Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans The Almighty Buck

Congressman Introduces Bill To Ban Minting of Trillion-Dollar Coin 1059

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the supervillians-gather-in-protest dept.
Dainsanefh writes with news that the new Congress isn't wasting any time getting back to work. From the article: "Lawmakers are still positioning themselves for a debt ceiling fight in a few months, but one Republican congressman wants to snuff out a particular idea immediately: the U.S. Treasury minting $1 trillion platinum coins to avert a debt ceiling showdown. Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) has introduced a bill to specifically ban President Barack Obama from minting the coins. The trillion-dollar coin has been previously discussed on Slashdot:"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congressman Introduces Bill To Ban Minting of Trillion-Dollar Coin

Comments Filter:
  • by Calibax (151875) * on Monday January 07, 2013 @08:47PM (#42512795)

    It's a long way from introducing a bill to getting it through Congress and signed by the President.

    • by headhot (137860) on Monday January 07, 2013 @08:48PM (#42512805) Homepage

      Yea, I'm sure if Obama is planning to use the only constitutional out, he probably would not sign this bill.

      • by Taco Cowboy (5327) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:00PM (#42512927) Journal

        I mean, why should the United States of America resort to legal loopholes ?

        Why can't America just face the reality as it is - that it is spending way too much money than it is making??

        How long do you think America can keep spending the money it doesn't have?

        I mean, even if America get the minting of quadrillion-dollar plutonium ingot going, the world doesn't have to "buy" it.

        All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means.

        Why can't America?

        • by headhot (137860) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:05PM (#42512977) Homepage

          We have separation of powers. Congress writes the budget, appropriates funds, and signs off on debt. Congress also knows that both houses and the President need to sign anything they pass. The President, constitutionally can do none of this. So, if Congress wants to defund things, it can, but they have to do it in a way the President agrees. Also, remember, the House needs to write a bill the Senate will pass. Forget getting it to the President.
          We just re-elected Obama, and the House and Senate, even after reapportionment, lost Rs. Its Congresses job to work with the President at this point, not the other way around.

          • by Shavano (2541114) on Monday January 07, 2013 @10:32PM (#42513901)
            Incorrect. If Congress wants to de-fund something, all they have to do is leave it out of their next appropriation bill. But they don't really want that. What they want is to grandstand, as evidence by this episode.
        • by PvtVoid (1252388) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:08PM (#42513015)

          All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means.

          Why can't America?

          Because countries aren't people, and different economic rules apply. "All of us" can't declare war, mint currency, prosecute crimes, or ratify international treaties, either.

          The sad fact of the budget debate is that retarded comparisons like this actually resonate with people. Inbred, mouthbreathing hicks, sure, but enough about Congress; their constituencies are even scarier.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by camperdave (969942)
            While some different economic rules may apply, but that doesn't mean that some don't. It is fundamental that you can't spend more than you take in indefinitely. At some point the interest on your debt is going to exceed your gross domestic production, and then you're screwed.
            • by Pulzar (81031) on Tuesday January 08, 2013 @12:22AM (#42514697)

              It is fundamental that you can't spend more than you take in indefinitely.

              It's not quite true... Due to inflation, increase in GDP, etc., the debt from N years ago becomes irrelevant, where N isn't all that large. If you look at the history of the revenue vs. spending, you'll see that US had a deficit pretty much every year since 1940s:

              http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 [taxpolicycenter.org]

              You'll also notice that in the 1980s, the deficit was about the half of the percentage points of GDP that it is now, and it's already peanuts compared to the current GDP and current revenue. The World War II deficit was 3x the current, per year, yet by the time 70s came around, it was equivalent of 2% of GDP.

              So, yeah, if your economy is growing, then you can keep spending more than you make. Many growing companies do that all the time, as it's cheaper to take out debt then to make money in other ways.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mikes.song (830361)
          Nonsense! The platinum coin is the perfect solution to fractional reserve accounting.

          Why don't you face reality. They allocate x amount of money. They charge 3-5% interest on it. And, all the money they allocated has to be paid back. It's a ponzi scheme. It's a ponzi scheme by definition. The debt is not ment to be paid back; it's ment to keep you enslaved.

          This is the perfect way to pay them back. It's not a legal loophole.
        • by chill (34294) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:32PM (#42513273) Journal

          This isn't about the world. This would be used to pay the Fed, who'd have little choice in the matter. The Fed owns about 47% of our debt. Foreigners hold about 25%.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:34PM (#42513291)

          I mean, why should the United States of America resort to legal loopholes ?

          Why can't America just face the reality as it is - that it is spending way too much money than it is making??

          How long do you think America can keep spending the money it doesn't have?

          Just as a bit of background: The President of the US is the Executive. Broadly speaking, Congress passes bills to authorize him to do Various Things, and Congress passes bills to allow him to borrow the money to pay for it.

          This "passes bills to allow him to borrow the money" is also known as the "debt ceiling". Historically this is uncontroversial and Congress does it as a matter of course. However in recent times, they've started pushing back.

          So we're in the faintly ridiculous situation of Congress telling the President to do Various Things, but not giving him the funds to do them with.

        • by Mitreya (579078) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <ayertim>> on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:40PM (#42513381)

          Why can't America just face the reality as it is - that it is spending way too much money than it is making??

          We should.
          But this debate is not about that AT ALL. The debt ceiling (and all the platinum coin crap) is about borrowing money to cover the expenses already approved (by Congress, mind you)

          The Republicans keep shouting about "spending too much money", but oddly they are not willing to cut defense spending or eliminate the useless TSA (or to stop arguing for more wars). Either way, the debate about spending has to happen during budgeting, not during the debt ceiling extension.

          All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means.

          While your basic point is valid, it has been repeatedly pointed out that government budget balancing is nothing like a family budget. A family cannot expect to improve finances by borrowing and investing into infrastructure. Moreover, family income will not shrink (recession) if said family buys fewer things. If government income was constant (i.e. salary-like) regardless of what happened to economy, you would have a better argument.

          • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday January 07, 2013 @10:40PM (#42513971)

            Is the government can't save money. Part of a sound personal budget is saving money in good times so it can be spent in bad times. Fair enough, but the government can't do that. It is meaningless for the entity that mints money to "save" it. If the government printed, or rather simply changed the entry in a database, so they had more money, but then didn't put that money in to circulation and "saved" it, it would have the effect as if they'd done nothing. If instead they actually took money out of circulation, kept it when they collected taxes or what have you, it would lead to deflation which is a very, very bad thing.

            So what does the government do? Well it borrows. When the government "saves" what it does instead is to pay down the amount of outstanding debt. Then when it "spends savings" it issues more debt.

            That is how it works. You can't compare public accounts to private ones because they function different. You can't demand that the government run itself the same way you run your personal finances, because they aren't the same.

            That isn't to say that the government doesn't need to keep borrowing reasonable, but it is very different than personal borrowing.

        • by aardvarkjoe (156801) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:53PM (#42513523)

          Well, Congress right now is mostly controlled by two political parties, one of which wants to raise taxes and spend more money than we've got, and the other of which wants to lower taxes and spend more money than we've got.

          As long as people keep voting these lunatics into office, this is going to keep happening.

          And honestly, I don't see that stopping before the US economy completely collapses. I only hope it takes long enough to do so that I won't be around for it.

        • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:53PM (#42513539) Homepage Journal

          I mean, even if America get the minting of quadrillion-dollar plutonium ingot going, the world doesn't have to "buy" it.

          The world doesn't have to "buy" it.

          It's just to get us over this ridiculous notion that Republicans should play chicken with the government every few months by threatening to not pay the bills we've already incurred. You know, things like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and such.

          There is a constitutional way to limit spending, and it's got nothing to do with threatening to not pay the debts we've already rung up. If the GOP wants to limit spending, they do it through legislation, not by toying with the faith and credit of the nation.

          The coin is a splendid idea, as long as the Fed covers it with bonds in a timely manner.

          The trillion-dollar coin is no more a "gimmick" than is threatening to refuse to raise the debt limit. Congress needs to do its job. The House controls spending and the Republicans control the House. Money doesn't get spent without their say-so. If they want to limit spending, then they should just do it. Problem is, they don't want their fingerprints on anything besides cutting funding to public broadcasting, Smokey the Bear and Planned Parenthood, and that doesn't even pay for one C-17 cargo plane (you know, the one that the military doesn't want but is built in John Boehner's district).

          They should mint the trillion dollar coin and put Ronald fucking Reagan's picture on it.

          By the way, today on Fox, one of the pundits said "Where are they going to find $1trillion in platinum?" Honest to christ, we've got dumbfucks leading the blind.

        • by Kwyj1b0 (2757125) on Monday January 07, 2013 @10:05PM (#42513645)

          All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means.

          I think you'd be surprised at how much debt the average household carries.

          Why can't America?

          I can pilot an aircraft, why can't I be an astronaut or land on the moon? This is an absurd argument. No one says that you shouldn't live within your means, but countries have a lot of different responsibilities and options than the average citizen. For one, the US can print its own currency - albeit causing inflation. A country owes a billion dollars to someone? Print a billion dollar note and pay them. They just reduced the value of the country's currency, but are debt free (unless they other party owns TIPS). And debt based financing is very common - Boeing might be delivering an aircraft at the end of 6 months to a client, but doesn't have the money for payroll stashed in a bank. They take a loan (debt) to finance growth (making a profit on the aircraft sales) while hiring employees. Countries do the same.

          You can buy bonds for many companies on the market - IBM, MSFT, etc.And if the country/organization is credit worthy, they can sell bonds at very low yields - effectively almost "free" money. If they use that for growth, they will profit. The same holds for countries.

          Basically, your analogy is flawed - debt isn't itself necessarily a problem. It is what you do with that debt that decides if you go broke or profit.

        • by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <taiki.cox@net> on Monday January 07, 2013 @10:14PM (#42513747)

          Because America doesn't operate like a person, America operates like, well, a business(except that it's primary goal isn't generating profit).

          Some guy on the internet has a good run down on this. [youtube.com]

          Besides, most of our debt is to well, us. And we're good for the money. The problem is the debt ceiling and the fact that taxes are too low and the rent is too damned high(or alternatively that wages are also too damned low).

        • America can, and hopefully will again.

          Balancing the checkbook is good, but there are times when it might be a good idea to grit your teeth and take out a loan. Imagine waking up one Monday morning in a muddy ditch with a missing front tooth and a vague recollection of your wife clearing out your joint accounts and running off with some musclebound thug, in your car. You painfully make your way home to realize that she's burned down the house. What are you going to do? Not balance the checkbook. Not get all high and mighty and track them down in South America either. (OT, ever read Dog of the South? Great book.) No, you're going to say good riddance and get on with your life. You're going to find a phone, call in sick, get your damn tooth fixed, buy a cheap suit, rent a car, get a hotel room, and get back to work as soon as possible. And you're going to do it all on credit. If you're not willing to go into debt here, you'll be severely impacting your future earning potential, ie, you'll be a filthy toothless bum forever.

          This is a pretty good metaphor for the shape the country was in when Obama took over, btw. It's even got a car in it. I'm not about to go blaming it all on Bush, either; there's plenty of blame to go around. Anyway: We're in an emergency. Balancing the budget through spending cuts, as righteous as some of those cuts may sound, is likely to decrease economic activity and make things worse. It's important for us to realize that deficit spending should be a last resort, and the goal should be to stop it ASAP. But it's not time yet.
        • by l0ungeb0y (442022) on Monday January 07, 2013 @10:49PM (#42514039) Homepage Journal

          All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means. Why can't America?

          Because FUCK YOU! WE'RE AMERICA -- that's why.

      • Congress could override the veto,but I doubt they would.

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday January 07, 2013 @08:49PM (#42512813) Journal

    “This scheme to mint trillion dollar platinum coins is absurd and dangerous, and would be laughable if the proponents weren’t so serious about it as a solution,” Walden said in a statement. “My bill will take the coin scheme off the table by disallowing the Treasury to mint platinum coins as a way to pay down the debt.”

    I couldn't agree more, we need to reign in this insane spending. But, you know, I would like to know why Congressman Walden voted against limiting funding for the war in Afghanistan [votesmart.org]? Probably because he's actually for spending taxpayer money, increasing the debt and then trying to stick the president with the bill at the end of the night so he looks like a dumbass. Well, too bad, you're all equal dumbasses when it comes to fiscal policy. All of this is just childish. The Republicans made deals with the Democrats to spend spend spend on both sides and now they want to act like they've been trying to stop spending all along. And it's getting ridiculous. And Republicans have a brilliant plan to solve all the problems by blocking any legislation and flirting with a second recession? Burn in hell, you're just as responsible if not more responsible for the insane spending (you're still writing blank checks for one of dubya's religious crusades).

    • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:18PM (#42513119)

      But, you know, I would like to know why Congressman Walden voted against limiting funding for the war in Afghanistan [votesmart.org]? Probably because he's actually for spending taxpayer money, increasing the debt and then trying to stick the president with the bill at the end of the night so he looks like a dumbass.

      This right here is the problem. The problem is that the debt ceiling has no impact on reducing spending. Why? Because only APPROVED budgets count against the debt ceiling. In other words, if a budget passes but the debt ceiling isn't raised, it's because some members of congress want to have their cake and eat it too by passing huge budgets and then complaining about them.

      The real solution to the debt ceiling problem is to either remove the debt ceiling discussion, or have it automatically follow the budget. Anyone who complains about the debt ceiling is either a moron or wants to score political points with morons.

  • What about this. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by p0p0 (1841106) on Monday January 07, 2013 @08:50PM (#42512827)
    You know that war you're fighting? The one with no point or purpose?
    Why don't you just stop?
    Like, just pack it up. Leave. Go home.

    Instead of cutting a bunch of little growths, why not just take out the tumour and save the effort? No one would blame you. No one would care. Oh sure we'll make fun of you for a bit, but it'll be forgotten, or rewritten. No one will really be that upset by it.

    Go on. We're here for you.
    • by istartedi (132515) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:00PM (#42512925) Journal

      You know that war you're fighting? The one with no point or purpose?

      You're going to have to be a little more specific. The war in Afghanistan? The continued occupation of former Axis powers that are now allies? The war on drugs? The war on dignity at airports? The wars on poverty where we spend $1 million /year to create one $10k /year job? All of them, or just some of them? Please specify.

      • by Colonel Korn (1258968) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:23PM (#42513169)

        You know that war you're fighting? The one with no point or purpose?

        You're going to have to be a little more specific. The war in Afghanistan? The continued occupation of former Axis powers that are now allies? The war on drugs? The war on dignity at airports? The wars on poverty where we spend $1 million /year to create one $10k /year job? All of them, or just some of them? Please specify.

        I think the American plan can be concisely described as the war on liberty.

    • Re:What about this. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by wierd_w (1375923) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:09PM (#42513025)

      The issue is that a frightening portion of the USA's domestic economy is beholden to government and military contracts. Without the spending, a huge part of the domestic economy will suffer implosions.

      Say for instance, aerospace. What do you think will happen to cessna and boeing without new contracts for fighters and bombers? (At several million dollars a pop?) What about the foundries, mills, chemical companies, and other satellite organizations that supply BOEING, Cessna and pals? If BOEING slows, or liquidates in the face of less govt spending, the avalanche in that industry sector isn't going to be very nice.

      This is what happens when the majority of an economy becomes dominated by a small handful of very large players; the system becomes far more vulnrable to a major upheval by a shift in conditions, much like the recently infamous banking disaster.

      "Just quitting" on major war expenditures would be catastrophic. A huge portion of the USA's economy is built around war profiteering.

      • by alen (225700) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:13PM (#42513065)

        We did that after the Cold War ended
        We got a huge economic and technological boost as those people were freed up for the civilian economy

        • by wierd_w (1375923) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:29PM (#42513241)

          For a very recent example, look at Hawker Beechcraft.

          They failed in the recent rounds of government contract negotiations for building fighter planes.

          Now they are basically bankrupt. Happened in under 2 years.

          The same thing could easily happen to BOEING, CESSNA, and other military parts and vehicle suppliers. This is because large corporations treat all funding as fungible resurces, and allocate money from profit leaders to loss leaders. (See for instance, the Cessna/textron mess of about 3 years ago.) Big players absolutely depend upon the military contracts they get, because without them, they logistically just can't keep operating on the scales that they currently operate under. (Note the hawker implosion.)

          The same is true for may other large scale industries.

          A reduction in military spending would have to be commensurate with an equal or larger increase in civilian contracts, and let's face it, the world only needs so many 787 and 777 luxury airliners. Military ones get blown up, and need replacement. Civilian employed ones don't get replaced excepting for when they blow up on runways, or fall out of the sky.

          Unless BOEING and pals start selling to international govts to offset local govt contract losses from military spending cuts, there will be a great shout of agony from the aerospace industry, and massive layoffs. Bet on it.

          That's just one industry too. The automotive industry has similar lifesupport ties to military contracts for things like humvees, ATVs, jeeps, and other military grade vehicles, and will take a significant dive as well.

          Foundries and chemical firms, faced with board-wide reductions in order volumes from the major customers, will likewise downsize.

          It would result in a catastrophic and phyrric reduction in economic power. That's why military spending is such a sacred cow.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07, 2013 @10:39PM (#42513961)

            "It would result in a catastrophic and phyrric reduction in economic power. That's why military spending is such a sacred cow."

            No, it's why it's the economic equivalent of crack cocaine paid for with a credit card. Break the fricking addition and invest in OTHER industries. Trillions of dollars tossed into guns, ammo, planes, tanks, ships, and on and on? More than the rest of the world spends IN TOTAL? It's nuts. Yet the country can't afford universal healthcare, inexpensive university education, or balance a budget without endless deficits whether the economy is bad OR good? You can't build generation after generation of prosperity on a false economy. And you don't have to change things via a drastic changeover. Change things slowly. At least get things headed in the right direction. Cut back a little at a time, redirect funds to where it will pay off over time. As someone else mentioned, the buggy whip manufacturers will transform or go out of business. As long as there are other businesses, it's fine.

            I mean, hell, I can think of one industry with a need for huge investment: energy. Stop building fricking tanks, and fund fusion research SERIOUSLY instead of making a token effort. Invest in EVERYTHING until there is a long-term solution.

            But the first step is to realize you have a serious and pathological problem in the first place. When even the military is saying "we don't need some of these weapons systems", but the legislators are still approving them for the sake of pork barrel politics in their local district, then what clearer sign of a problem can there possibly be?

      • by PerformanceDude (1798324) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:21PM (#42513145)
        Redirect the spending into the space program and reap the rewards. The US had a golden age on the back of the technological advances made possible through the Gemini and Apollo programs. It can be done again...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07, 2013 @08:51PM (#42512835)

    ....US Mint strikes $1.0 Trillion titanium coins.

  • by matty619 (630957) on Monday January 07, 2013 @08:51PM (#42512845)

    Would be more practical I think. But still, this sounds like madness. The end is near I'm afraid.

  • Moron. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07, 2013 @08:55PM (#42512867)

    Even if it got to the President's desk with a Veto-proof majority, he could order the minting well in advance, and the Mint would have it done.

    Heck, if I was Obama, I'd order up a collector's set of Jillion Dollar Coins just to fuck around with the collection of horse's asses that is the GOP.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07, 2013 @08:57PM (#42512899)

    The constitution grants the power to coin money to the congress, not the executive.

  • by GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:01PM (#42512943)
    You could totally see the Secretary of the Treasury going down to the vending machine having done an all nighter to buy a candy bar. He ends up depositing six trillion dollar coins and all he gets is a Hundred Grand in return.
  • by some old guy (674482) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:05PM (#42512981)

    Will it work in a snack machine?

  • by Required Snark (1702878) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:15PM (#42513087)
    This is 100% hot air. Instead of addressing real problems with real solutions, we are once again seeing the Congress bloviating instead of doing something.

    I want to plant this unsavory image in your mind: Rep. Wilson has taking the podium in the House chamber, unzipped his pants, and is waving his dysfunctional penis at everyone in the room, along with the television audience on CSPAN. As each House member (yes, it is a pun) responds to him, they also expose themselves and start failing around so that everyone starts looking at their genitals. Soon they are all yelling and competing so that everyone will look at them more then any other idiot in the room.

    This is pretty much what this proposal is all about: a mass outbreak of useless posturing that gets in the way of anything meaningful. I think we would, in fact, be better off if they were behaving like mentally disordered perverts. At least they would not be pretending to be "doing the peoples business", and would be acting out their true egomaniac personalities. The empty outcome would be identical with both activities, and exposing themselves in public would be much more honest.

  • by stox (131684) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:17PM (#42513117) Homepage

    is becoming an increasingly bad comedy show.

  • by Kargan (250092) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:24PM (#42513181) Homepage

    (One of Castro's workers tells him some men with a trillion dollar bill are here to see him.)

    Mr. Burns: Oh, so the island's not for sale, eh? Well, will you at least permit us to live in your socialist paradise?
    Castro (in disbelief): You talking about Cuba?
    Mr. Burns: All we ask is preferential treatment because of my fabulous wealth!
    [Burns holds the trillion dollar bill up.]
    Castro: May I see?
    Mr. Burns: Ho ho ho, see with your eyes, not with your hands!
    Castro: Please, we are all amigos here!
    Homer: Mr. Burns, I *think* we can trust the president of *Cuba*...
    Mr. Burns: [hands it to Castro, and waits a couple of seconds.] Now, give it back.
    Castro: Give what back?
    Mr. Burns: D'oh...

    (The three men are on a crudely made raft in the middle of the ocean headed back home.)

    Homer: It's hard to believe there's a place worse than America, but we found it!
    Mr. Burns: Yes, I, too, feel renewed appreciation for the good old US of A. Oppression and harassment are a small price to pay to live in the land of the free.
    Smithers: Sir, aren't you facing some serious jail time?
    Mr. Burns: Well, if it's a crime to love one's country, then I'm guilty. And if it's a crime to steal a trillion dollars from our government and hand it over to communist Cuba, then I'm guilty of that too. And if it's a crime to bribe a jury, then so help me, I'll soon be guilty of that!
    Homer: God bless America!

    --"The Trouble with Trillions"

  • by WarJolt (990309) on Monday January 07, 2013 @10:11PM (#42513709)

    If you print money, wages never keep up with the resulting inflation. If you are rich you have assets which will appreciate in value. The rich will never be hurt by these policies. Printing money is a secret tax on the poor and middle class.

  • by caseih (160668) on Monday January 07, 2013 @10:27PM (#42513851)

    Actually, from an economics pov, a trillion-dollar coin thing might actually work. Given that the last couple of rounds of quantitative easing had zero impact on inflation, and that we're in a liquidity trap, it's entirely possible that no inflation would result. The reasoning is that government spending is what causes inflation (in large part... fiscal policy), and since neither quantitative easing or seigniorage (the trillion dollar coin idea) changes that necessarily, inflation should hold steady. The money supply would only increase as congress spends it, which is about the same as now, in effect, since congress has been spending for years without paying the bill.

    I expect a lot of flames now... Yes there are flaws in the plan, but I am interested in seeing this idea explored in depth (pro and con) by economics experts. The fact that so many people, particularly Republicans, call it absurd while continuing to merely kick the can down the road makes me think (perhaps out of spite) that maybe there's something in that proposal that can finally break this vicious cycle.

    We can tell from other parts of the world that simply focusing on austerity makes things worse, not better. But continuing to simply raise the debt ceiling while risking people's retirement savings in government bonds, isn't good either. Except for the possibility of some inflation, and the question as to it's legality (since it would effectively break the Fed's power), PCS seems like quite a decent way out. Or else we should just admit that our grand experiment has failed and throw in the towel.

Help me, I'm a prisoner in a Fortune cookie file!

Working...