H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2013 01:23 pm
@revelette,



I notice Nancy Pelosi has demanded an unbalanced deal
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 06:20 am
@H2O MAN,
She has to demand something to avoid slipping into oblivion. And there is no balanced deal in the offing with wealth distribution so unbalanced and fat cats controlling Media.

I imagine she lies awake thinking up things to demand so she can be on TV again. They love it. They can't get enough of it.
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 08:37 am
@spendius,
Pelosi and HD TV is a scary combination
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 08:47 am
@spendius,
There's nothing new in it of course. Except that Byzantium and Ancient Egyptians trained their attendants from an early age to fulfill their roles rather than having a bunch of power-hungry, vulgar counter-jumpers who happen to have that gift of the gab style most seductive to the popular ear.

Other than that it is exactly what one might expect to those who study history searching for common denominators rather than flavours of the century.

The intrigue of the climb up the steps to the throne. And the throne now is the bloody voters. All of whom want more cakes, their feet washing and their arse wiping.

How on earth anybody expects them to know what they are doing under such trying circumstances is a mystery to me. Especially as the voter's modern skill of engineering a cliff-hanger has to be finessed as best as maybe.

When the voters get better at it, under the guiding hand of what are ironically known as opinion formers, all 50 states will become swing states. Not becoming a swing state is stupid really. It's like telling an auctioneer what you're prepared to go up to before the sale.

A few years ago the constituency with the largest Labour majority, all other candidates losing their deposits, was also the most deprived and socially backward constituency.

In the end it is a question of whether a system worked out on paper can outlast one that has evolved. Will the NFL outlast the football of the rest of the world?

The Industrial Revolution wasn't worked out on paper.



0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 09:59 am


Cost of the fiscal cliff deal
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 10:39 am
Quote:
I’m the former Mint director and Treasury chief of staff who, with Rep. Mike Castle, wrote the platinum coin law and produced the original 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 $1 trillion 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 Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). What is unusual in this case is that the law gives the Secretary discretion regarding all specifications of the coin, including denominations.

* 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 circumventing 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 constitutional 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


Cycloptichorn
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 10:55 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I hope he uses this option if the House Rs start their bullshit.
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 07:52 pm
@H2O MAN,
Apparently, the economy is getting worse because people who hate Obama say the economy is getting worse. Let's ignore all the economists who say things are improving and just keep hating the black guy.
jcboy
 
  4  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 08:31 pm
@jcboy,
So it has come to this. Hypothetical discussions about minting a $1 trillion platinum coin because Republicans don't want to be mature about paying the nation's bills. Raising the debt limit is not the same as requesting an increase in your credit card limit so that you can just spend more. It is equivalent to using your credit card (and, yes, incurring interest) to pay existing bills instead of defaulting and hurting your credit rating WHICH REPUBLICANS ALREADY DID LAST TIME!

$1 trillion coin is nuts but not $25 billion - Opinion

Quote:
Policy wonks are debating whether a $1 trillion platinum coin would be a clever or insane way for President Obama to play hardball with Republicans in the upcoming debt limit battle.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:55 pm
@jcboy,
The economy sucks because of skin color?

Is that what MSNBCNPRCNNABCCBS is reporting?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2013 10:49 pm
@jcboy,
So, do you agree with the article you linked to, or disagree?
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2013 10:00 pm

More of the same BS from Harry

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is among those urging Obama to consider invoking the
14th Amendment to find ways around the $16.4 trillion legal cap on government borrowing.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 01:07 pm


Is it true they want to put Michelle's head on the platinum trillion dollar Obama debt coin?

If the coin is big enough, they could put her ass on tail side, but that would require a massive amount of platinum.

http://i895.photobucket.com/albums/ac160/The_H2O_MAN/PrincessLetiziaofSpainFrenchfirstladyCarlaBruni.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 01:24 pm
@roger,
It's interesting to see that the republicans do all they can to strangle our economy, but it continues to show strength. Over $50 billion have been invested into our markets since Jan 1st, and my funds are already showing a 2.3% increase for YTD. It's scary, because I've never "made" this much money since my working days.

It's almost like an irony of errors by fuckups in the GOP.

They'll continue to hamper our economy, but even they aren't powerful enough to make Obama a "one term president."
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 05:43 pm
http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee399/rli7275/index_zps9bca8408.jpg
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 06:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
So, are you saying you agree with the article jcboy linked to, or not?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2013 06:08 pm
@H2O MAN,
The treasury recently announced they will not be persuing the trillion dollar coin. I doubt they would have put a living person on either coins or bills.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2013 12:12 am
@roger,
Doesn't matter whether I agree with that article or not, because I've expressed my opinion about this subject.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2013 11:45 am
At this point I'm in favor of President Obama announcing that he will not let the government default, that the US will pay its debts and that he hopes Congress will act responsibly but he will act if they don't. I think that would stabalize the markets and draw a clear line for both parties. If the Republicans induce a constitutional crisis over it, it will be pretty clear who the responsible ones are and who is playing politics.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2013 11:50 am
@engineer,
The republicans never learn any lesson from their past; even when it means that the cost to our government will increase the cost of borrowing from China and Japan, but they prefer to play politics rather than fiscal responsility.

Why "smart" people in the party doesn't have any backbone or ethics to depart from their normal "voting block of NO" is a mystery of our times. They're suppose to be the party of cost cutting.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fiscal Cliff
  3. » Page 47
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 01:47:19