that it would work legally or politically.

      •  wow, second comment posted (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ian S

        "stupid"

        nice place this DKos has become.

        should have guessed it would come from you.

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:15:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  hr'd for attempting to stifle open discussion (0+ / 0-)

        who are you, the diary police?

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:17:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What is this comment HR'd? Please explain. (5+ / 0-)

        “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

        by jeff in nyc on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:29:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Uprated to counter BS HR. (6+ / 0-)

        Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. - Gandhi

        by SpamNunn on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:36:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's no more stupid (5+ / 0-)

        than the purely political refusal by republicans to approve increasing the debt limit to pay for expenditures already approved, as a matter of law.

        A practical mechanical solution to a political problem. It should be a last resort. Political fallout could be substantial. But there is nothing stupid about it.  

      •  Not very stupid at all. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TealTerror, Sandino, Seneca Doane

        letsgetitdone grabbed me with his symmetrical graphs of MMT very early on. It took a little consternation, but once you grasp the overarching premise, the weeds get clearer.

        Seneca was also a standout for me.

        We are not Greece. gjohnsit is another very good writer as is Bobswern.

      •  $1 tril plat coin is asinine, not a serious idea (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ConfusedSkyes, elmo, doc2, SpamNunn

        Krugman's Jan 7th column on it was intended simply to raise pressure on Republicans, he doesn't seriously think it should be implemented. (This is an example of why he should not be Secretary of Treasury, as he readily concedes.)

        If the game being played is simply one of brinksmanship, to try and change the slate of possible solutions, I get it -- but this is a losing strategy. Republicans could call Obama's bluff on the $1 tril coin, and he would lose. If he actually did it, it would define and grievously damage his entire presidency. If he bluffs that he will but then doesn't do it (as he won't), it would once again undermine his negotiating credibility and he'd be perceived as caving-in again.

        Krugman writes:

        Be Ready To Mint That Coin
        Should President Obama be willing to print a $1 trillion platinum coin if Republicans try to force America into default?
        'Ready to', 'willing to' -- in a bluffing sense, sure, but actually do it? No way.
        by minting a $1 trillion coin, then depositing it at the Fed, the Treasury could acquire enough cash to sidestep the debt ceiling — while doing no economic harm at all.
        Fail. Sorry, Prof. Dr. Krugman, you may have a Nobel Prize, but in this last phrase you are not speaking the truth, not in the reality-based world.
        whose face goes on the coin — but that’s easy: John Boehner. Because without him and his colleagues, this wouldn’t be necessary.
        That's the giveaway that Paul is just being hot-headed and petulant (and hardly for the first time! *laf*), he's not serious.

        If anyone wants to misuse your Trusted User status and Hide-Rate me for saying that the $1 Tril Coin idea is stupid, asinine, and not realistic, go right ahead. As doc2 says, I will proudly eat those donuts. The $1 Tril Coin will not be issued, and it is a sophomoric idea.

        I don't doubt the good intentions of those who propose this idea, and if in private they see it as a rhetorical/political tool to try and shift the debate, I understand this motivation (but it is misguided). The road to hell is paved with trillion dollar coins.

        •  What have you read about it before coming to (0+ / 0-)

          such a firm opinion on this matter?

          Do you know the difference between appropriations and finance?

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:55:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What do you know about politics and economics, (0+ / 0-)

            before coming to such a firm opinion on this matter?

            Do you know the difference between reality and rhetoric?

            [Some questions are designed to further discussion, others are mere rhetoric and phrased to shut discussion down. The above, including my examples and yours, are examples of the latter.]

            Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

            by Sharon Wraight on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:44:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The question of whether you know the difference (0+ / 0-)

              between appropriations and finance is not rhetorical.

              That's what this is about.  Money has been appropriated based on the expectation that it will be financed because for us not to pay our obligations is unacceptable.  Minting the platinum coin is essentially a ceremonial way to finance our previous appropriations.  With a fiat currency, it's fine.

              If you don't understand some of the terms above, how can we have a discussion on this topic?  It's no bad reflection on you if you don't, but it bears on the subject.

              Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

              "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
              -- Saul Alinsky

              by Seneca Doane on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 09:13:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, visionary (0+ / 0-)

        Tell me whether you read the previous diary -- or the diaries to which it links -- where it is explained.

        The problem, to employ a dangerous metaphor, is this: Congress puts a bunch of expenditures on the nation's charge card (leading to a deficit -- and exerting inflationary pressure) and then condemns the President for paying the charge card bill.  (That is, Congress can't control its spending and wants the "discipline" of a default if social services aren't cut.)

        One response is to say: "Sorry, Congress, but you can't do that.  You approved these expenditures and they were signed into law.  Implicit in approving them  is that you also approved our paying for them."  That's the 14th Amendment (which I say is bolstered by the 27th Amendment) approach.

        Another is to say: "We have a fiat currency.  A dollar no longer represents a share of the nation's gold, it represents a promise backed by the full faith and credit of the United States to pay the bearer the value of a dollar upon demand.  So, because the law allows me to mint a platinum coin and put it into our Treasury -- in effect raising our credit limit without your agreeing to it -- that's what I'm going to do, without risking a constitutional crisis."

        If you don't understand the difference between authorizing spending and authorizing payment of bills for what has been spent, you will never understand this.  In that case, though, you should have the good grace to hold your tongue.

        Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

        "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
        -- Saul Alinsky

        by Seneca Doane on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:35:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  this is why so many no longer participate (0+ / 0-)

        always argumenting, when we should be participating.

        I am getting so fed up with DKos.

        "The road may be longer, but we travel it together." -- BHO

        by BusyinCA on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:46:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site