No Platinum Coin

[Bonestorm]

It counts quite a bit to those judging our creditworthiness.

How so? In the absence of a debt ceiling in the first instance, there would be no need for the platinum coin and we would just pay our bills by borrowing money (cheaply, by the way). None of this shit has anything to do with our actual creditworthiness.

Congress can just as easily pass a budget or increase the spending limit.

Passing a budget wouldn't do anything. Congress has to increase the spending limit. But the Republicans are using the routine task as a means to extract spending concessions. The only reason their threat has any teeth at all is the fact that no raising the spending limit would cause a recession and cause unnecessary suffering of millions for no good reason whatsoever. That's why the platinum coin shouldn't have been ruled out. The president had a perfectly legal and viable means for releasing the hostage but ruled it out. That's just stupid.

And let's get real here, the Republicans want to increase the debt ceiling and will increase the debt ceiling. I don't see why Obama and the Democrats should give up any concessions to get the Republicans to do what they want to do.

Businesses and governments use budgets for a reason.

There is value in a budget, but budgets aren't anything other than self-imposed limits on the amounts that Congress can appropriate. What in the world does this have to do with the debt ceiling? The President can't spend any money except as appropriated by Congress. If Congress wants to cut spending, it should just cut spending. No need to hold the economy hostage.

 

[Timshel]

How so? In the absence of a debt ceiling in the first instance, there would be no need for the platinum coin and we would just pay our bills by borrowing money (cheaply, by the way). None of this shit has anything to do with our actual creditworthiness.


Passing a budget wouldn't do anything. Congress has to increase the spending limit. But the Republicans are using the routine task as a means to extract spending concessions. The only reason their threat has any teeth at all is the fact that no raising the spending limit would cause a recession and cause unnecessary suffering of millions for no good reason whatsoever. That's why the platinum coin shouldn't have been ruled out. The president had a perfectly legal and viable means for releasing the hostage but ruled it out. That's just stupid.

And let's get real here, the Republicans want to increase the debt ceiling and will increase the debt ceiling. I don't see why Obama and the Democrats should give up any concessions to get the Republicans to do what they want to do.

There is value in a budget, but budgets aren't anything other than self-imposed limits on the amounts that Congress can appropriate. What in the world does this have to do with the debt ceiling? The President can't spend any money except as appropriated by Congress. If Congress wants to cut spending, it should just cut spending. No need to hold the economy hostage.

Any attempt to subvert the checks and blances of our system will lead investors to downgrade our creditworthiness. We are the safest investment because our government gets it together and finds, mostly, peaceful solutions. If we start going around the constitution and laws to try to find some backdoor way of doing things it will lead to political instability. Investors will punish us for it.

Passing a budget would give Congress an opportunity to direct our spending as it is rightly empowered to do. Waiting until it is time for appropriations leaves nearly all control in the administration as they can spend without a plan and then pressure congress with the urgency of department closures. It's possible the Republicans in the House might do this even with a budget but their position would be weakened. Still, they are justly empowered to control the debt levels while this trillion dollar coin nonsense is just an attempt to go around the democratic process. We need both sides to come to some sort of agreement.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/obama_is_right_on_the_debt_ceiling_20130113//

 

[Bonestorm]

Any attempt to subvert the checks and blances of our system will lead investors to downgrade our creditworthiness. We are the safest investment because our government gets it together and finds, mostly, peaceful solutions. If we start going around the constitution and laws to try to find some backdoor way of doing things it will lead to political instability. Investors will punish us for it.

(1) The bold is nonsense.

(2) How does the President subvert the checks and balances by exercising a power that Congress has given him through legislation?

(3) How is doing what the law says you can do going around anything?

(4) Nullifying the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip would almost certainly improve our creditworthiness as whether we decide to pay our debts (our ability is not a question) would no longer be subject to negotiation. We would just pay our debts.

Passing a budget would give Congress an opportunity to direct our spending as it is rightly empowered to do. Waiting until it is time for appropriations leaves nearly all control in the administration as they can spend without a plan and then pressure congress with the urgency of department closures. It's possible the Republicans in the House might do this even with a budget but their position would be weakened. Still, they are justly empowered to control the debt levels while this trillion dollar coin nonsense is just an attempt to go around the democratic process. We need both sides to come to some sort of agreement.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/obama_is_right_on_the_debt_ceiling_20130113//

Congress does direct the spending. You really have things quite ass backward here. As a preliminary matter, budgets are passed as congressional resolutions and do not have the force of law. They impose limits on what Congress can appropriate, but are not binding on the President. Their primary function is to tell the chairs of the appropriations committees how much money to appropriate in the appropriations bills, which include the specific limitations on spending, have the force of law and are biding on the president. The lack of a budget just skips one step of the process, but doesn't have any impact on what the President can do with the money appropriated.

Finally, there is nothing for "both sides" to do other than raise the debt ceiling. It's an argument over whether the United States government will pay for the spending that Congress has already approved. What is there to compromise? If Congress wants to cut spending, it should cut spending. No need for this dumbassery.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But the debt-ceiling itself should be done away with anyway. I find it kind of astounding that congress can pass a budget calling for some amount of spending, negotiated with the president, which will clearly go over the limit if followed to the letter, and then get frustrated at the president and demand some re-negotiation when the spending (that, again, you asked for) goes over the limit. What? Did you not know beforehand? How about, I dunno, not passing the spending in the first place? Doesn't that make more sense?

Which is, in my opinion, the very reason that we should have the debt ceiling. The more the public keeps hearing about the idiots in DC having to raise it, the more (hopefully) will begin to ask why it is that the idiots in DC keep outspending revenue to such extremes. It will also keep the total of the debt in front of the public. Sooner or later the public will wake the hell up and realize we cannot keep sending the same morons to DC over and over again without jeopardizing future generations ability to prosper.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Just a scam to get the price of platinum jacked up.

Curious... how would it jack up platinum pricing?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

tinny your an idiot and nothing you ever predicted came true.
You have a tin ear when it comes to insight and truth.
Your opinion is worthless to thinking people.
In other words .....
shut the fuck up donny

take your own advice desh... you, of all people, should not be evaluating the worth of someones posts. Just look at your above post. NOTHING of value. Which is very common for you.

 

[Bonestorm]

Which is, in my opinion, the very reason that we should have the debt ceiling. The more the public keeps hearing about the idiots in DC having to raise it, the more (hopefully) will begin to ask why it is that the idiots in DC keep outspending revenue to such extremes. It will also keep the total of the debt in front of the public. Sooner or later the public will wake the hell up and realize we cannot keep sending the same morons to DC over and over again without jeopardizing future generations ability to prosper.

Why don't we come up with some way to inform the public of the amount of debt that doesn't involve the risk of global economic meltdown? Just a thought.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

didnt some african country do this about 12 years ago and now a loaf of bread costs almost a million of whatever their currency is called?

The difference is that we are the reserve currency of the world. As long as we are, we can get away with stuff like this (assuming anyone would try it) in the short term. In the long term it will eventually crush us if left unchecked.

 

[Bonestorm]

The difference is that we are the reserve currency of the world. As long as we are, we can get away with stuff like this (assuming anyone would try it) in the short term. In the long term it will eventually crush us if left unchecked.

The platinum coin doesn't have to be inflationary, though.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Why don't we come up with some way to inform the public of the amount of debt that doesn't involve the risk of global economic meltdown? Just a thought.

Because the politicians do not want it reported. Because the media only cares to talk about it if they can sensationalize it.

How about we tell the idiots to stop over spending? But that would go against your belief that if the government doesn't keep on spending then no one will spend... doesn't it?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The platinum coin doesn't have to be inflationary, though.

Go on...

 

[Bonestorm]

Because the politicians do not want it reported. Because the media only cares to talk about it if they can sensationalize it.

How about we tell the idiots to stop over spending? But that would go against your belief that if the government doesn't keep on spending then no one will spend... doesn't it?

LOL.

 

[Bonestorm]

Go on...

It's quite simple, really. Platinum coin is minted, deposited, used to back spending above debt ceiling limit, Congress raises debt ceiling, platinum coin melted down, government borrows through traditional channels to cover previously platinum-backed spending.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's quite simple, really. Platinum coin is minted, deposited, used to back spending above debt ceiling limit, Congress raises debt ceiling, platinum coin melted down, government borrows through traditional channels to cover previously platinum-backed spending.

Ok... which is why I stated we are able to do it in the short term and get away with it. It is because we are the reserve currency that we can get away with that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

LOL.

great reply... thanks for once again proving your intellectual capacity is right around Desh and Jarod's

 

[Bonestorm]

great reply... thanks for once again proving your intellectual capacity is right around Desh and Jarod's

LOL.

 

[Timshel]

(1) The bold is nonsense.

(2) How does the President subvert the checks and balances by exercising a power that Congress has given him through legislation?

(3) How is doing what the law says you can do going around anything?

(4) Nullifying the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip would almost certainly improve our creditworthiness as whether we decide to pay our debts (our ability is not a question) would no longer be subject to negotiation. We would just pay our debts.

Congress does direct the spending. You really have things quite ass backward here. As a preliminary matter, budgets are passed as congressional resolutions and do not have the force of law. They impose limits on what Congress can appropriate, but are not binding on the President. Their primary function is to tell the chairs of the appropriations committees how much money to appropriate in the appropriations bills, which include the specific limitations on spending, have the force of law and are biding on the president. The lack of a budget just skips one step of the process, but doesn't have any impact on what the President can do with the money appropriated.

Finally, there is nothing for "both sides" to do other than raise the debt ceiling. It's an argument over whether the United States government will pay for the spending that Congress has already approved. What is there to compromise? If Congress wants to cut spending, it should cut spending. No need for this dumbassery.

1, That's right, none of it is nonsense, which I will assume you meant since there was nothing in bold.

2 & 3 are the same point. The power granted was not to pay our debts. Congress has power to pay the debt, not the President.

4, It won't improve our creditworthiness to use stupid ideas that subvert the constitution. Lenders will punish us for an inability to compromise in a way that shows some unity. Using the debt limit in this way has negative consequences too.

 

[Bonestorm]

1, That's right, none of it is nonsense, which I will assume you meant since there was nothing in bold.

This is the nonsense: "Any attempt to subvert the checks and blances of our system will lead investors to downgrade our creditworthiness." It's just not true. What will no doubt destroy our creditworthiness is a default. A move to eliminate the possibility of default will not.

2 & 3 are the same point. The power granted was not to pay our debts. Congress has power to pay the debt, not the President.

Congress can delegate that power to the President, and it has.

4, It won't improve our creditworthiness to use stupid ideas that subvert the constitution. Lenders will punish us for an inability to compromise in a way that shows some unity. Using the debt limit in this way has negative consequences too.

The platinum coin has nothing to do with the Constitution whatsoever (nor does the debt ceiling). And lenders don't give a shit about "unity" so long as we pay our debts. If you want to instill confidence, get rid of the debt ceiling altogether.

 

[Timshel]

This is the nonsense: "Any attempt to subvert the checks and blances of our system will lead investors to downgrade our creditworthiness." It's just not true. What will no doubt destroy our creditworthiness is a default. A move to eliminate the possibility of default will not.

Congress can delegate that power to the President, and it has.

The platinum coin has nothing to do with the Constitution whatsoever (nor does the debt ceiling). And lenders don't give a shit about "unity" so long as we pay our debts. If you want to instill confidence, get rid of the debt ceiling altogether.

It won't eliminate the possibility of default. It shows that we are less able to come together to meet our obligations and will lead to investors demanding a higher return. Even the guy who proposed the idea noted that that was likely.

Congress did not delegate the power to pay the debt through the law you want to take advantage of and reserved that power through the debt limit ceiling.

Our ability to pay our debts is based on our stability as a union. If the President starts acting like some two bit dictator to enforce his will then it will eventually lead to political instability.

It's not going to happen. It was a nice idea for academic douchebags to fantasize about but in the real world it does not work well with a democracy and the division of powers that has made us what we are.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100378214

Congress is going to raise the debt ceiling anyway. The only question is whether we are going to address our long term debt problems or continue to ignore them. My guess, is the latter.

 

[Bonestorm]

(1) I say we treat our debt "problem" like we treat our unemployment problem and treat our unemployment problem how we treat our debt "problem."

(2) I know all the cool kids are trying to denigrate a perfectly lawful solution to a manufactured crisis as "fantasy" and the product of "academic douchebags" but that isn't a good argument against it. The law says what the law says. There is no coherent reading of the law that makes the platinum coin solution unlawful. And spare me the nonsense about "stability as a union" and "political instability." You know what would really create political instability? If we breached the debt ceiling. Any perfectly lawful measure to avoid that should be utilized. It's a shame the President disagrees.

(3) Congress most certainly granted the Secretary of the Treasury the power to mint a trillion dollar platinum coin. Whether it meant to do so is a separate question, but it gave him the power to do it.