Skip to main content

The "platinum coin" idea now being seriously considered as a surrealistic alternative to the choice of default or surrender to the GOP crazies, in the event that Congressional Republicans block an increase in the debt limit, was not born on Daily Kos.

No, it would be better to say that Daily Kos was its incubator -- but that it's parents are longtime members here.  So when we're fighting back against absurd posturing with a technical way of getting around absurd posturing, let's not forget that Daily Kos should take a bow -- and that Kosters letsgetitdone and beowulf, among others, should be considered freaking national heroes if this works.

Time for a little history.  Join me below the dark cloud that hovers over John Boehner's head.

I'm pleased to have written the first diary that, so far as I could tell, tossed the "platinum coin idea" -- initially known as "Jumbo Coin Seigniorage" and as "Proof Platinum Coin Seigniorage," or PPCS -- from the land of diaries with a few dozen recs to the stratum of ones in the several hundreds.  That July 30, 2011 diary, Cut the Gordian Knot with the Platinum Sword, contains the history of how and where and when and why the PPCS idea developed, as well as the text of the legislation.  I'm not going to repeat it all here (unless people ask me, I suppose); I'm just going to suggest that you click that link and check it out.  (In the comments, you'll also see the debate between those who wanted to honor the then-recently departed Betty Ford with her picture on "the Platinum Betty" and those who wanted to "honor" Ronald Reagan by coining "the Trillion-Dollar Gipper."  I'm sure that you can guess who won that one.)  For those who want deeper background, my earlier diary includes a list all 24 diaries preceding it on the topic, with links to a couple.  (You can find the others through a search.)  The argument starts off solid, but you'll see the defense of it get better over time.  By a year and a half ago, it was a solid and mature, even if somewhat hallucinatory, proposal.

I've been sort of scarce here recently, but I understand that there was a kerfuffle recently about whether DKos is a waste of time.  No, it isn't.  Daily Kos is both a marketplace of ideas and perhaps the best leftward equivalent of the conservative Mighty Wurlitzer that there is.  The platinum coin idea would not exist without letsgetitdone, who toiled here for seven months (being called names befitting a mad scientist) before it started to catch on.  Would it have been popularized without Daily Kos?  Maybe -- but probably not as readily and maybe not at all.  Would it have been questioned, put through a gantlet, allowing them to improve their arguments?  It's hard to imagine where.

I think that if the Republicans don't back off Obama may actually use this escape hatch this year to fight the fire of nihilistic destruction with the fire of fortuitous technicalities.  Obama's main alternative is a constitutional analysis of the sort that Armando has argued here (that the 14th Amendment permits the power to ignore the debt limit if its really a last resort); I'm still not giving up on the argument that the 27th Amendment makes clear that appropriations entail a grant of executive spending authority.  (It's an abstruse argument and I'm not sure I recommend reading it, but there it is!)

Daily Kos has had its successes before this, if it happens at all, but this will surely be among the biggest.  To me, it answers any challenge about the value of the site.  You're here to sift the good information, ideas, approaches, etc. from the not so good -- and then amplify the good ones to each other and to the outside world.

It's not that hard in theory -- but it's a lot of work in practice.  It's worthwhile, though -- this is work that could barely be imagined before the Internet, yet here we are doing it.

Tue Jan 08, 2013 at  1:17 AM PT: Before you weigh in with your off the cuff opinions, at least make sure that you understand what wigwam has to say in this fine comment:


An appropriation is only permission to draw money out of the Treasury.  It doesn't put any money there.  That has to come through taxation, borrowing, or minting.  We've already spent the tax money and the GOP intends to block further borrowing, which leaves only the minting of coins.

We're not spending new money with this; we're honoring the debts to which we agreed.

Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 9:14 PM PT: 1/8/13: I finally got around to reading what wigwam described as "the authoritative history on the "platinum coin" movement -- and, by gosh, it really is!  You should read it too!

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm proud to have been part of process that helped (76+ / 0-)

    to launch this PPCS idea into the popular imagination.  You should be proud as well to be a reader, commenter, or even diarist on the site that incubated it.

    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 Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:45:20 PM PST

  •  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 ]

  •  Obama won't do it. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sandblaster

    Clinton might have, though.

    He was less worried with propriety than the Prez.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:52:46 PM PST

  •  It still sounds rather whacky to me. (6+ / 0-)

    And I would have guessed it came from somebody like Ron Paul if you hadn't said what you have here.

    I'm not sure this is even the right question or set of questions, but how much money does the Fed or Mint or whoever actually create?  How much do the expand the actual supply of currency and how often?  What, if any, deflationary/inflationary sort of action might result from the sudden creation of an additional trillion dollars out of thin air upon the worth of the US dollar internationally?

    •  Well.... (5+ / 0-)

      It's been a bit since I've laid it out like this, but....

      Coins happen by congressional creation. Like the presidential coins, it took congress to create them.

      The treasury / mint replaces coins as necessary. I'm not sure about if they have to

      The federal reserve just creates dollar bills whenever they choose. They are like a bank for banks. BoA has a 'savings' account at the federal reserve that earns interest. BoA can take 'loans' from the federal reserve at like zero percent, put that money into their 'savings' account at the federal reserve and earn interest on that deposited money - and use the interest to pay off the original 'loan'.

      Like this...
      BoA has 1 trillion in their savings account, earning 3%
      BoA is loaned 3 trillion, at a 0% rate.
      BoA puts 3 trillion in their savings account, earning 3%
      BoA uses the interest from their federal reserve savings account to pay off the 0% rate loan.
      The economy just had 3 trillion dollars created from thin air, and the only real beneficiaries are the execs at BoA, who get to skim fat bonuses off the top of the 3% interest.

      It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

      by JayFromPA on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:42:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm also not sure (4+ / 0-)

        whether this actually incurs inflation or not.

        At the core, inflation deals with 'money' that is in circulation.

        Like, imagine we used water as money, and 99% of our water was stockpiled on the moon by the rich 1%. The market prices here on earth take into account the amount of water on earth sloshing around from person to person. creating another three moon's worth of water from nothing (like in star trek or something) and parking that also on the moon would do nothing to change how much water there was being used to trade between people here on earth.

        The creation of 'money' in a huge pile by making something like a 60 trillion dollar coin, and putting that into an account at the federal reserve as seignorage, that doesn't essentially place that 60 trillion into circulation out here in the realm of grocery stores and car payments.... therefore I'm thinking it doesn't actually cause inflation.

        It's a complicated thicket, I could easily be wrong due to something I don't know.

        It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

        by JayFromPA on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:55:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agree that inflation results only as the new money (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Seneca Doane, JayFromPA

          circulates through the economy (if the first recipient simply sits on it, then the increase in money is offset by a decline in the "velocity" of money).

          This helps explain why the Fed has failed to increase inflation very much, although it apparently has been trying.

          •  Well, there are deflationary forces going on. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Seneca Doane

            The consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few pushes the majority of us to hold onto what cash we can, purchasing less and less. I dunno about you, but I'm not feeling all that participatory in the shopping experience. Market forces push items with little demand into lowering prices, rewarding people who had sat on their cash with extra buying power. Vicious cycle.

            For all the Fed's efforts, they're just treading water. If they dropped the rate of return on money deposited with them below the rate of inflation, or even slightly negative, then BoA et al would shove that into the economy to avoid taking the loss.

            It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

            by JayFromPA on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 05:16:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, Ron Paul would hate it (7+ / 0-)

      This idea only works because we use fiat money; Ron Paul wants us to return to the gold standard.

      As for inflation, aside from what JayFromPA said, there's also this:

      If the government financed itself this way in general, that would absolutely be inflationary. But the president can hold inflation expectations steady by making absolutely clear that the policy will not lead to a net change in the money supply over the long term. Obama should pledge that once Congress authorizes additional borrowing, he will direct the Treasury to issue bonds to cover the government's coin-backed spending and then to melt the coin.

      "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 06:55:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  thank you. (3+ / 0-)

        It's good to hear that my own uneducated ponderings about the money supply were actually accurate.

        It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

        by JayFromPA on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:00:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I'm not exactly an expert either :p (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lunachickie, Sandino, Seneca Doane

          From what I understand, as long as the money doesn't actually get out into the wider economy, there won't be any inflation.

          In addition, the risk of inflation has to be balanced against the risk of giving in to Republican demands and slashing spending/Medicare/Social Security. IMO, the former is far preferable.

          "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 07:03:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah. (6+ / 0-)

            I was basing my thoughts on info from NPR Planet Money podcasts about actual coins being created. Sacajawea, the presidential quarter program, the abortive dollar coin programs, how all those millions of coins are stamped and edged and ready to go into pockets but are in storage in huge vaults... and how they aren't actually considered 'money' because they hadn't yet been released into the wild.

            Planet money... good program. I'll never forget one of their late 2008 episodes where they were going over how to read bank financial statements... using an actual statement from one of the top five too-big-to-fail banks... and it sounded like they were explaining how it was either worth 1.2 trillion or -200 billion... and nobody was sure where in that range it was. Damn scary.

            It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

            by JayFromPA on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:12:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  It's actually the polar opposite of Ron Paul (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

      Ron Paul hates fiat currency and wants a return to the gold standard.  By effectively eliminating the debt ceiling, this is a firm commitment to the fiat nature of our currency.

      It won't create inflation until and unless it's spent -- which it won't be.

      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 12:58:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kerfuffle? You call that a kerfuffle? I knew kerfu (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lunachickie, WisePiper, Seneca Doane

    ...ffle and...

    Thanks for the history on this and the linguistic evolution that has  traveled with the concept.

    "This is NOT what I thought I'd be when I grew up."

    by itzik shpitzik on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:09:27 PM PST

  •  Rush Limpd&%k hates it (11+ / 0-)

    Liberals Eye Platinum Coin Strategy?

    That alone makes me like it.

    Obama coin

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:09:52 PM PST

  •  I remember reading a couple diaries, (0+ / 0-)

    clicking on a couple links.  Crazy libruls I says to myself, shaking my head...

    "Differences in political opinion are as unavoidable as, to a certain point, they may perhaps be necessary." George Washington

    by civil wingnut on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:14:27 PM PST

  •  A big success? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doc2, ConfusedSkyes

    Solving the debt crisis with a stupid trick?

    Nothing to be proud of.  

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

    by SpamNunn on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:30:31 PM PST

  •  heh (7+ / 0-)

    i wrote about it july 31, but i got the idea a couple weeks earlier, from this guy...

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:40:15 PM PST

    •  Unfortunately, Balkin blinked (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis

      I hope that he'll un-blink soon.  I was in that discussion with Balkin at the time.  Up until then, I thought that PPCS was a crock.  Then I finally figured out what it did.  It's what we call an aggressive interpretation of the law, but under the Chevron decision the courts are supposed to defer to the Treasury Secretary on the interpretation of statutory provisions within their portfolio.

      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 01:04:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  put George W Bush's face on it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    antirove, Nada Lemming, Seneca Doane
    Enter the platinum coin. There’s a legal loophole allowing the Treasury to mint platinum coins in any denomination the secretary chooses. Yes, it was intended to allow commemorative collector’s items — but that’s not what the letter of the law says. And 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.

    “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama XIV (-9.50; -7.03)‽ Warning - some snark above‽

    by annieli on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:52:25 PM PST

  •  It's a bargain whore's bargain. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ConfusedSkyes

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:54:39 PM PST

    •  What is a bargain whore? (0+ / 0-)
    •  Can (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      you be more specific, please?

      It is time to #Occupy Media.

      by lunachickie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:06:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I will be less oblique: it is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ConfusedSkyes, Sharon Wraight

        the easy temptation with inevitable risk -- and a clown suit and a discount message on its sandwich board.

        The trillion dollar coin is devaluation 'with a bullet', as they say.

        This idea is the McJob of money itself.

        It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

        by Murphoney on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:37:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  based on what? (0+ / 0-)

          There is a lot of good info out there on this--Seneca has provided several links and I think I saw some upthread. Can you tell me what, specifically, you've read that leads you to believe this is not a good idea?

          Please, be even less oblique. Otherwise, it would seem you're just casting vague aspersions :)

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:43:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  How is it "devaluation"? (0+ / 0-)

          Do you understand what a fiat currency is?  The spending is the devaluation (if anything is.)  Paying the bill when it comes due is not a devaluation; it's just wise practice.  This is raising the credit limit, not spending anything new.

          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 01:06:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  heh, really? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lunachickie

        or like my 11 year old niece says: 'reallllly?'

        this is a PBObama sux mainstay remark, he's a bargain fiend>>>whore.
        nice huh?
        < /sarcasm  >

        This machine kills Fascists.

        by KenBee on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:52:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So now I'm confused (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Seneca Doane

          because this is not a Rox or a Sux diary. This is a learning moment.  

          I'm not sure what there is to ridicule, unless he/she is saying that Mr. Obama wouldn't exercise an enumerated Executive power--which is, if I understand right, was created with this sort of situation exactly in mind during the Lincoln Administration, ferfuxsake, and is still the law of the land. But that he'd rather do "the Grand Bargain" than actually use that power.

          Mind you, that would suck, but there are other ways to say that...

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:01:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Unfortunately, it's still being ridiculed here... (5+ / 0-)

    but invariably in ways that suggest those doing the ridiculing have little concept of the law, monetary theory or macroeconomic dictates.

    Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

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

    •  Ah, so now the trillion dollar (8+ / 1-)

      seigniorage platinum proof coin is an essential element of monetary theory. It has become de rigueur for intellectuals everywhere to subscribe to this innovation. Only the those at the highest levels of intellect need apply. Right.

      •  Nope but if you're going to ridicule it, you'd... (5+ / 0-)

        better be prepared to back it up with specific arguments. The proponents of the idea have detailed why they think it's viable. Now Krugman has jumped on the bandwagon so I suppose you think he's a fool too.

        And no, the coin is not an "essential element of monetary theory" but it's utility derives from MMT as well as how our financial system is set up.

        Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

        by Ian S on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:23:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  All the proponents have said is (4+ / 0-)

          that it may technically work. I haven't heard anybody prominent say that it isn't a stupid idea. Krugman himself said of the "idea"

          These things sound ridiculous — but so is the behavior of Congressional Republicans. So why not fight back using legal tricks?
          So Krugman thinks it is ridiculous, and a trick. The only difference between he and I is that he thinks it actually would hold up in court, and I don't. Keep in mind, Nobel Prize in Economics or not, Krugman is not all-knowing about everything; he may actually be human with the possibility of being wrong about something once in a while.
          •  Please explain (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TealTerror, Sandino, Seneca Doane

            on what grounds this isn't constitutional.

            It is time to #Occupy Media.

            by lunachickie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:54:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's clear from reading the statute that (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sandino, ConfusedSkyes, elmo

              the ability to coin and choose the denomination for platinum coins was given for purely administrative purposes to handle numismatic objects (e.g. commemorative coins); that's clear to me, at least, from context.  Congress alone has power to set monetary policy, and it can't - even by a legislative act of its own - abdicate that power.

              The reason no one's sued the executive branch for, say, making a 2-dollar commemorative gold coin not explicitly authorized by Congress is that 2-dollar commemorative gold coins have no particular effect on the U.S. economy, and Congress is fine with letting the Treasury handle that.  In a case like this, you could try to argue strict letter of the law, but it's so clearly in violation of the purpose of the law that I don't see how it stands.

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

              by pico on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:24:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Perhaps you missed this diary (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Seneca Doane

                When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

                by Egalitare on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:01:24 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You know there's a difference between (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ConfusedSkyes

                  "violation of intended purpose of the law" and "violation that violates the principles established in the constitution", right?    

                  This is Clinton v. City of New York territory.  Congress can't turn over a clearly-defined power that ends up upsetting the fundamental divisions of government.  As I said in my comment, nobody cares when it's a 2 dollar commemorative coin, but the courts won't allow that statute to be used to trump Congress' monetary powers, even if it was Congress that passed it in the first place.

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

                  by pico on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:07:24 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It doesn't upset the fundamental divisions of govt (0+ / 0-)

                    Congress controls coinage.  Congress said "you can coin this."  The Executive says "OK, then we're gonna."  Congress says "oops, that's not what we meant?  Then they can repeal the law.  This is not what we call a "scriviner's error."

                    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 03:44:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But how is that different from (0+ / 0-)

                      what happened in Clinton?  Congress controls legislative acts.  Congress said "you can line-item veto this".  The Executive said, "OK, then I'm gonna."  Congress says, "oops, that didn't work out the way we expected."

                      The Court stepped in, and the majority didn't even rely on the balance of powers argument per se: they argued that legislative acts are the sole province of Congress, and that - even though this isn't what the law intended - the line-item veto in substance allows the president to sign a bill in a form that was never passed by Congress.   I don't see how that is markedly different from this law, which hands over a specifically enumerated Article 1 power to the Executive, and one that allows him to circumvent Congress' laws regarding the debt.

                      The one thing that'd protect the Treasury in this case isn't statutory deference, but the difficulty of anyone getting standing to challenge it.

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

                      by pico on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:51:44 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That's a great question (0+ / 0-)

                        The difference is sort of a matter of form vs. content.

                        In Clinton, it was the very form of the procedure that was constitutionally offensive.  Congress approves Statute A, containing provisions A1-A99, and the President signs it while vetoing provisions A51-A60 -- without which we don't know that the bill would have passed both houses in the first place!  Is this one law, composed of A1-A50 and A61-A99, or is it two laws -- the enactment of A1-A99 followed by the repeal of A51-A60?

                        It's two laws.  Congress only passed and presented one law, composed A1-A99, through its legislative process and presented that to the President.  The repeal of A51-A60 is a second law -- one that originates with and ends with Presidential action.  In it's very form, it's not Constitutionally permissible.

                        That's wise, too.  Otherwise -- prepare for a reduction ad absurdum -- we could have a dictatorship.  A Congress of the President's party could say "we hereby enact everything we could possibly do -- and we'll let the President choose which of it he'd like to veto."  The President could then do whatever he or she likes, without any input from the legislative branch (or through it the electorate other than his or her own election), so long as it was not prohibited by the constitution.

                        The platinum coin law, on the other hand, is a much less dangerous matter of content.  There's no question but that the law used a proper form.  It's content was -- and this is being generous to your position -- ambiguous.  (In fact, I don't consider it ambiguous: its statement is plain.)  We have processes to deal with that.  We can pass a clarifying law; failing that, the first interpretation is made by the federal agency head charged with enforcing the law.  That's uncontroversial.  Then, so long as the agency makes a reasonable and constitutionally permissible interpretation of the content of the law, even if it's not the one that the reviewing court would have chosen had it had the first shot at it, the court is supposed to defer to the agency determination.

                        This law is in proper form.  It's an exercise of one of Congress's enumerated powers, presented to and signed by the President.  It's not really even a difficult case.  If the Secretary of the Treasury says it's kosher, the court defers.

                        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 02:17:08 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  That is, in the first instance, the determination (0+ / 0-)

                of the Treasury Secretary to make -- and the courts are instructed to defer to any reasonable interpretation of the statute.  "Clear to you" doesn't matter.

                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 01:08:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  See my reply above. (4+ / 0-)

                  Reread Kennedy's concurrence to Clinton v. New York.   The court's not going to consider an undercutting of Congress' ability to set a debt ceiling as a mere "statutory interpretation", no matter how reasonable you think it is.

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

                  by pico on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:18:47 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It actually doesn't afford ambiguity (0+ / 0-)

                    "Of any denomination" means just that.  But fine, let it go to court.  Let the court say "OK, now you must cut all of this spending because the Republicans are being assholes."  Bring it on.

                    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 03:45:37 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Uprated for BS HR (4+ / 0-)

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

        by SpamNunn on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:37:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Lunachickie you have got to stop HRing (4+ / 0-)

        everyone you don't like.

        “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 07:48:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Clearly, only people who agree with you are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sviscusi

      enlightened.

    •  I'd say this is a reductio ad absurdum (0+ / 0-)

      of the law, monetary theory and macroeconomics.

      But, hey -- in a world where the planet's ice caps are melting, who cares about sanity? Mint the thing. And thank the Polynesians for inventing this wonderful solution:

      Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

  •  Ezra Klein is teasing a coin story on Last Word (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seneca Doane

    Any minute now...

    I ♥ President Barack Obama.

    by ericlewis0 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:37:50 PM PST

  •  I outsource my reaction to this to Booman: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jeff in nyc, sviscusi, ConfusedSkyes

    'Anyone who seriously suggests that the courts would uphold the platinum coin stunt or that it is legally justified by a plain reading of the statute, is either a moron or they are lying to you.'

    http://www.boomantribune.com/...

    •  I would add: or they are playing with us all (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      and Congress--and the whole crisis.

      “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 08:16:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow, a bold declarative statement (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FG

      Let me weigh it on this scale -- oops, it flew away.

      If the Treasury Secretary says that it flies, the courts defer unless the position is completely untenable.  Ambiguity is resolved in favor of the determination of the regulating agency.  The courts would be overturning precedent to step in.  Booman may not know that; I don't recall whether he's a lawyer.

      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 01:11:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emelyn

        but this whole diary reminds me of those times in first year law school where the law student begins with "one could argue....."

        •  My dear elmo, half of what has happened since (0+ / 0-)

          Election Day in 2000 reminds me of that sort of gigantic overreach -- and Republicans have generally gotten their way in most such things since then.  They don't hesitate to dream big.  We shouldn't either.

          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 03:49:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with you in general. But this is taking (0+ / 0-)

        the law pretty far from its original intent. So it's not obvious that the judges will defer to the Treasury Secretary in this case.

        •  What role does "original intent" have in (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FG

          statutory interpretation?  The Justices are supposed to give great deference to the opinion of the SecTreas.  I don't think that they'd likely override both that and the plain language of the statute.  And if they do, so what?  People will get mad at us for trying to save Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?

          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 03:47:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I kinda like this (4+ / 0-)

    reaction, myself. I mean, it's fairly reasonable, compared to the other two. That alone makes it worthy of consideration. Regardless, whatever it takes, we have to stop this hostage-taking bullshit. Our future with a functional government depends on it.

    The last appropriately passed budget was in 2009 but the government has been funded since then through Continuing Resolutions.  The most recent continuing resolution was signed on September 28, 2012 to keep the government funded through March 27, 2013.

    However, we officially hit the debt limit on December 31st, 2012 but due to the extraordinary measures of the Treasury Department, we should be ok until sometime in February or March....(this) could allow Pres. Obama to argue that the more recent Continuing Resolution has precedence over the older Budget Control Act of 2011 and that Congress has given implied consent to raise the debt ceiling to cover the expected shortfall.  

    There is no "surrender of Congressional oversight or power of the purse" as conservatives would explain it to you, they just implicitly give it every time they pass any bill that requires deficit spending over and above the previously established debt limit.

    Actually, there's precedence for this in the Gephardt Rule that established in 1979 that the debt ceiling was automatically raised to the level projected by the budget.  This rule allowed Reagan to Bush Sr. to have a combined total of 22 debt ceiling increases during their terms in office without any problems from Democratic Congresses.

    It is time to #Occupy Media.

    by lunachickie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:22:38 PM PST

  •  Authoritative history of the Platinum Coin Option (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WheninRome, Sandino, Seneca Doane

    Here is an authoritative article on the history of the Platinum Coin Option by LetsGetItDone, the earliest and most ardent promoter of the idea.

  •  Oh, platinum? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    billmosby, Seneca Doane, elmo, meralda

    I thought it was a plutonium coin.  Now THAT would be a coin.

    "I'm a Republican from the 80s". - The most "liberal" president in my lifetime.

    by Nada Lemming on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:49:27 PM PST

  •  Google Trends (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wigwam, Seneca Doane, elmo

    is interesting in this regard.

    Platinum Coins in search terms 2009-2013 (check the box labeled news articles).

    An article found at peak search interest in "platinum coins" in 2011,  The Platinum Coin Hysteria of 2011, by Dave Weigel in slate on July 31, 2011 credits the "lefty blogosphere" in the person beowulf, posting at FDL (Coin Seignorage and the Irrelevance of the Debt Limit for "frist" cred.

    Weigel strikes again lately with Boehner not entirely convinced by platinum coin solution thus confirming the transition from "lefty blogosphere" to our so called political reality.

    But mention the GOS?  Oh, noes!

  •  I don't know whether to laugh or cry (0+ / 0-)

    To be saved from our own idiocy by reinventing the wheel.

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

  •  Taken seriously? Srsly? (0+ / 0-)

    I read your diary and you kind of left that part unsupported.

    The money's already been appropriated. To arrange to pay it by raising money in the usual ways is allowed, not to mention required. The only legal way to avoid letting the executive branch pay the debts would be to un-appropriate the money.

    Leave fantasy coinage to the Franklin Mint. Or perhaps "Platinumline". lol.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:04:44 PM PST

    •  An appropriation is only permission to draw ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seneca Doane

      ... money out of the Treasury.  It doesn't put any money there.  That has to come through taxation, borrowing, or minting.  We've already spent the tax money and the GOP intends to block further borrowing, which leaves only the minting of coins.

    •  OK, I'll mark you down for "use the 14th Am." (0+ / 0-)

      I think that that's much more likely to be struck down than this.  It's nice to ground one's approach in a firm statute, not an airy constitutional interpretation.

      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 01:16:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Simple question for you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emelyn

        Would you, as a lawyer, be willing to sign a legal opinion  to the effect that the issuance of this particular platinum coin is authorized under that little commemorative coin statute?

        •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

          And I'd expect strict constructionists to respect it, too.

          You keep calling it the "commemorative coin statute."  I just checked: no it ain't.  §5112(k) is a top level subsection of §5112, equal to any other.  The title of §5112 is:

          "§ 5112. Denominations, specifications, and design of coins"
          Not "commemorative coins" -- "coins."  You may recognize some of the ones described in subsection (a) -- which has the same dignity as subsection (k).

          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 03:54:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site