Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Republicans The Almighty Buck

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

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This discussion has been archived.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 eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <> 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 []? 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 Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:06PM (#42512985)

    When US tax payers have had enough, expect the lower classes to act as the Europeans who want something for just converting oxygen into CO2

    Why? Isn't unemployment the only thing keeping all these millions of people from getting jobs? Once it runs out, aren't all the "job creators" going to come forth with a couple hundred million positions to make sure that everyone who wants to work, can?

  • 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.

  • Re:A $billion coin (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sasayaki ( 1096761 ) on Monday January 07, 2013 @09:18PM (#42513131)

    A billion dollars is a rounding error when it comes to the DoD budget, which for 2012 was $707.5 billion (source: []).

  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday January 07, 2013 @10:07PM (#42513669)

    Because people will take out more than they put in with all of those systems. No, enough interest is not earned to make up the difference.

    Not anymore: Social Security Now Takes More Than it Gives [] (or Google: SSI return on investment)

    Looking at numbers from an Urban Institute study, the AP found that a married couple retiring in 2011 after both spouses earned average income during their lives paid total Social Security taxes of $598,000. They can expect to collect $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85.

    On the other hand, Medicare: [] (or Google: Medicare return on investment)

    his typical person paid around $64,971 in Medicare payroll taxes over his lifetime. Likewise, after netting out Medicare premiums, he’ll receive around $173,886 in lifetime Medicare benefits. The net? He can expect to receive around $108,915 more in benefits than he paid in taxes over his lifetime.

    So the times, they are a changing.

  • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Monday January 07, 2013 @10:44PM (#42513995)

    Because the same group that controls the budget, controls it. Congress sets both, and there is just no reason to have the debt ceiling in that case. It would only be useful if some other party controlled it. It is just a position for political grandstanding as it stands. There is no point to having a limit on someone if that person is the one who sets the limit and can raise it as they please.

    It should just be eliminated.

  • by Alomex ( 148003 ) on Monday January 07, 2013 @10:55PM (#42514081) Homepage

    So in the long run, taxes (and spending) just keep going up and up and up.

    I call BS. Let's look at famously "high taxes" countries in Europe. Taxes in Germany are the same as they were in 1975. France are at the same level as in 1985, Sweden same as in 1975. UK same as in 1980. Netherlands same as in 1973. Canada same level as in 1980. USA same level as in 1965.

  • by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Monday January 07, 2013 @11:16PM (#42514205)

    More American voted for Democrats than for Republicans [] in the house. The only reason the kept the house is because of gerrymandering.

    The author of that article you link to is also either badly confused, or trying to mislead the reader. Elections for representatives in the House are on a per-district basis only, it isn't based on some sort of national tally. A heavy Democratic party vote in a couple of large states could easily result in an aggregate house vote count nationally for Democrats well above that for Republicans, but that is meaningless nationally since each district votes to elect its own representative. A million to 1 Democratic votes in San Francisco, California, doesn't help a Democrat running in Reno, Nevada.

    There is a lot more to it than that. Of course, even then it isn't quite so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, it is?

    Michael Barone: Republicans Find Refuge in the House []

    The GOP has now won control of the House in eight of the past 10 congressional elections, dating back to 1994. When I began following politics it seemed like that would never happen. Republicans failed to win a majority in the House in the 20 elections between 1954 and 1992. Political scientists wrote articles about how the Democrats would always have a lock on the House. . .

    Democrats seem to have a structural advantage these days in the Electoral College. . .

    The House is another matter. Here the Republicans have some structural advantages which, with good luck, have given them House majorities eight of the last 10 times. That is important, because since the mid-1990s Americans have become straight-ticket voters, seldom voting for candidates of different parties.

    One structural advantage is demographic. Democratic voters tend to be clustered in black, Latino and gentry-liberal neighborhoods in metropolitan areas. Republican voters are more spread out. In 2008, Mr. Obama carried 28 congressional districts with more than 80% of the vote. John McCain carried zero congressional districts by that margin; Mr. Romney may have gotten that much in a couple of districts in Utah.

    Those heavily Democratic neighborhoods contribute to the landslide margins candidate Obama has won in states like California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Illinois. But their voters don't do as much to elect Democratic House members as they would if they were spread randomly through the population. In addition, many such areas have been losing population and therefore representation in the House.

    On top of this is another Republican structural advantage: the Voting Rights Act. The prevailing interpretation of this otherwise benign law is that redistricters must maximize the number of "majority-minority" congressional districts. That means packing blacks and Latinos into certain districts and keeping them out of adjacent districts that tend to go Republican. This results in districts with grotesque and elongated boundaries to fit the bill of majority-minority. . .

    A third Republican structural advantage used to belong to the Democrats: the South. . . . The Solid South helped Democrats maintain House majorities in the 1960s, '70s and '80s. . . But as the Democratic Party became more liberal, white Southerners started voting Republican for president in the 1960s, and in the straight-ticket 1990s Republicans replaced white Southern Democrats in droves. . . more []

  • by Ksevio ( 865461 ) on Monday January 07, 2013 @11:45PM (#42514445) Homepage
    What was it that Mitt Romney said he paid? 15%? Their tax rate might be 35% but they're not paying 35%
  • by Ksevio ( 865461 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2013 @01:10AM (#42515013) Homepage
    Or maybe just take away Churches as charities.

They are called computers simply because computation is the only significant job that has so far been given to them.