Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Congressman Introduces Bill To Ban Minting of Trillion-Dollar Coin

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the supervillians-gather-in-protest dept.

Republicans 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:"

cancel ×

1059 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Any member can introduce a bill but... (5, Insightful)

Calibax (151875) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512795)

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

Re:Any member can introduce a bill but... (4, Insightful)

headhot (137860) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512805)

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

Can't America get its acts together ? (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512927)

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?

Re:Can't America get its acts together ? (5, Insightful)

headhot (137860) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512977)

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.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513097)

Not really. The majority in the House is still held by Rs. Their job is to represent their consitituents. Perhaps this leads to roadblock. I hope so.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ? (5, Informative)

gtbritishskull (1435843) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513255)

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

Re:Can't America get its acts together ? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513361)

That's why it's not a national popular vote.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ? (0, Flamebait)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513417)

to provide means for the more dishonest party to hold on to power unjustly?

Re:Can't America get its acts together ? (4, Insightful)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about a year and a half ago | (#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:Can't America get its acts together ? (3, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513317)

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.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ? (3, Insightful)

mikes.song (830361) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513021)

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.

Re: Can't America get its acts together ? (2)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513141)

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

That's what I thought - isn't that limited by how much other countries are willing to borrow the US? Regardless of whether it will be reached or not, there will be a limit to that. And if the SHTF, the US can mint all the trillion-dollar coins it wants, it wouldn't make any difference, right?

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

In an ideal world, yes. In the real world, I suspect a significant part of the population will spend whatever money they can get their hands on. More credit, more spending. Essentially limited by whomever is providing that credit. Why would this be any different for a capitalist-crazy country?

Re:Can't America get its acts together ? (4, Insightful)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513273)

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%.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ? (5, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:Any member can introduce a bill but... (2)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513199)

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

Re:Any member can introduce a bill but... (1)

zubieta (2653061) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512819)

Sometimes if enough parties are interested, they can be willing to skip things, I mean, remember SOPA, they were voting articles in BLOCKS

Re:Any member can introduce a bill but... (0)

matty619 (630957) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512823)

They *can* override a presidential veto with a 60% majority vote I believe. But, yes, you're still correct.

Re:Any member can introduce a bill but... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42512863)

Actually it would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to override a presidential veto. Unlikely.

Re:Any member can introduce a bill but... (2, Insightful)

readin (838620) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512921)

Passing a law is not the same as having it followed, as recent Presidential actions on immigration have demonstrated.

Re:Any member can introduce a bill but... (1)

Bigby (659157) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513179)

There is a difference between:
a law to do something and they don't execute on it
vs
a law to not do something and they still execute it

The former is around immigration and drug enforcement laws. The latter would be a direct breach of law, like torture, Patriot Act, and some gun control (city bans).

Re:Any member can introduce a bill but... (4, Insightful)

gtbritishskull (1435843) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513335)

Passing a law is not the same as having it followed

Exactly. Like the spending bills that Congress has passed that cannot be implemented if the debt limit is not raised.

Re:Any member can introduce a bill but... (1)

mjwx (966435) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512883)

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

Yes, but beyond that it's only a short amount of time before Mr Burns steals it.

Ban the printing of Obamacoins (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42512801)

It's time to also raid electric companies that supply bitcoin miners too.

Black helicopters, we are flying over Slashdot.

frist ps0t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42512807)

pwned j00!!!1!!

Re:frist ps0t (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42512995)

FAIL!

Simpsons did it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42512809)

first [wikipedia.org]

Yes, End the Insane Spending (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512813)

“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).

Re:Yes, End the Insane Spending (-1, Troll)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512935)

As long as we cut spending on the freeloading 47% and not the job creators, the Republicans will be for it.

Re:Yes, End the Insane Spending (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513077)

As long as we cut spending on the freeloading 47% and not the job creators, the Republicans will be for it.

Those are fairly interesting names with an odd number thrown out. I imagine you've researched that quite well and come to the conclusion that all of the 47% you speak of are freeloaders and all of the other 53% are "job creators?" Would you care to cite your sources? Perhaps we should stop spending money on infrastructure since those freeloaders will just mooch off it? I mean, the war in Afghanistan is such a worthy cause compared to our education system, communications networks, interstates, disaster response, etc ...

You're free to research and think for yourself instead of parroting what either party says. Why did you call 47% of the country freeloaders? Isn't that someone who contributes nothing and takes takes takes?

Re:Yes, End the Insane Spending (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513187)

Sarcasm detector busted again?

Re:Yes, End the Insane Spending (2)

paulmac84 (682014) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513271)

I'm not American, have no more than a passing interest in American politics, but even I got where the 47% came from [time.com] .

Oh, and whoosh!

Re:Yes, End the Insane Spending (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513323)

I'm not American, have no more than a passing interest in American politics, but even I got where the 47% came from [time.com] .

Oh, and whoosh!

So what Romney feels is fact now?

Re:Yes, End the Insane Spending (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513429)

So Republicans require facts to justify their actions now?

Re:Yes, End the Insane Spending (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513101)

Anyone who actually works for a living will be for that.

You know who the freeloaders are? (4, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513191)

Banks. People that charge interest on loans. It's just lazy rent seeking. But it adds no value to the economy and only serves as a means of concentrating capital into a few wealthy folks. Like, do you really believe that the the only people that work are the people that push buttons on Wall Street, right before they beg for a bailout. Yep, sounds about right to me. I think a 47% that makes sandwiches at Wawa does more useful work than a lot of people that work at brokerages.

Re:Yes, End the Insane Spending (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:Yes, End the Insane Spending (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513251)

This is the problem with the public. You want to end spending but because this is a republican and he has some agenda revolving around the law he introduced (probably just to make the president look bad) you denounce it. Instead, support legislation that achieves your goals. I'll vote for anyone that'll lower taxes and spend less. Unfortunately that amounts to pretty much no-one in either party and I'm only allowed to vote for those 2 parties so I'm screwed.

Re:Yes, End the Insane Spending (0)

pwizard2 (920421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513283)

And tell the Republicans who are looking for things to cut to keep their fucking hands off social security, medicare/medicaid, and other social programs that people have come to rely on the last few years. People pay into SS their whole working lives, so how dare the Republicans consider it to be an "entitlement"?

What about this. (4, Insightful)

p0p0 (1841106) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:What about this. (5, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512925)

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.

Re:What about this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513147)

Does the bill ban JUST platinum coins? What about the new tin-iron-manganese undecillion dollar coin?

What's to stop Tax-Dodge-Tim from taking an existing coin, like a Washington quarter, writing "$10^100" on it in magic-marker and declaring it a Gogoldollar? Our money is basically imaginary anyway, so fuck it, why not, right?

Re:What about this. (4, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about a year and a half ago | (#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. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513287)

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

IMHO, it's just an effect of selfish people in power. Liberty is just collateral damage in their quest to get the high score on the games played at cocktail parties. I doubt they approach Liberty or any other ideal with malice. They simply approach wealth, power, and prestige the way a glutton approaches a chocolate cake. If they trip over a baby on the way to the table, well... that's just too bad.

Re:What about this. (4, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#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:What about this. (5, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#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

Re:What about this. (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:What about this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513347)

there were still lots of small secret -semi secret wars that were being fought in our names
ask south america or eastern europe

Re:What about this. (5, Insightful)

PerformanceDude (1798324) | about a year and a half ago | (#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...

Re:What about this. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513219)

Or better yet, something that actual citizens would use, high speed rail, better school funding, better healthcare spending, crumbling roads, taking care of the mentally ill, etc. Cruise effing missiles and a few people going to the moon don't actually effect very many people's actual quality of life.

Re:What about this. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513313)

Disband the military and let the market fix it. It can't be any worse than the alternative.

Re:What about this. (3, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513385)

Oh yes it can.

Bill collectors don't offer amnesty, and corporations, especially really big ones, that keep large active debts to shelter taxes with, suddenly having the table cloth pulled out from under their houses of cards, are going to fold faster than you could ever imagine possible if you just "disband the military, and let the market sort it out." The way the market would be forced to sort it out, would make our current recession look like a bull market.

Re:What about this. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513123)

Why don't you just stop?

http://media.cleveland.com/nationworld_impact/photo/time-magazine-afghan-girl-nosejpg-353a12e38f89803a_large.jpg

That's why.

Re:What about this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513435)

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.

That war you keep referring to... I do not think the Russians would prefer to leave it ongoing. I believe it has something to do with it being tied closely to the global War on Drugs. Only 100% of the heroin in Russia comes directly from Afghanistan.

Trillion dollar coins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42512829)

Coming soon to a rap song near you...

Re:Trillion dollar coins (0)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512871)

That's like, two trillion 50 cent's [wikipedia.org]

Coming next month... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42512835)

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

A $billion coin (2)

matty619 (630957) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512845)

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

Re:A $billion coin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42512887)

It wouldn't be more practical. He'd have to mint a thousand of them to make it through the end of the year.

Re:A $billion coin (1)

matty619 (630957) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513001)

So? This way you could mint fractions of a $Trillion. $1.2 Trillion for example. Or, maybe make it a $100Billion coin. Whatever.

Re:A $billion coin (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513029)

Given the Obmaflation at the grocery store and health insurance, we might need more than one.

There's Crazy, There's Bat-shit Crazy, then.... (0)

rueger (210566) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512855)

... there's US elected officials.

WHO nominates these guys?
WHO votes for them?

All over Europe people are rioting in the streets, protesting the actions of their politicians. Why in God's name aren't Americans doing the same??

Re:There's Crazy, There's Bat-shit Crazy, then.... (0, Flamebait)

hsmith (818216) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512897)

Europeans are rioting because the spigot of free shit has run out. Americans on the government cheese will riot too when their EBT cards stop working.

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

Re:There's Crazy, There's Bat-shit Crazy, then.... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#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:There's Crazy, There's Bat-shit Crazy, then.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513249)

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?

No, and nobody (aside from complete fucking morons) is suggesting this would occur.

Oh, and uh, everybody who really wants to work, can work.

You may not be able to afford your shell home with two cars that you don't own and 2.5 mewling brats; you may have to retrain for a different career; you may have to move from the shitty little town you grew up in.

Suck it up, princess. The opportunity is there.

Laugh (2, Funny)

koan (80826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512857)

"On October 20, 2009, it was reported that Walden was the first Member of Congress to contract the H1N1-A (Swine Flu) Virus.[8]"

Oddly appropriate.

Can I order one on the shopping channel? (1)

j-stroy (640921) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512859)

This really sounds collectible. (Have to have it appraised)

Moron. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Seriously? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512869)

I can't believe anybody is even seriously considering this. Our government has become the biggest cluster fuck in the history of the world, and it will be the end of us if it is not reined in soon.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Dastardly (4204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512945)

Yes, seriously. Then, instead of worrying about f-ing numbers in a computer, we might worry about how to actually put people to work building real things under the real limits on government spending (inflation and available productive capacity) and not use fake self imposed imaginary limits.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html

Re:Seriously? (2)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512951)

Seems like he's legitimizing it as an option by trying to ban it - not that anyone was even considering it seriously.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42512955)

Yeah, this sounds like a plot from an episode of the Simpsons...but it's real life! This country really is going down the shitter fast.

Re:Seriously? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513449)

I feel so good about it. I moved out of the US 4 years ago to get away from this shit. The only thing worse than the idiot policicians are the millions of idiots who keep electing them. The only thing I can't understand is why more aren't leaving. I guess they are waiting for it to get really bad. The problem is, when that happens, they won't have the same resources (when the $100,000 in your 401(k) will buy 10 Euros, you won't be able to afford the plane ticket.

The bill is redundant. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42512899)

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

Not redundant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513013)

The Republicans will balance out the savings from not minting trillion dollar coins with plenty of pork.

Re:The bill is redundant. (3, Informative)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513321)

Congress has already authorized the Treasury to mint platinum coins in any denomination they see fit. Granted, it was intended for collectors, but that is what happens when you use vague, open-ended language.

Re:The bill is redundant. (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513331)

yes, but the current laws don't limit the denomination of platinum coins, leaving that within President/Secretary Of The Treasury discretion.

If trillion dollar coins are shaped like quarters (5, Funny)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Ah man (1)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512961)

It would suck to lose that between your cushions or on a roller coaster ride! And how would you get change at the grocery store? This could at least help with funding the Death Star [centives.net] if that petition passes.

More importantly, (2, Funny)

some old guy (674482) | about a year and a half ago | (#42512981)

Will it work in a snack machine?

No way this bill will pass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42512993)

Imagine the lobbying that will go on from the vending machine industry, bridge toll industry, Salvation Army donation collectors, etc. They want these new coins badly.

will they have a chocolate center? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513039)

that'll get you a lot of gumballs. coins generally are used most often in vending machines these days. i can't think of any other use for them. they'll probably be rejected by coinstar machines

Use Bitcoins... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513041)

...though I'm not sure if $5 trillion worth of bitcoins actually exist.

Specifically a one trillion coin? (1)

enter to exit (1049190) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513043)

What about a trillion and one dollar coin? How about a Trillion dollar bank note? How about making a pebble in the white house garden worth a trillion dollars?

The wording will be interesting.

Re:Specifically a one trillion coin? (3, Informative)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513267)

There are limits on what can be done on what most people would consider everyday currency. There is evidently few limits on a coin that is based on platinum. So, such a coin could be minted in any denomination, 1 trillion, 1 trillion 1 million, five trillion, whatever. The point is that the coin could be minted, deposited, and used to pay bills without borrowing any money.

The thing that this coin farce is supposed to prove is that the debt ceiling is a construct invented by the Carter Administration with no real regulatory or constitutional basis. The constitution says that debt has to be paid. The constitution says all such bills must originate in the House, which has been controlled by extreme conservatives over the past two years.Once the spending is approved by the house, confirmed by the senate, and signed by the president, the money is authorized, and for all practical intents and purposes spent. If we do not have the money, it must be borrowed.

So, the ability to not build debt exists in the House of Representatives at the time the bills are debated, not much later when the bills are supposed to paid. There has been much talk about running the country responsibly. It is not responsible to put charges on our credit card knowing full well that we are going to have default.

Re:Specifically a one trillion coin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513447)

Basically, the President isn't allowed to just order the minting of coins of a certain variety of metals -- but they left out Platinum. ...So I'm assuming this bill is closing that loophole.

Solution: Mint the coin out of plastic. Or be a dick and mint it out of gallium or something -- just keep it cool 'till you spend it!

specifically a platinum coin, not $1T (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513357)

it's a loophole in the current law that doesn't limit the denomination of platinum coins. so it has to be a platinum coin, although not necessarily $1 trillion exactly.

Whatever we pay these clowns... (1)

magsol (1406749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513053)

...it's too much.

Do US coins have to be metal? (1)

RichMan (8097) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513059)

Can't they make
- plastic coins
- wooden coins
- ceramic coins
- glass coins
- compressed recycles paper coins ......

This is shear exhibitionism (4, Insightful)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

What's wrong with a dysfunctional penis? (1)

tjstork (137384) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513203)

Just throwing that out there.

executive order (1)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513091)

Maybe the president can sign an executive order to stop congress critters from driving drunk and picking up hookers when they are supposed to home with their family. It will do just as much good.

My government... (2)

stox (131684) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513117)

is becoming an increasingly bad comedy show.

Oblig. Simpson's reference (4, Funny)

Kargan (250092) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513181)

(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"

You win (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513229)

Obama: OK, fine, you win. We won't mint any $1000000000000 coins. *turns to SecTreas* Mint me a couple $999999999999 coins, would ya?

So if that bill fails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513233)

minting the coin should be mandatory, just to stick it to that dude

It's all equal (2, Insightful)

CHIT2ME (2667601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513245)

I agree, the minting of a trillion dollar platinum coin is rediculous. But so is holding the good faith and credit of the United States hostage to further far right wing ideas and policies. Obama won the election. The only reason the house is still in the hands of the Republicans is a decades long plan of re-districting or as I call it "rigging" of the electoral process in many states of the U.S. Face it Repubs, reform now or go down the sh*thole of history.

Well, if Paul Krugman is in favor of it... (1, Troll)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about a year and a half ago | (#42513277)

You know it's a dumb idea. The Nobel Prize foundation lost a lot of credibility when they gave him the award for Economics, and lost the rest of it when they gave the peace prize to President Drone Strike.

Dropping the pretense of lawful governmnet (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42513309)

This entire concept of being able to mint a trillion dollar coin (because it's platinum and not gold, they don't have to go with the currently fixed price of 1 ounce for 42 dollars or something like that, so they want to do 1 ounce of platinum for 1,000,000,000,000 dollars) is clearly unconstitutional, it's terrible economics, it's horrendous admission that even minimal pretense of actually following the law in government is dropped at this point.

I mean this coin would be minted by the Treasury basically, so the Congress is no longer even taxing the people to run its insane business, it just creates money out of thin air. Of-course that's what the Fed has been doing for the Congress since 1917 anyway, but at least there was a pretense that the Fed can SHRINK the balance sheet by selling the Treasury bonds it holds......

No more. No more interest rates either I take it, because it's no longer debt that is created, it's actual currency without it being a liability on the balance sheet. No more can the Fed PRETEND that it can shrink the balance sheet (it can't do it now either, but at least now they can pretend like they can sell the bonds and get the dollars out of circulation, of-course it's all a pretense, they won't ever do it because that would annihilate the current fake economy that USA runs, would force gov't actually to stop spending too).

This is inflation in purest form, no more "full faith and credit of USA" that's because it's not credit and what faith can there be once the government itself drops the pretense and prints money?

Of-course the new new "economics" is all Keynesian, they don't want to admit that it's a sham, there is no such thing, Keynesian ideas to economics are what astrology is to astronomy.

The government lies about the CPI, the inflation, the GDP, it's all a huge scam. The bond bubble is being inflated, the crisis that will hit next is the currency and debt crisis and of-course minting a Trillion dollar coin (money out of thin air that has nothing to do with production, no different than paper by the way, just add zeros) is just debasing of currency.

USA will either stop government spending and allow the economy to restructure or it will destroy its currency and its credit worthiness with interest rates shooting up through the stratosphere. This will happen and a Trillion dollar coin may just trigger the bond bubble to burst.

signature [slashdot.org]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>