-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
adamsappel
Member
Even though he is nominating Republicans, these people will still have to endorse and advocate Democratic policies. The unfortunate part is that the policies are usually more conservative or moderate than progressive. I do think there is merit in illustrating just how dysfunctional the GOP is that they will turn on anyone who dares to work with the president. It will be interesting to see the reaction to the next Democratic president. It would have to stay at the current level of obstruction and vitriol to convince me that it isn't ultimately racist in nature.
And, man, lots of 'Shopping on that Clinton book cover.
Need to smooth out all the lovelessness and sapphic desires.
The Librarian
Banned
Exactly what we would expect them to say if they want to minimize Republican leverage on the debt ceiling, and additionally if they want to be able to appear unenthusiastic about doing something like this if they end up having to.
But note that the statement is ridiculous and unbelievable. The Federal Reserve is not going to stand on principle, even assuming this is a sincere position, if the alternative is default.
DragonSworne
Banned
Lol at Republicans crying foul at not following the intent of the law.
I would love a PoliGAF book club. I'm much more interested in policy discussion than 24 hour news cycle politics.
Just to throw out some ideas, here are some of the books that I've read recently that are fairly quick reads (including several suggestions from other GAF members):
The New Jim Crow (about the "War on Drugs" and its disproportionate impact on black men)
The Post-American World: Release 2.0 (foreign policy, the "rise of the rest" relative to the United States)
Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream (not as directly political, but its broad subject matter encompasses issues like inequality, political fragmentation, and the environment)
Just to throw out some ideas, here are some of the books that I've read recently that are fairly quick reads (including several suggestions from other GAF members):
The New Jim Crow (about the "War on Drugs" and its disproportionate impact on black men)
The Post-American World: Release 2.0 (foreign policy, the "rise of the rest" relative to the United States)
Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream (not as directly political, but its broad subject matter encompasses issues like inequality, political fragmentation, and the environment)
I have a very hard time with books like these. Admittedly, I haven't read the ones being pointed to here, but I always feel like non-fiction (other than biographies and some history - anything that tells a story can reasonably be long) is very heavily padded. 30 pages would have sufficed for most that I've read, maybe with some links to existing work.
The Librarian
Banned
J. Chait thinks the liberal blogosphere will devolve into fighting over which is more effective: IOUs or the platinum coin. AKA the People's Front of Judea vs. the Judean People's Front.
empty vessel
Member
Not only that, the Federal Reserve's rejection of a coin minted by the Treasury would be more damaging to the credibility of the United States even than default I think. That would raise the political dysfunction to a whole new level and seriously call into question the legitimacy of the US government as a whole. That said, the suggestion in the article that the Fed "would not accept it" isn't attributable to anybody so I think it does not have any basis in fact. The only quote says that the Treasury and Fed do not believe the law could be used, and it's the Treasury speaking on behalf of the Fed.
Ezra's concerns about the minting of a coin being seen "as an unprecedented power grab by the president" is hyperbolic. To be sure, radical extremist Republicans would cry foul. But that is to be expected. In fact, Clinton's declared preferred approach of invoking the 14th Amendment to declare the debt limit unconstitutional is far more radical. In minting the coin, the president would be acting in accordance with all laws passed by Congress (even if some might believe it should not be applied in that way). In invoking the 14th Amendment, however, the president would be openly defying Congress.
Not much of anything to argue about. They're both the same thing. A US dollar is a US dollar, regardless of the form it takes. A green Fed Reserve note is a US dollar. A quarter is a US dollar. A Treasury bond is a US dollar. A $1 trillion platinum coin is a US dollar. And an IOU is a US dollar. A US dollar is whatever the US government says it is. It could declare all grains of sand to be US dollars if it wanted to. (Of course, hyperinflation would be a certainty in that case!)
These are all the same thing (the social construct of state money) represented in different physical forms. And, the ultimate irony, a US dollar is just an IOU!
No, these are different things. With the IOUs, the government would be making it a point to say that it's offering a weaker assurance of value than it does with dollars, whereas the coin would be indistinguishable from other money. The exchange rate of IOUs to dollars would float based on how likely it is perceived to be that the government will eventually make good on (all or part of) their face value. So the most likely outcome is that a small risk premium is demanded for the IOUs and the government ends up paying slightly more later on.
The Librarian
Banned
Well, yeah. Hence the reference to the People's Front of Judea vs. the Judean People's Front. It's a joke.
Well there goes the trillion dollar coin idea. I never thought it had a real chance anyway.
http://politi.co/UUOPp3
http://politi.co/UUOPp3
At the risk of being a splitter, I guess I also have a legal objection to the IOUs. The coin clearly takes advantage of a loophole in the law, but it seems to pretty clearly comply with the letter. IOUs are just straight-up inversions of the Constitution. The law is that "US debt is not to be questioned". IOU proponents say "If we make clear that this debt is questionable, then it doesn't count as debt".
Rocket Scientist
Member
Can't believe people spent so much time even discussing the platinum coin. The US really sinks to a new low every day. I wonder how much laughter was shared between politicians of other countries.
Rocket Scientist
Member
He never stopped towing their cow.
To think...she wrote this before she became president. Hillary :bow
Rocket Scientist
Member
So people really believe that these things are more likely than the debt ceiling being raised again, just like, oh I don't know, the last few billion times?
speculawyer
Member
They've been saying no to the coin the whole time.
The idea is to issue "debt" instead of debt. People that the government is supposed to pay but can't because of an inability to borrow would presumably be willing to accept not-legally-binding promises of repayment from the US government instead of regular dollars, as long as the government spends enough time talking about how it really, really, really intends to make good on those promises. Proponents say that it sounds less absurd than the trillion dollar coin. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/moral-obligation-coupons/
Well, the game theory here is reasonably straightforward. And the Republicans have a history of hostage-taking. They got a little out of the last debt ceiling fight, although overall the fiscal cliff ended up backfiring on them. They held up the fiscal cliff too, although they backed down for fear of being blamed for higher taxes. Are you saying that you expect the Democrats to give in to Republican demands before raising the ceiling this time? And next time? Or do you think the Republicans will eventually back down and agree to a clean increase? What incentive is there for them to do so, if failing to lift the ceiling doesn't actually mean default, but just means that Obama has to do things that let Fox paint him as a dictator?
speculawyer
Member
Dude, it is all about negotiation leverage.
electricpirate
Member
I think things like the coin, where if republican's think going over won't hurt the economy, while making dems look bad, will make them more willing to go over.
The best strategy would be not to invoke the 14th or the coin till we are over, then say "Well jeesus you stupid fucks, now we need to go and wreck shit."
Until then, hinting that we may use one of those methods actually makes republicans more willing to shoot the hostage.
The best strategy would be not to invoke the 14th or the coin till we are over, then say "Well jeesus you stupid fucks, now we need to go and wreck shit."
Until then, hinting that we may use one of those methods actually makes republicans more willing to shoot the hostage.
I still like Josh Barro's suggestion of closing the platinum loophole in exchange for ending the debt ceiling.
And this seems to be the approach the administration is taking. At the same time, it makes sense to get these sorts of options out there so that the Democrats have less reason to cave on something big. While all this talk makes Republicans more willing to shoot the hostage, it also makes Democrats more willing to let the hostage get shot. It's risk mitigation, and makes it more likely that the Democrats come out of this slightly behind, while making it less likely that the ceiling is lifted cleanly and also less likely that the Republicans extract huge concessions from the Democrats.
Yeah, that's fucking stupid, and definitely more absurd than the coin. People are weird.
PhoenixDark
Banned
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/us-treasury-1-trillion-platinum-coin-is-not?ref=fpa
Get ready for negotiations lol
Watching today's Up w/ Chris Hayes, I feel like the panel confused minting the coin and spending. Kelton tried on a few occasions to say that minting the coin and locking it up doesn't have any impact on the money supply, but because she's also interested in advocating increased spending, things got confused when she immediately segued into that. I don't think the point was clearly made that minting the coin is exactly the same as raising the debt ceiling, and minting and locking away a $100T coin is just like raising the debt ceiling by $100T, except insofar as the market just decides it doesn't like minting for no real reason.
The Librarian
Banned
PD, you sound frustrated. Maybe a shiny new coin would lift your spirits. Perhaps one made of platinum. Maybe – just maybe – we could put Hillary's face on it, too, and put the quote "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" over her head.
el retorno
Member
You don't understand their strategy (whats new?). They're putting the onus on congress so they act and if SS checks stop flowing its the House's fault (AKA GOP). If they put the coin, 14th and others (IOUs) on the table the House GOP has no pressure they can just scream about the presidential over reach + say they didn't vote for and increased ceiling, they get something to run against. The white house understands they have these options and they're real.
They are going to say no to any alternatives to the debt ceiling vote by congress because they want the GOP to feel the heat they want the GOP to vote for this, it'd be a win for Obama and a loss for the Republicans (and a win for the country). If it comes down to midnight when they can't pay their bills they can still pull these out.
See this quote:
I thank god every day you do nothing in this administration you'd be horrible at it. You see what you want.
speculawyer
Member
Is it though? I think there may be a difference that people are little unnerved by. When we put out debt, it needs to be paid back and with interest. OK, if the Fed holds the debt then it is pretty much the same as the coin but you do need to pay interest. OK, that interest is nearly zero right now but there is some interest.
I think there is a difference in that minting a coin is just printing money whereas raising the debt ceiling then has us borrow the money. I always figured that if they mint the coin they would then eventually raise the debt ceiling and then buy back the coin and destroy it. That it was just a trick to avoid government shut-down & default.
el retorno
Member
What does it mean?!?!?!
What does it mean?
Illuminati.
What does it mean?
It's the sign. A hobo sign to be exact, it means the end times are coming. The lizard-men, ruled by Viltrax the vile, are coming to conquer us all.
My understanding was that the coin wasn't being minted to spend money, but rather to enable more borrowing. A $100T coin being deposited at the Fed is basically an accounting fiction which lets the Fed write down that the Treasury has $100T less in debt, so that the Treasury is then in no danger of hitting its debt ceiling when it issues more bonds. At the very least, it seems like the coin would enable the Treasury to do this (even if it chooses to do something else) regardless of the statutory debt ceiling, such that the rate of borrowing and rate of spending carry on as normal. The Treasury could just spend out of its account at the Fed at that point, but it doesn't have to.
Edit: To be clear - the debt ceiling might place a limit on the absolute, rather than net, amount of debt outstanding. But the Fed owns a lot of that debt. So the Treasury can exchange coins for bonds from the Fed without any outside impact; the Fed doesn't get interest, yes, but it's part of the government and them keeping separate books is just a thing we do. Then the Treasury can turn around and sell new bonds to replace what it just retired from the Fed in the ordinary way. Borrowing beyond the debt ceiling is possible in this way until the Fed runs out of US Treasury bonds. Currently it has about $2T. I don't know if the debt ceiling law also takes into account debt owed the Treasury, which would be created by giving the Fed a $100T coin. In that case there is no limit to the amount of debt the Treasury can issue, since it can always offset that by making deposits at the Fed. But the Treasury would still be borrowing exactly as much as it is deficit-spending.
Edit2: I'm not nearly as sure on the law here, but the Fed may be able to do something on its end too. It could presumably just rip up $1T in US bonds that it's currently holding, leaving more than enough (almost $1T) for what it needs to do. Again, no change outside of the government, and now the Treasury can issue $1T more in debt without hitting the ceiling.
soul creator
Member
el retorno
Member
What does it mean?!?!?!
He's up to Rocky V in a Rocky marathon?
speculawyer
Member
What does it mean?!?!?!
The government should fear the people, not the people fear the government.
PhoenixDark
Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/u...ul.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
I'm kind of torn on the comprehensive bill vs piecemeal bills argument. Obviously splitting it into multiple bills would give republicans an opportunity to pass the least offensive portions while leaving more contentious issues (DREAM Act, pathway to citizenship) to die; that way they could campaign on working to fix immigration without incurring too much wrath from the far right, and perhaps gain some inroads with Hispanic groups. It's hard to see any bill passing the House that includes a direct citizen pathway for the 11m illegal immigrants already here. That idea was labeled "amnesty" long ago (on the right), and it's hard to see the right wing FUD machine letting their audience forget it.
The article doesn't spend much time on border security issues, but it seems like there's an opportunity for Obama to gain bipartisan support on the issue. Lindsy Graham will certainly be pushing for border security, and I'm sure Jeff Flake will too given that he's an Arizonan senator. A comprehensive bill could be used to buff up border security and put Iraq/Afghanistan vets to work; it would also be an opportunity for stimulus spending in border states, building more stations, outposts, and limited fences.
Of course, this could end up being the third major White House loss of 2013: the first being upcoming negotiations over the fiscal cliff, the second being no gun control legislation passing.
Obama's pushing hard for a path to citizenship, Republicans are pushing hard against it. Hispanics are the second largest demographic and growing.
If Obama manages to pass this thing, he could potentially secure Hispanic loyalty to Democrats at the ballot box for a decade or two.
If Obama manages to pass this thing, he could potentially secure Hispanic loyalty to Democrats at the ballot box for a decade or two.
soul creator
Member
Orly Taitz redeemed
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm not sure about them losing on either of those, though there is that possibility.
el retorno
Member
keep fucking that chicken
PhoenixDark
Banned
You make a sensible, logical argument that explains the situation perfectly. My problem is that I don't believe the WH sees it the way we do. Clearly we agree republicans will not shoot the hostage here: they will wait until the last minute before voting to raise the limit - causing enough economic damage to harm job reports and the markets temporarily, lower Obama's favorables, etc, but not the devastating move of destroying the US/global economy with a default.
The WH has shown multiple times that it is unwilling to play a waiting game in these ticking time bomb situations, hence my belief Obama will come to the negotiation table. The closer we get to default, the more pressure there will be for a "bipartisan" solution, and a return of "why can't Obama work with republicans" memes in the media 24/7.
Of course when Obama caves, the same people arguing he won't cave will move the goal posts to "hey, he actually got a pretty good deal!"
Link
The Autumn Wind
Which is likely precisely the reason Republicans are against it.
MaxwellGT2000
Member
I don't usually discuss politics on forums but MakingMusic476 wants me to post a meme I made to get a few chuckles.
What does it mean?!?!?!
The number of terms Obama will serve as prez.
- Status