PDA

View Full Version : can someone please explain to republicans what money is?



wardd
01-09-2013, 01:51 PM
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/933289/original.jpg

wardd
01-09-2013, 01:53 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/platinum-coin-nrcc_n_2440273.html

BrianW
01-09-2013, 01:55 PM
It's liberals who specified platinum. This just puts that in perspective. An interesting factoid at that.

If it's just a worthless note you're after, why not have them write it up on a bar napkin and call it good?

BrianW
01-09-2013, 01:56 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/platinum-coin-nrcc_n_2440273.html

Yeah, we knew. No need to link anymore wward, all your stuff comes via the Huff...

Canoez
01-09-2013, 01:59 PM
*Sigh*

Well now - just because a coin or bank note has a face value of $1, $5, $20 or $1 Trillion, doesn't mean it needs to be made with something of that value. I go for the bar napkin.

Actually - it was Congress, Brian. Platinum is the only material that Congress cannot control the minting of as a coin which is why everybody is all over that. However, Congress has to specify the design of US currency - at least as far as who appears on the coin.

John Smith
01-09-2013, 02:00 PM
*Sigh*

Well now - just because a coin or bank note has a face value of $1, $5, $20 or $1 Trillion, doesn't mean it needs to be made with something of that value. I go for the bar napkin.

Actually - it was Congress, Brian. Platinum is the only material that Congress cannot control the minting of as a coin which is why everybody is all over that. However, Congress has to specify the design of US currency - at least as far as who appears on the coin.

What should the "heads and tails" sides be?

BrianW
01-09-2013, 02:01 PM
...at least as far as who appears on the coin.

We should run a poll!

BrianW
01-09-2013, 02:02 PM
What should the "heads and tails" sides be?

The "orange guy" and "difi"?

PhaseLockedLoop
01-09-2013, 02:03 PM
What should the "heads and tails" sides be?

Gotta both be heads. Or both be tails. Everything else is rigged.

wardd
01-09-2013, 02:04 PM
someone please explain to brian what money is

htom
01-09-2013, 04:12 PM
Nixon & Obama. It really needs to have a face on each side, so it can literally be "two-faced".

Waddie
01-09-2013, 05:14 PM
someone please explain to brian what money is

It's the same stuff you wipe your arse with only with a dead president's picture on it.......

regards,
Waddie

S.V. Airlie
01-09-2013, 05:20 PM
Jeez wardd, the dems want to spend it as fast as possible and it isn't even theirs. Then again, no wonder they want to spend it. It ain't theirs..Ask them what money is?

Mrleft8
01-09-2013, 05:44 PM
Has anyone stopped to consider that THE TITANIC HAS ALREADY SUNK!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Gerarddm
01-09-2013, 06:00 PM
Jeez wardd, the dems want to spend it as fast as possible and it isn't even theirs. Then again, no wonder they want to spend it. It ain't theirs..Ask them what money is


<sigh> The debt ceiling issue is for money that has already been spent, not will be spent. And I might add, spent by both parties.

The bar napkin doesn't work because the law doesn't authorizing it, just a minted coin.

wardd
01-09-2013, 09:55 PM
Jeez wardd, the dems want to spend it as fast as possible and it isn't even theirs. Then again, no wonder they want to spend it. It ain't theirs..Ask them what money is


<sigh> The debt ceiling issue is for money that has already been spent, not will be spent. And I might add, spent by both parties.

The bar napkin doesn't work because the law doesn't authorizing it, just a minted coin.

and how much of that trillion can obama spend all on his lonesome?

Gerarddm
01-10-2013, 03:30 AM
Since revenue bills need to originate in the House, the answer is zero.

peb
01-10-2013, 10:48 AM
I am simply shocked that this idea of a trillion dollar coin is being taken seriously on the left. It is, plain and simple, a selective default on treasury debt; the selective target being the federal reserve. Why not just mint a bunch of $1000 coins that are legal tender and instead of rolling over debt, just deliver rolls of these coins to whoever holds the bonds which are maturing? A few months back, when the indefinite QEIII was announced by the Federal Reserve, I predicted that the left would soon be categorizing the portion of the national debt held by the Fed as not real, similar to how many of them categorize the portion held by the SS Trust Fund (How many times have we heard the a liberal claim that the real federal debt is 11T instead of 16T, because 5T is owed to government agencies? These are the same folks who will swear up and down the SS Trust Fund is real and not just an accounting gimmick). Well, now that the Federal Reserve holds well above $1T in Treasury bonds, it seems that they have taken it a step farther (or faster) than I would have ever guessed even a LWW would go. I knew it would be talked about as not real debt, but I never thought that the idea would be to just default on it so soon. And the White House will not rule this possibility out. Insanity, that is what it is, insanity.

peb
01-10-2013, 10:51 AM
Someone needs to explain to democrats who support this idea what money is and how it works; if they think this $1T coin idea is in anyway worthy of discussion.

wardd
01-10-2013, 11:06 AM
Someone needs to explain to democrats who support this idea what money is and how it works; if they think this $1T coin idea is in anyway worthy of discussion.

what would be the difference between congress raising the debt limit or the coin?

peb
01-10-2013, 11:20 AM
what would be the difference between congress raising the debt limit or the coin?
Do you really have to ask this question? Raising the debt limit, allows the US treasury to take out loans and borrow more money. The assumption on the part of the lender is that the loan will be paid back in money that has not been devalued beyond nominal inflation, which is covered in the interest payments that goes along with the loan. Minting a coin, is of course just physically printing money. If current debt is to be paid off with newly printed money, then the all money becomes worth less. It becomes a tax (extremely regressive at that) on us all. Go back to my proposition, if this is a good idea: why would we not just mint a whole bunch of $1000 coins and deliver one of them for every $1000 Treasury bond that is maturing to the owner of that bond? It is the same thing, except people are assuming that the bonds owned by the federal reserve bank are somehow different, and never need to really be paid back. Or at least the fed is not immediately going to put the coin into circulation, which a private bond owner would likely do. But just to make sure, you know we can't really trust Bernanke or the fed governors, lets make the new money denominated in such an astronomical amount, they could not distribute it even if they wanted to.

peb
01-10-2013, 11:39 AM
The Treasury only needs to do this when Congress authorizes expenditures which exceed revenues. The executive branch is obligated to pay for what Congress authorizes. Why this is perceived as anyone's fault, other than Congress' fault, is beyond me.

Essentially, the debt ceiling is being used as a device to try to compel the President to spend less than what Congress authorized. The analogy to 'hostage taking' is on-target and totally applicable.
Yes, well that argument was made last time, and the negotiated solution was to implement the so-called "fiscal cliff", which would allow the fiscal problems to be negotiated independent of any debt ceiling limit. Then, despite over a year of campaigning for a "balanced" approach to solve the problem with spending cuts and tax increases, the democrats refused to consider any spending cuts. So we tried this approach, and it did not work.
Furthermore, congressional authorization of expenditures is broken. We have a Dem controlled senate which refuses to take up for debate either budgets passed by the house of representatives or budgets submitted by the White House. And this has been going on for years.
So the only spending cuts we have so far are the forced cuts that were the result of the last debt ceiling debate. It seems obvious that it is the only way to get the President to even consider abiding by his campaign promises, does it not?

Durnik
01-10-2013, 11:41 AM
Exactly, Norman-

Republicans don't need money explained.. they need the paying of obligations they incurred explained. Like I've been saying for years, "Republicans, the party of no responsibility".

enjoy
bobby

beernd
01-10-2013, 11:46 AM
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/933289/original.jpg

Yeah,
and the hydraulic press needed to mint it would sink the Titanic four times over. ;)

beernd
01-10-2013, 11:58 AM
It's the same stuff you wipe your arse with only with a dead president's picture on it.......

regards,
Waddie

Oh no you don't, that money paper does not absorb s$$t, (no pun intended, no, well you decide wether the pun is intended or not :d), so you will smear it out all over your 'you know where' :p

Concordia 33
01-10-2013, 11:58 AM
The executive branch is obligated to pay for what Congress authorizes.

Then why has President Obama made so many executive orders where he does not enforce all or part of laws enacted by congress? He can't plead that he is a victim to the actions of congress when he has repeatedly bypassed them in he past. Even Biden has hinted that the President my use executive orders to bypass gun control legislation if necessary. President Obama is as much a part of this mess as are all the rogues in congress.

peb
01-10-2013, 12:08 PM
This is simply not true. The Democrats were absolutely willing to incorporate spending cuts... just not on the same spending items the Republicans wanted. It's irrelevant, since Congress spends the money.
Provide details please. You are wrong.

Nicholas Carey
01-10-2013, 12:29 PM
The Treasury only needs to do this when Congress authorizes expenditures which exceed revenues. The executive branch is obligated to pay for what Congress authorizes. Why this is perceived as anyone's fault, other than Congress' fault, is beyond me.

Essentially, the debt ceiling is being used as a device to try to compel the President to spend less than what Congress authorized. The analogy to 'hostage taking' is on-target and totally applicable.

The executive branch is also required &mdash;by law &mdash;to spend all the funds allocated by Congress. Done some decades back as a device to thwart presidents who didn't want to implement or execute programs created by congress.