(03-31-2017, 02:36 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017, 09:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As for getting Democrat votes? I don't think anyone with any brains expects them to help on any of the President's agenda. That's politics as usual, which that party has already indicated it is going to attempt by keeping Pelosi as minority leader in the House and having Durban as minority leader in the Senate. Both were key in the last 8 years of utter failure.
Who is Durban? Last I heard, the Senate Minority Leader was Chuck Shumer, who replaced Harry Reed, when Reed retired in January.
Durban is the Sr. Senator from IL. But Chucky Shumer is just as bad.
(03-31-2017, 04:36 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-31-2017, 02:36 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017, 09:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As for getting Democrat votes? I don't think anyone with any brains expects them to help on any of the President's agenda. That's politics as usual, which that party has already indicated it is going to attempt by keeping Pelosi as minority leader in the House and having Durban as minority leader in the Senate. Both were key in the last 8 years of utter failure.
Who is Durban? Last I heard, the Senate Minority Leader was Chuck Shumer, who replaced Harry Reed, when Reed retired in January.
Durban is the Sr. Senator from IL. But Chucky Shumer is just as bad.
I thought it was obvious, but I guess some people just know Dick.
(03-31-2017, 04:47 PM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ] (03-31-2017, 04:36 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-31-2017, 02:36 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017, 09:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As for getting Democrat votes? I don't think anyone with any brains expects them to help on any of the President's agenda. That's politics as usual, which that party has already indicated it is going to attempt by keeping Pelosi as minority leader in the House and having Durban as minority leader in the Senate. Both were key in the last 8 years of utter failure.
Who is Durban? Last I heard, the Senate Minority Leader was Chuck Shumer, who replaced Harry Reed, when Reed retired in January.
Durban is the Sr. Senator from IL. But Chucky Shumer is just as bad.
I thought it was obvious, but I guess some people just know Dick.
Actually I've come to expect most people to not even know who their own senators are, let alone those of other states. I particularly find Dick Durban annoying. But what do I know I voted for Augustus Sol Invictus for Florida Senator last time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Sol_Invictus
(03-31-2017, 04:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-31-2017, 04:47 PM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ] (03-31-2017, 04:36 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-31-2017, 02:36 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017, 09:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As for getting Democrat votes? I don't think anyone with any brains expects them to help on any of the President's agenda. That's politics as usual, which that party has already indicated it is going to attempt by keeping Pelosi as minority leader in the House and having Durban as minority leader in the Senate. Both were key in the last 8 years of utter failure.
Who is Durban? Last I heard, the Senate Minority Leader was Chuck Shumer, who replaced Harry Reed, when Reed retired in January.
Durban is the Sr. Senator from IL. But Chucky Shumer is just as bad.
I thought it was obvious, but I guess some people just know Dick.
Actually I've come to expect most people to not even know who their own senators are, let alone those of other states. I particularly find Dick Durban annoying. But what do I know I voted for Augustus Sol Invictus for Florida Senator last time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Sol_Invictus
Interesting guy. Looks a little 'off', but who am I to judge?
Floridians are a special people. I blame the lack of harsh winters.
Kinser
Hmm... How much gold and silver does the treasury have locked in the mint vaults? Even if the treasury still had EO 11110's authority to print sliver backed currency, you need to have silver in order to back silver based currency. As Wiki reports it, those silver dollars were sold to collectors.
If the Treasury still has stocks of precious metals, and supposing they no longer have the authority to issue metal backed currency, they could still sell the metal, buy down the debt, and generate a little room under the debt ceiling. The room you could generate, though, would be limited by the amount of metal you have in your vaults.
I remain dubious that the executive branch can negate Congress's power of the purse by issuing executive orders. I know various partisan web sites advocate various schemes. When I see them tried, or even reported by a wide spectrum of news sources, I might take them seriously.
Again, no source of news should be accepted blindly. For me, the smaller and more blatantly partisan a news source, the more skeptical I get. This doesn't mean I'm not skeptical about the big main stream sources. I'm just more skeptical about the fringe extremists.
This thread reflects my view of things. The small partisan site predicted a big brouhaha in mid march. The main stream source ignored the story until the end of March, predicting things would come to a head at the end of April. You can give the partisan a bit of credit for trying to bring a real issue to the surface early, but they seem to have got the timing way wrong, which made me inclined to ignore this thread. The more sources and more diverse sources of news that start covering the possible shut down, the more seriously I will take it. Meanwhile, if Chicken Little runs around saying the sky is falling, I'll be dubious until the sky starts falling.
Which is why I put a link to CNN on the thread. Not everyone is as enthused about the same small partisan sources as you. I assume having a diversity of sources reporting different angles on the issue is a good thing.
(03-31-2017, 10:07 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Kinser
Hmm... How much gold and silver does the treasury have locked in the mint vaults? Even if the treasury still had EO 11110's authority to print sliver backed currency, you need to have silver in order to back silver based currency. As Wiki reports it, those silver dollars were sold to collectors.
If the Treasury still has stocks of precious metals, and supposing they no longer have the authority to issue metal backed currency, they could still sell the metal, buy down the debt, and generate a little room under the debt ceiling. The room you could generate, though, would be limited by the amount of metal you have in your vaults.
I remain dubious that the executive branch can negate Congress's power of the purse by issuing executive orders. I know various partisan web sites advocate various schemes. When I see them tried, or even reported by a wide spectrum of news sources, I might take them seriously.
Again, no source of news should be accepted blindly. For me, the smaller and more blatantly partisan a news source, the more skeptical I get. This doesn't mean I'm not skeptical about the big main stream sources. I'm just more skeptical about the fringe extremists.
This thread reflects my view of things. The small partisan site predicted a big brouhaha in mid march. The main stream source ignored the story until the end of March, predicting things would come to a head at the end of April. You can give the partisan a bit of credit for trying to bring a real issue to the surface early, but they seem to have got the timing way wrong, which made me inclined to ignore this thread. The more sources and more diverse sources of news that start covering the possible shut down, the more seriously I will take it. Meanwhile, if Chicken Little runs around saying the sky is falling, I'll be dubious until the sky starts falling.
Which is why I put a link to CNN on the thread. Not everyone is as enthused about the same small partisan sources as you. I assume having a diversity of sources reporting different angles on the issue is a good thing.
US notes were not and never were backed by silver. They were and always were pure fiat currency. So having a ton of silver or no silver isn't a factor. That being said I wouldn't mind going back to sound money either, but I don't think that likely as Boomers seem particularly wedded to the Welfare-Warfare state concept. I fail to see how the concept of printing up greenbacks to pay the bills escapes people who are part of one of the best educated generations in history.
As to sources, I don't think that Zero Hedge has it wrong. Currently the treasury is draining the emergency funds--it has that power obviously. It is ignoring a super power that would break the Fed once and for all though.
(04-01-2017, 03:09 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]US notes were not and never were backed by silver. They were and always were pure fiat currency. So having a ton of silver or no silver isn't a factor. That being said I wouldn't mind going back to sound money either, but I don't think that likely as Boomers seem particularly wedded to the Welfare-Warfare state concept. I fail to see how the concept of printing up greenbacks to pay the bills escapes people who are part of one of the best educated generations in history.
As to sources, I don't think that Zero Hedge has it wrong. Currently the treasury is draining the emergency funds--it has that power obviously. It is ignoring a super power that would break the Fed once and for all though.
I know you don't do fact or reality, but
silver certificates...
Wiki Wrote:Silver certificates are a type of representative money issued between 1878 and 1964 in the United States as part of its circulation of paper currency. They were produced in response to silver agitation by citizens who were angered by the Fourth Coinage Act, which had effectively placed the United States on a gold standard. The certificates were initially redeemable for their face value of silver dollar coins and later (for one year – 24 June 1967 to 24 June 1968) in raw silver bullion. Since 1968 they have been redeemable only in Federal Reserve Notes and are thus obsolete, but still valid legal tender and thus are still an accepted form of currency.
(04-01-2017, 05:56 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2017, 03:09 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]US notes were not and never were backed by silver. They were and always were pure fiat currency. So having a ton of silver or no silver isn't a factor. That being said I wouldn't mind going back to sound money either, but I don't think that likely as Boomers seem particularly wedded to the Welfare-Warfare state concept. I fail to see how the concept of printing up greenbacks to pay the bills escapes people who are part of one of the best educated generations in history.
As to sources, I don't think that Zero Hedge has it wrong. Currently the treasury is draining the emergency funds--it has that power obviously. It is ignoring a super power that would break the Fed once and for all though.
I know you don't do fact or reality, but silver certificates...
Wiki Wrote:Silver certificates are a type of representative money issued between 1878 and 1964 in the United States as part of its circulation of paper currency. They were produced in response to silver agitation by citizens who were angered by the Fourth Coinage Act, which had effectively placed the United States on a gold standard. The certificates were initially redeemable for their face value of silver dollar coins and later (for one year – 24 June 1967 to 24 June 1968) in raw silver bullion. Since 1968 they have been redeemable only in Federal Reserve Notes and are thus obsolete, but still valid legal tender and thus are still an accepted form of currency.
Bob
I know boomers don't do reading comprehension. But that is why I specifically mentioned
United States Notes:
Wiki Wrote:They were originally issued directly into circulation by the U.S. Treasury to pay expenses incurred by the Union during the American Civil War.
In short the treasury at least in 1863 had power to issue non-interest bearing paper to pay the bills so it is reasonable to assume it still has that power unless Congress at some point has passed a law somewhere saying that they don't.
Seriously you're arguing with the wrong guy about this. I've argued for the return of the Greenback since the late 90s if for no other reason than to strangle the hold the central bank has.
The Democrats are not going to agree to the budget. So a spending bill must come from Republicans. It will be a disaster. I'd prefer a shutdown over the Drump budget, myself. The budget itself is a shutdown of everything of any value. What's to save, the MIC and The Wall?
(04-01-2017, 09:52 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]In short the treasury at least in 1863 had power to issue non-interest bearing paper to pay the bills so it is reasonable to assume it still has that power unless Congress at some point has passed a law somewhere saying that they don't.
You quoted EO 1110, which authorized silver certificates, which is a specific form of US Note which the Treasury no longer has the authority to issue. Such notes still in circulation are valid currency, but they are no longer backed by silver, they can no longer be redeemed in silver dollars. (The intent of EO 11110 was to allow industry access to the silver it needed for manufacturing. Issuing silver certificates allowed them to redeem the certificates in silver which let them build stuff. It had nothing to do with budget manipulation.)
Now the Treasury has issued lots of forms of currency over the years, and you can hopscotch around pulling contradictory stuff from all sorts of past eras, but your original claim is absolutely bogus.
(04-01-2017, 09:52 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]In short the treasury at least in 1863 had power to issue non-interest bearing paper to pay the bills so it is reasonable to assume it still has that power unless Congress at some point has passed a law somewhere saying that they don't.
Seriously you're arguing with the wrong guy about this. I've argued for the return of the Greenback since the late 90s if for no other reason than to strangle the hold the central bank has.
During the Civil War, two sorts of special notes were issued, Demand Notes and United States Notes. Both were authorized by Congress. The amount of notes authorized for printing was set by Congress. I
seriously doubt the modern Treasury is able to print more Greenbacks on their own authority. They have to go through Congress, which has set limits on its own ability to increase the debt.
Now, I claim no special knowledge of the intricacies of currency. I do know a little bit about how to double check an extreme partisan when he asserts absurd stuff. To me, at a high level, the Congress has the power of the purse. I would not expect them to leave a loophole for the executive branch to usurp such power. You can continue to quote various long obsolete and expired financial tools used in the distant past, wave your hands, flap your lips, wag your tongue, crack your typing fingers and pretend you know what you're talking about. I may or may not bother to shoot you down. To me, your credibility is zero on this subject.
A bit of a side note. The Civil War Greenback currency wasn’t particularly stable at first. They could not be redeemed in gold or silver. They bore no interest. Early on the Demand Note’s value diminished rapidly. Nobody trusted them. To fix this, the government started giving interest on the early Demand Notes, making them more desirable to hold.
This might make the Civil War era Demand Notes early prototypes for the modern Treasury Bond. Let it not be said that the Treasury can’t print certificates to finance the debt. They just aren't Greenbacks or silver certificates. Things have changed over the years. The modern certificates are, however, integrated into the debt control mechanisms. They can’t be printed on executive branch whim.
(04-02-2017, 05:07 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-01-2017, 09:52 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]In short the treasury at least in 1863 had power to issue non-interest bearing paper to pay the bills so it is reasonable to assume it still has that power unless Congress at some point has passed a law somewhere saying that they don't.
Seriously you're arguing with the wrong guy about this. I've argued for the return of the Greenback since the late 90s if for no other reason than to strangle the hold the central bank has.
During the Civil War, two sorts of special notes were issued, Demand Notes and United States Notes. Both were authorized by Congress. The amount of notes authorized for printing was set by Congress. I seriously doubt the modern Treasury is able to print more Greenbacks on their own authority. They have to go through Congress, which has set limits on its own ability to increase the debt.
Now, I claim no special knowledge of the intricacies of currency. I do know a little bit about how to double check an extreme partisan when he asserts absurd stuff. To me, at a high level, the Congress has the power of the purse. I would not expect them to leave a loophole for the executive branch to usurp such power. You can continue to quote various long obsolete and expired financial tools used in the distant past, wave your hands, flap your lips, wag your tongue, crack your typing fingers and pretend you know what you're talking about. I may or may not bother to shoot you down. To me, your credibility is zero on this subject.
I would expect congress to leave such a loophole. Congress Critters as a class are largely incompetent people. As for my credibility, it seems to me that for someone who claims no special knowledge as to the nature of currency then you're not in a position to determine my credibility on the matter. Not that you in particular finding me credible even matters.
(04-03-2017, 09:29 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]A bit of a side note. The Civil War Greenback currency wasn’t particularly stable at first. They could not be redeemed in gold or silver. They bore no interest. Early on the Demand Note’s value diminished rapidly. Nobody trusted them. To fix this, the government started giving interest on the early Demand Notes, making them more desirable to hold.
This might make the Civil War era Demand Notes early prototypes for the modern Treasury Bond. Let it not be said that the Treasury can’t print certificates to finance the debt. They just aren't Greenbacks or silver certificates. Things have changed over the years. The modern certificates are, however, integrated into the debt control mechanisms. They can’t be printed on executive branch whim.
It still stands to reason that unless Congress has revoked the right to issue instruments of non-debt, and the treasury at least at one time could issue such instruments then the treasury still has that power. As such if your aim is to say that the Treasury cannot issue US Notes right now then you will be needing to find a public law passed by congress stopping them. Any EO can be undone by an other EO naturally.
(04-04-2017, 08:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]I would expect congress to leave such a loophole. Congress Critters as a class are largely incompetent people. As for my credibility, it seems to me that for someone who claims no special knowledge as to the nature of currency then you're not in a position to determine my credibility on the matter. Not that you in particular finding me credible even matters....
It still stands to reason that unless Congress has revoked the right to issue instruments of non-debt, and the treasury at least at one time could issue such instruments then the treasury still has that power. As such if your aim is to say that the Treasury cannot issue US Notes right now then you will be needing to find a public law passed by congress stopping them. Any EO can be undone by an other EO naturally.
What sort of instrument, what sort of loophole, do you think exists? Only a limited number of Greenbacks were authorized, and they were printed and spent to fight the Civil War. Given inflation, even if the Treasury could print that amount again, it would not be enough to make a dent in the modern debt. Silver Certificates are no longer authorized. Now, just because every specific type of certificate you have mentioned can't be used, I don't know the history of US currency well enough to say the door isn't open for some other type of note that is uncovered by the modern debt limit. I just know every example you've given is bogus. I just figure that until somebody mentions what type of note could be used, there is no such type of note. Otherwise, why would folks use such obviously incorrect examples?
Your best argument is that Congress critters are incompetent. Well, I won't too much argue that point. I'm not pleased with Congress critters either at this point. However, this is an ever so generic argument that could be used to say there is a way to get around anything Congress does. "Washington is incompetent" is a red Reaganesque unraveling meme. It is commonly held by many red leaning folk. It's a prejudice, a mildly vile stereotype, yet an important part of the modern red-blue divide. Important, but not a proper authorization for printing notes.
So perhaps we're in values lock. I don't believe Congress would accidentally give the power of the purse to the executive. You do. I do know Congress has played budget chicken before, and the executive hasn't yet started the printing presses without permission. Trump is the sort of guy who might try it. We'll see.
(03-30-2017, 11:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]But red and blue perceptions are so skewed that I doubt there would be a general consensus on any news organization being, um, fair and balanced. Would you and Eric care to get together to try to find a truly neutral news source?
I wonder what kinser would say about AP?
I saw one chart that placed them squarely on top and in the middle.
(03-31-2017, 03:02 PM)Snowflake Wrote: [ -> ] (03-31-2017, 02:36 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017, 09:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]As for getting Democrat votes? I don't think anyone with any brains expects them to help on any of the President's agenda. That's politics as usual, which that party has already indicated it is going to attempt by keeping Pelosi as minority leader in the House and having Durban as minority leader in the Senate. Both were key in the last 8 years of utter failure.
Who is Durban? Last I heard, the Senate Minority Leader was Chuck Shumer, who replaced Harry Reed, when Reed retired in January.
I think he meant Durbin. You know that actress from Three Smart Girls.
(And, just for the record, it's Schumer and Reid. 
)
A conservative spells better than a liberal-ish wonk (and a whatever he is). Well, that's good; conservatives are good for
something
(04-04-2017, 01:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017, 11:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]But red and blue perceptions are so skewed that I doubt there would be a general consensus on any news organization being, um, fair and balanced. Would you and Eric care to get together to try to find a truly neutral news source?
I wonder what kinser would say about AP?
I saw one chart that placed them squarely on top and in the middle.
Not a bad nomination, though they might be considered the most main of all main stream presses.
(04-04-2017, 11:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2017, 08:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]I would expect congress to leave such a loophole. Congress Critters as a class are largely incompetent people. As for my credibility, it seems to me that for someone who claims no special knowledge as to the nature of currency then you're not in a position to determine my credibility on the matter. Not that you in particular finding me credible even matters....
It still stands to reason that unless Congress has revoked the right to issue instruments of non-debt, and the treasury at least at one time could issue such instruments then the treasury still has that power. As such if your aim is to say that the Treasury cannot issue US Notes right now then you will be needing to find a public law passed by congress stopping them. Any EO can be undone by an other EO naturally.
What sort of instrument, what sort of loophole, do you think exists? Only a limited number of Greenbacks were authorized, and they were printed and spent to fight the Civil War. Given inflation, even if the Treasury could print that amount again, it would not be enough to make a dent in the modern debt. Silver Certificates are no longer authorized. Now, just because every specific type of certificate you have mentioned can't be used, I don't know the history of US currency well enough to say the door isn't open for some other type of note that is uncovered by the modern debt limit. I just know every example you've given is bogus. I just figure that until somebody mentions what type of note could be used, there is no such type of note. Otherwise, why would folks use such obviously incorrect examples?
Your best argument is that Congress critters are incompetent. Well, I won't too much argue that point. I'm not pleased with Congress critters either at this point. However, this is an ever so generic argument that could be used to say there is a way to get around anything Congress does. "Washington is incompetent" is a red Reaganesque unraveling meme. It is commonly held by many red leaning folk. It's a prejudice, a mildly vile stereotype, yet an important part of the modern red-blue divide. Important, but not a proper authorization for printing notes.
So perhaps we're in values lock. I don't believe Congress would accidentally give the power of the purse to the executive. You do. I do know Congress has played budget chicken before, and the executive hasn't yet started the printing presses without permission. Trump is the sort of guy who might try it. We'll see.
1. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the US Constitution grants Congress the power to coin money. In the case of US Notes the Treasury did so directly.
2. Given that our issue is largely deflation driven I don't think inflation is an issue until such time as the economy starts to over heat, it isn't even close to that. Its just now starting to move in a positive direction after nearly a decade of utter stagnation.
3. My statement about Congress Critters and their general incompetence was in response to Rags proposing that they create a mechanism to control inflation wrt MMT. I feel it prudent to point out that if they themselves cannot be trusted to control the taxing and spending to keep the right level of liquidity in the system, then any mechanism they might devise for that purpose would likewise be incapable.
4. No it is not values lock. If Congress at one point gave the power to release currency directly into the economy to the Treasury, then the Treasury still has that power unless Congress has passed a subsequent law revoking that power. It is the same method by which (in Florida at any rate) stealing a horse is a capital crime but stealing a car is merely grand theft.
Old laws, loopholes and case law are all the realm of lawyers, and it is both very abstract and very real at the same time.
ETA: As to the AP. That is where the Fake News gets it fake news. CNN, MSDNC and etc are copies of a copy of a copy.
(03-17-2017, 03:58 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]<snip>
Tell me, were our government systems destroyed during the Great Power 4T? Is this sort of "burn it all down" destruction the only path?
1. Huh? You ain't jonesin' for creative destruction?
2. Nature requires a periodic clean up, via fires, man.
![[Image: 1024px-Northwest_Crown_Fire_Experiment.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Northwest_Crown_Fire_Experiment.png/1024px-Northwest_Crown_Fire_Experiment.png)
Just look at that! That's a controlled burn with measuring devices. So yeah, Rags to XY_MOX_4AD, BURN, BABY BURN - a well known 2T slogan.
I know Eric will like that pic. It confirms his aura reading, Red and Black baby! Death to NATO, death to the UN, death to the MIC, death to IMF, death to the EU, death UN, death to all that rotten rubbish set up in the prior turning. May the ashes nourish the new US isolationist order. Like, where have you been in the 2T? You have a bucket of water, Rags has a flamethrower. I want all the rotten order to just go.
Yeah, that's the cycle man, the Great Power cycle institutions are just a bunch of worthless underbrush.
McStain and his shit show clowns are just so, so stupid. McStain is a freakin' dinosaur man. I await a meteor with his name on it. Out with old, in with the new.