Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/11/would-the-platinum-coin-freak-out-financial-markets/

Opinions on the topic? Do think it would be a good Idea or bad?

"The pessimistic view is that markets might indeed freak out. The coin might be a sign that the U.S. government has become even more dysfunctional than anyone thought."

You don't say?

Printing more money = devaluation. Don't think this is news to anyone.

Originally posted by Robtard
"The pessimistic view is that markets might indeed freak out. The coin might be a sign that the U.S. government has become even more dysfunctional than anyone thought."

You don't say?

Printing more money = devaluation. Don't think this is news to anyone.
From what I understand of the plan (and that isn't much, admittedly), the coin wouldn't be the same as printing off money, and there wouldn't be any devaluation, except a devaluation of the USA's prestige.

The sources I've seen have suggested that the coin is a negotiation tactic, a means of pulling the rug out from under the Republicans in Congress, and something like a nuclear weapon that's never supposed to be used but will be in a worst case scenario.

I can't believe that when Congress originally tried to close the loophole that allows this they went and specified "no gold coins worth over $100, no silver coins worth over $100 ..." rather than just say "no coins worth over $100".

Originally posted by Omega Vision
From what I understand of the plan (and that isn't much, admittedly), the coin wouldn't be the same as printing off money, and there wouldn't be any devaluation, except a devaluation of the USA's prestige.

The sources I've seen have suggested that the coin is a negotiation tactic, a means of pulling the rug out from under the Republicans in Congress, and something like a nuclear weapon that's never supposed to be used but will be in a worst case scenario.

Don't really follow that, as that would literally still be printing (or coining in this case) more money, as the coin would be legal US tender and not Monopoly money. But okay.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't really follow that, as that would literally still be printing (or coining in this case) more money, as the coin would be legal US tender and not Monopoly money. But okay.
I'm not well-read on it, but I believe that the difference is that it won't go into circulation, and thus won't change the money supply.

To me all economics is witchcraft.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
But the thing about the coin is we don't need the funds to back it up. In fact from my understanding the coin itself is being used as the funds to back up more government spending without raising the debt.
You'd ruin the economy to preserve the debt? I suspect that millions of people would lose their jobs and the corporate executives would reestablish their businesses in other countries to receive the benefits their governments have to offer.

Why not simply raise the tax?

Originally posted by Astner
Why not simply raise the tax?

Where do you live again?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Where do you live again?
Sweden, and we have some of the highest taxes in the world. And coincidently it's also one of the best places to live economically. In fact, my top-class education didn't cost me a dime, so in summer I'll be fresh on the market with a lot of well-payed job opportunities and no loans to worry about. We also have free dental care up to the age of 21, and universal health care.

I think what Sym was trying to tell you is that there's never a "simply" involved when you talk about raising taxes in America.

If it were that easy we would have already done it. Raising taxes at the levels required to make any kind of dent in the debt would be as hard a battle in the US Congress as reinstating the death penalty or outlawing abortion would be in Sweden.

Originally posted by Astner
You'd ruin the economy to preserve the debt? I suspect that millions of people would lose their jobs and the corporate executives would reestablish their businesses in other countries to receive the benefits their governments have to offer.

Why not simply raise the tax?

I didn't propose the idea so no I wouldn't lol. I am personally against the idea of the coin and not just for the economic impacts. The Idea in theory I understand but yes it would have an impact in some way. It's also an entirely underhanded abuse of power. Lets be honest this isn't just being talked about because its "a way to stop the debt" It's also the democrats way of saying "well republicans you have your way to do things but even if you do we will find a loop hole and do what we want anyways so just do it our way." That is unconstitutional even if only ethically. I don't care what party who is on, everyone has to admit (even if your for the idea) this sh*ts all over the idea of checks and balances in America. Everyone is suppose to come together and agree on how to handle things. If majority doesn't rule then thats where the idea comes to an end, not "ok so you want to cap the debit at this limit so I can't spend more money...do it....i'll just create more funds so I can still spend whatever I want." We have both sides wanting to do it there own way and not enough back and forth...but I guess that just been politics in America for awhile lol

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
That is unconstitutional even if only ethically.

Apparently "Unconstitutional" is the new "Unchristian"

My perception of all of this?

It takes more than a platinum coin to realize that our form of government has been growing perpetually less effective as the complexity our nation itself perpetuates at an eery rate from a political standpoint.

Yet our system has thus far been the most efficient system worldwide, which is perhaps why this thing is global. While browsing through various videos, I came across a video explaining a monetary bell curve, in which production is way up and yet everyone is flat out broke. I have watched hundreds of various methods to creating some wierd futuristic utopian society - robotic civilizations, the Singularity, Venus Project, Zeitgeit Movement, etc.

So, whatever is happening, it's something big.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Apparently "Unconstitutional" is the new "Unchristian"

not in the least.

My point is that its ethically unconstitutional while its not technically. While it doesn't break any laws or actually break the constitution its manipulating the laws in a way to achieve something (more spending) in a fashion that says "ok lower the debt cap to my spending and I will just find a way to spend anyways". That doesn't sound like a very good democracy to me.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
ethically unconstitutional

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

you know Ethically, Morally....ect

Basically what im trying to say its an unethical idea that is entirely, at its very core, the plan is the opposite of something that you would expect in a country founded in democracy.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
you know Ethically, Morally....ect

Basically what im trying to say its an unethical idea that is entirely, at its very core, the plan is the opposite of something that you would expect in a country founded in democracy.

Do you perhaps think that "unconstitutional" is a mere synonym of "bad"?

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
not in the least.

No, that's exactly how you're using it, as a vague term that signals condemnation.

Im interrupting like this....

America is a Democracy and the Constitution is what ensures this. Manipulating the law in a way to get what you want just because its possible you wont get it a different why flys in the face of this entirely.

I guess I should have said "in spirit it is unconstitutional" instead of ethically though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you perhaps think that "unconstitutional" is a mere synonym of "bad"?

Unconstitutional is a synonym for without law. The Left declares the Constitution to be a "living document", not amendable according to law, but rather by whim; rationalized by the all is subjective worldview where power determines who is favored by a legal double standard.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Im interrupting like this....

America is a Democracy and the Constitution is what ensures this. Manipulating the law in a way to get what you want just because its possible you wont get it a different why flys in the face of this entirely.

I guess I should have said "in spirit it is unconstitutional" instead of ethically though.
How is this against the spirit of the Constitution though?

For about seventy years the Constitution protected slavery, so how pure and immutable is this purported spirit?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
How is this against the spirit of the Constitution though?

For about seventy years the Constitution protected slavery, so how pure and immutable is this purported spirit?

Slavery was corrected. But you have a point, no legal framework will stand up to the corruption of the people. And when that happens, the people will not be able to stand up to the corruption of the government they sold out to.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
Im interrupting like this....

America is a Democracy and the Constitution is what ensures this. Manipulating the law in a way to get what you want just because its possible you wont get it a different why flys in the face of this entirely.

I guess I should have said "in spirit it is unconstitutional" instead of ethically though.

But, as far as I understand the constitution, it is the courts that decide what is in the spirit of it...not you. Obviously there's many different interpretations of what the intentions of the constitution are (especially since it's drafters were of such different political opinions in their time as well).


However that's sort of the thing, this political games being played, especially things like constant filibusters, may be stupid, immoral and should not be allowed, but it is not really against the constitution, whether it is in spirit, is very much up to interpretation. But even then, even if something is "against the spirit of the constitution" it is not "unconstitutional" in fact the problem, at least if you are against it, is that it is constitutional.

Originally posted by ThePainefulTrut
Unconstitutional is a synonym for without law. The Left declares the Constitution to be a "living document", not amendable according to law, but rather by whim; rationalized by the all is subjective worldview where power determines who is favored by a legal double standard.

I don't think that's a trait exclusive to the left.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
How is this against the spirit of the Constitution though?

For about seventy years the Constitution protected slavery, so how pure and immutable is this purported spirit?

But when the constitution is updated its typically for the better. Change is the only constant in life and we are slowly trying to change for the better.

Anyways I am all for change for the better but I don't think coming up with an idea that could potentially harm America as a whole is change for the better. This idea is just so one political side can tell the other "let us have what we want.....vote our way or we will do this". Thats not a democracy....thats an ultimatum.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But, as far as I understand the constitution, it is the courts that decide what is in the spirit of it...not you. Obviously there's many different interpretations of what the intentions of the constitution are (especially since it's drafters were of such different political opinions in their time as well).


However that's sort of the thing, this political games being played, especially things like constant filibusters, may be stupid, immoral and should not be allowed, but it is not really against the constitution, whether it is in spirit, is very much up to interpretation. But even then, even if something is "against the spirit of the constitution" it is not "unconstitutional" in fact the problem, at least if you are against it, is that it is constitutional.


And I don't disagree.

It's hard for me to explain what I mean I guess. Its not something im saying "is" against the constitution but breaks the spirit in which it was created. Kind of like if your split screening CoD and you watch the other guys half screen to find them and kill them. Sure it doesn't actually break the rules but it sure as heck isn't intended either.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
But when the constitution is updated its typically for the better. Change is the only constant in life and we are slowly trying to change for the better.

Anyways I am all for change for the better but I don't think coming up with an idea that could potentially harm America as a whole is change for the better. This idea is just so one political side can tell the other "let us have what we want.....vote our way or we will do this". Thats not a democracy....thats an ultimatum.
My point about slavery was that for about a third of the document's existence it saw slave owning as a fundamental right whereas now the institution is treated with abhorrence, so clearly the "spirit" of the Constitution doesn't amount to much more than fanciful romanticism.

This wouldn't be a change to the Constitution though--it's not even passing a new law, so I fail to see how it's Unconstitutional. What you're basically saying is that it's "unfair" or "underhanded" and trying to make it sound more perfidious by casting the shade of unconstitutionality over it.

And it's not as if the Republicans are faultless here, this whole coin business is just a response to what Republicans have threatened to do, namely to stall out the talks until we're in crisis and the Democrats will be forced to cut spending by necessity.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This wouldn't be a change to the Constitution though--it's not even passing a new law, so I fail to see how it's Unconstitutional. What you're basically saying is that it's "unfair" or "underhanded" and trying to make it sound more perfidious by casting the shade of unconstitutionality over it.

And it's not as if the Republicans are faultless here, this whole coin business is just a response to what Republicans have threatened to do, namely to stall out the talks until we're in crisis and the Democrats will be forced to cut spending by necessity.

So your saying its not unconstitutional unless your trying to pass it as law?

And if that where topic of discussion I would think the same thing about that as well.

Read what I wrote to Bardock. Maybe that gives a better understanding of my point of view.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
So your saying its not unconstitutional unless your trying to pass it as law?

No he's saying its not unconstitutional unless its actually unconstitutional. Things done by politicians you dislike can be bad, unethical, and immoral without being unconstitutional.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
So your saying its not unconstitutional unless your trying to pass it as law?

And if that where topic of discussion I would think the same thing about that as well.

Read what I wrote to Bardock. Maybe that gives a better understanding of my point of view.
A law can be unconstitutional if it contains provisions that conflict with the word of the Constitution. An action may also be unconstitutional (e.g. many would say (and do) that the President going to war without a declaration from Congress is unconstitutional), but for that to be the case there needs to be an actual conflict between the action and some part of the constitution. From the sound of it, the whole reason this coin is being considered is because it isn't forbidden by any law.

I did read what you wrote to Bardock--it's what convinced me that when you say "unconstitutional" you mean it in the way someone might say "that's cheating" or "that's unfair" in an FPS due to another player's conduct. It doesn't mean they were actually cheating or manipulating the game mechanics somehow, it just means that you think what they did was unsporting, and that you disapprove of it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
A law can be unconstitutional if it contains provisions that conflict with the word of the Constitution. An action may also be unconstitutional (e.g. many would say (and do) that the President going to war without a declaration from Congress is unconstitutional), but for that to be the case there needs to be an actual conflict between the action and some part of the constitution. From the sound of it, the whole reason this coin is being considered is because it isn't forbidden by any law.

I did read what you wrote to Bardock--it's what convinced me that when you say "unconstitutional" you mean it in the way someone might say "that's cheating" or "that's unfair" in an FPS due to another player's conduct. It doesn't mean they were actually cheating or manipulating the game mechanics somehow, it just means that you think what they did was unsporting, and that you disapprove of it. Doesn't the nature of a law depend upon my personal approval of it? Am I not the holder of truths and master of common sense?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Doesn't the nature of a law depend upon my personal approval of it? Am I not the holder of truths and master of common sense?
I'm afraid you are only second in command behind Spongebob now, my friend. He is our only hope.

The platinum coin is now a moot point. Less idiotic minds in the Democrat party have held sway and the issue is tabled--which doesn't mean it won't come up again. In fact it almost certainly will resurface in some form or other once we've become numb to this particularly moronic idea. Whaddoya think's been happening for the last 80 years anyway?

To be fair, the only reason they had to consider that is because the Republicans decided to not pay for what they agreed to spend.

Noo, it's because Obama's a socialist marxist who loves nazis.

Originally posted by Bardock42
To be fair, the only reason they had to consider that is because the Republicans decided to not pay for what they agreed to spend.

Wrong. The lilly-livered Republicans caved, then Obama doubled down his original demands. He wanted to go over the cliff. Look up the Cloward-Piven Strategy. They were acolytes of Obama's guru, Saul Alinsky.


Originally posted by BackFire
Noo, it's because Obama's a socialist marxist who loves nazis.

Finally. Somebody with their finger on the pulse of reality.

Originally posted by ThePainefulTrut
Wrong. The lilly-livered Republicans caved, then Obama doubled down his original demands. He wanted to go over the cliff. Look up the Cloward-Piven Strategy. They were acolytes of Obama's guru, Saul Alinsky..

You convinced me, Obama is a filthy Troskyite.

The trillion dollar coin is a concept that emerged during the United States debt-ceiling crisis in 2011, as a proposed way to bypass any necessity for the United States Congress to raise the country's borrowing limit, through the minting of very high value platinum coins. These coins would be purchased by the Federal Reserve, thereby giving the US Treasury the money it needs to pay for maturing Treasury securities




______________________
night clubs las vegas

Originally posted by ThePainefulTrut
Unconstitutional is a synonym for without law. The Left declares the Constitution to be a "living document", not amendable according to law, but rather by whim; rationalized by the all is subjective worldview where power determines who is favored by a legal double standard. power relations always determine who is favored by legal double standards, in fact, they invariably define the law itself. your constitution, like all others, was created by this process exactly. this is not a product of subjectivism or contemporary left wing thought. at all.