Reply With Quote
Sounds good to me. I'm tired of hearing about it. Does that mean I can do the same and not pay taxes?
So I heard it on Rush and could not believe it was true.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...inst-the-coin/
Make a Trillion dollar coin, deposit it into the Fed.
WTF!!
Sounds good to me. I'm tired of hearing about it. Does that mean I can do the same and not pay taxes?
This idea came up the when they were doing the debt ceiling dance in august of 2011 too. (I believe the idea predates that as well).
unfortunately you don't have the authority to mint any denomination of coin like the treasury secretary.
A money tree!!!
I'm the former Mint director and Treasury chief of staff who, with Rep. Mike Castle, wrote the platinum coin law and produced the coin authorized by the law. Therefore, I'm in a unique position to address some confusion I've seen in the media about the $1 trillion platinum coin proposal.
* In minting the platinum coin, the Treasury Secretary would be exercising authority which Congress has granted routinely for more than 220 years. The Secretary's authority is derived from an Act of Congress (in fact, a GOP Congress) under power expressly granted to Congress in the Cons ution (Article 1, Section 8).
* What is unusual about the law (Sec. 5112 of le 31, United States Code) is that it gives the Secretary complete discretion regarding all specifications of the coin, including denominations.
* Moreover, the accounting treatment of the coin is identical to the treatment of all other coins. The Mint strikes the coin, ships it to the Fed, books $1 trillion, and transfers $1 trillion to the treasury's general fund where it is available to finance government operations just like with proceeds of bond sales or additional tax revenues. The same applies for a quarter dollar.
* Once the debt limit is raised, the Fed ships the coin back to the Mint, the accounting treatment is reversed, and the coin is melted. The coin would never be "issued" or circulated and bonds would not be needed to back the coin.
* There are no negative macroeconomic effects. This works just like additional tax revenue or borrowing under a higher debt limit. In fact, when the debt limit is raised, Treasury would sell more bonds, the $1 trillion dollars would be taken off the books, and the coin would be melted.
* This does not raise the debt limit so it can't be characterized as cir venting congressional authority over the debt limit. Rather, it delays when the debt limit is reached.
* This preserves congressional authority over the debt limit in a way that reliance on the 14th Amendment would not. It also avoids the protracted court battles the 14th Amendment option would entail and avoids another confrontation with the Roberts Court.
* Any court challenge is likely to be quickly dismissed since (1) authority to mint the coin is firmly rooted in law that itself is grounded in the expressed cons utional powers of Congress, (2) Treasury has routinely exercised this authority since the birth of the republic, and (3) the accounting treatment of the coin is entirely routine.
* Yes, this is an unintended consequence of the platinum coin bill, but how many other pieces of legislation have had unintended consequences? Most, I'd guess.
Philip N. Diehl 35th Director United States Mint en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_N._Diehl
This is Hitler like . All these "no political red tape" stories are basically saying these "leaders" are no longer in check by any other branch. Hey, it's an emergency, let's bypass the BoR and just do this quickly, leave your doors unlocked so we don't have to kick them down, and don't interfere with the officers when they take things. It's for the common good.
Darn, there goes that leverage...
it's not going to happen, but it is fun watching board conservatives melt down over the prospect.
Better than a coin trick, Barry should just IGNORE THE BOGUS LIMIT as is the Exec's Cons utional right, and the tea bagging Repug Congress hard and deep.
related to relations between the states. how do you get from there to relations between the executive and legislative branches?
(I'm a little surprised boutons does not find Section 4 of the 14th Amendment in his blue team RSS feed.)
then again, boutons seldom descends to the granular level; much prefers glittering generalities.
"full faith and credit" of the USA to guarantee its debts to anybody, like SS administration, the 1% that dominates T-bond holdings. The Repug Congress attempts to arbitrarily limit the US debt (after they increased the debt by killing tax revenues) is threat to the "full faith and credit" of the USA.
It's more fun to watch the forum slamholes get dragged into the fray.
btw, St Ronnie the Diseased and his Repug assholes switched the USA from "tax and spend" to (cut taxes on the wealthy, corporations,) "borrow and spend", part of the VRWC strategy to increase the US debt, then Fix-The-Debt by screwing the 99%.
glittering would be an improvement.
^^^pseudo-logical, ungrammatical and just plain pitiful
dragged? I doubt it. posting is and remains optional, but your meltdown was plain to see.
I stopped at 'I heard it on Rush...'
This. I was about to get upset myself until I heard, days ago, that the WH has already said that they weren't going to do it.
So all the drama about it is merely that.
Validity of public debt
Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither the United States nor any state would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. For example, during the Civil War several British and French banks had lent large sums of money to the Confederacy to support its war against the Union.[47] In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States government bond "went beyond the congressional power."[48]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Cons ution
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
