|
Author
|
Topic: United States Debt Default
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 11 of 211 (624079)
07-15-2011 6:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
07-15-2011 6:08 PM
|
|
Re: A first step.
As a first step to solving the problems we should totally change all the tax brackets from dollar amounts to multiples of the US poverty rate. Interesting idea! How would a system like that work? What would that do to the poor people who currently pay no taxes? Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by jar, posted 07-15-2011 6:08 PM | | jar has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 18 of 211 (624096)
07-15-2011 10:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by frako
07-15-2011 6:47 PM
|
|
Straggler's not an American.
Not necessarily only the ones that lent you the money  The rest of the world would feel the collapse but not as badly as most think. Straggler's not an American.
You have been borrowing more then you should now your screwed it could be managed but it will get worse if you just raise the sealing and go on like nothing is happening. Straggler's not an American.
Your money in the bank forget about it its gone, the same thing happened in Iceland people wanted to get some cash from their accounts banks said no. Straggler's not an American.
Yourself for not stepping on your governments feet when the time was right. Straggler's not an American.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by frako, posted 07-15-2011 6:47 PM | | frako has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 24 by Straggler, posted 07-16-2011 1:44 PM | | Jon has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 19 of 211 (624101)
07-15-2011 11:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
07-15-2011 7:05 PM
|
|
Re: A first step.
Taxes would be based on multiples of the poverty line. At or near the poverty line you would pay no income taxes, but as income rises you would move into named brackets like "10 X Poverty level" and "100 X Poverty level" and "1000 X Poverty level". But right now, aren't the brackets just numbered with $$ amounts? I think it is a great idea to base taxes on poverty levels, but I don't see how changing the wording of the tax forms would help eliminate buzzword politics. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by jar, posted 07-15-2011 7:05 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by jar, posted 07-16-2011 8:24 AM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 23 of 211 (624184)
07-16-2011 1:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by Rrhain
07-16-2011 4:42 AM
|
|
Huh? Did the sales tax suddenly not become a tax? Payroll taxes suddenly stopped being taxes? I thought jar's mention of brackets made it clear we were talking about income tax.
Personally? I say go back even further...repeal the Reagan tax cuts. The graph from Message 15 would certainly seem to support that sentiment. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by Rrhain, posted 07-16-2011 4:42 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by Rrhain, posted 07-16-2011 4:48 PM | | Jon has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 50 of 211 (624598)
07-19-2011 1:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
07-18-2011 10:48 PM
|
|
All Pot, No Stew
Regardless, SS recipients have a legal right to be paid, military contractors have a legal right to be paid, everybody who the government is supposed to pay has a legal right to be paid, because a law was passed to pay them. And the Executive branch simply isn't granted the constitutional authority to contradict Congress and say "sorry, not going to pay you" - not for any reason. There's already court precedent on this; when Congress passes a law that someone should be paid for something, they have to be paid. But what happens when the money just isn't there? What happens when the Social Security checks and military wage checks are returned NSF? What law creates something from nothing? Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2011 10:48 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 55 of 211 (624703)
07-19-2011 1:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
07-19-2011 11:53 AM
|
|
Re: All Pot, No Stew
The government prints money, Jon. By definition they can't run out of it because they're the source of it. But we're not dealing with printed money; we're dealing with electronic money, money in the bank.
So, he'll just strike some. Why? He is not required to do so.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2011 11:53 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2011 1:46 PM | | Jon has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 76 of 211 (625243)
07-21-2011 10:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by bobbins
07-21-2011 9:31 PM
|
|
Re: A first step.
they pay no taxes? poorer people bear a bigger burden of taxes than the rich. retail taxes, alcohol duty, tobacco duty, gas. They always had and unfortunately always will. That's definitely a problem; I agree. But as I told Rrhain earlier, my comment to jar was about income taxes. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by bobbins, posted 07-21-2011 9:31 PM | | bobbins has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 77 by bobbins, posted 07-21-2011 10:58 PM | | Jon has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 90 of 211 (625270)
07-22-2011 1:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
07-21-2011 11:45 PM
|
|
Isn't one of the Fed's responsibilities control of the money supply? If it was forced to take on everything the Treasury minted, then why should it even exist as an intermediary between the Treasury and everyone else using USD? Is there any law requiring the Fed to accept anything and everything minted by the Treasury? Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2011 11:45 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 91 of 211 (625272)
07-22-2011 2:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by AZPaul3
07-22-2011 12:29 AM
|
|
Re: minutiae
Get you a Miller and Modigliani on Macroeconomics and read the damn thing, Frog! Don't you know? One of the things Crash most prides himself on is the fact that he is an economic guru despite having never taken a single economic course in his life. It's something all us fools who did take economic courses should really be bashing ourselves on the head for right now: Why in the hell did we waste all that time studying when divine inspiration was all we needed? Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by AZPaul3, posted 07-22-2011 12:29 AM | | AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2011 2:21 AM | | Jon has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 94 of 211 (625277)
07-22-2011 2:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
07-22-2011 2:17 AM
|
|
Jon writes: Is there any law requiring the Fed to accept anything and everything minted by the Treasury? Only the "law" of supply and demand; the Fed introduces far more dollars than the Treasury can print or could print. Glad to see you didn't want to answer my question. To repeat the request you have made of Paul, would you mind actually citing the law that would require the Fed to accept and circulate these platinum mega-coins you keep talking about? Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2011 2:17 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2011 1:52 AM | | Jon has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: By the Nose
How could the Treasury Department, the only body legally allowed to print money, print money that was counterfeit? That's what AZPaul is saying is going on, here. That's not what I understand AZPaul to be saying. I understand his argument to be that the coins do not have any value until purchased by the Fed. You haven't yet shown us the laws that require the Fed to purchase the coins from the Treasury, nor have you shown us the laws that permit the Treasury to enter coin into circulation. Unfortunately, Paul hasn't really given any legal citations either; there is, however, a precedent that supports his argument. Whatever precedent might support your argument hasn't been put forward yet for consideration.
The Treasury prints or strikes it such that it says "legal tender" on it. Contra AZPaul, the Federal Reserve doesn't have a monopoly on the creation of dollars and never has. Paper and coin are treated differently.
If, like most people, you have some $2 bills socked away somewhere, then you're the holder of a Treasury note, which is also a kind of completely legal dollar, the number of which allowed to be in circulation is determined by statute. The last $2 bills I saw were Reserve Notes, like all modern paper money in the U.S. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2011 1:56 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: By the Nose
You can still spend a $2 U.S. Note like it's worth $2 because it is $2, by fiat. The fact that the Federal Reserve never issued it is irrelevant And you haven't yet shown that this isn't simply a case of grandfathering.
Jon writes: You haven't yet shown us the laws that require the Fed to purchase the coins from the Treasury, nor have you shown us the laws that permit the Treasury to enter coin into circulation. This is nonsense, and it bears no relationship to the legalities of monetary policy in the United States. The proof of it is the $2 bill. Why is the proof of it the $2 bill? When was the last time the $2 bill was issued as a U.S. Note? I prompted you to cite a law; not a bill.
Federal Reserve Notes are considered legal tender because they're accepted by the United States Treasury. Odd; when the Treasury sends bills to the Reserve, who must first agree to buy them, of course, it sure doesn't seem like the Treasury is on the receiving end.
the fact that he thinks a private company has the authority to make up money is another. Some private companies are endowed with more legal authority than others.
AZPaul gives many indications that he has no idea what he's talking about, if you look closely enough to see. And so the pot betrays itself. Jon Edited by Jon, : typ0
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2011 4:18 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 144 of 211 (626061)
07-26-2011 10:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 143 by crashfrog
07-26-2011 9:51 PM
|
|
Re: Notes? We don't need no stinking notes
Why would banks turn away money? It wouldn't be bank money; it would be in the Treasury account. The Fed buys the 'money' that the Treasury prints. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2011 9:51 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 146 of 211 (626085)
07-27-2011 1:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 145 by crashfrog
07-26-2011 10:56 PM
|
|
Re: Notes? We don't need no stinking notes
Who said anything about "bank money"? What is "bank money" supposed to be? A bank is an organization; like all organizations it can have its own money (for a bank that might be profits from investing its clients' money, etc.). Money in the Treasury account wouldn't be bank money, so the Treasury wouldn't be giving the bank money that the banks would be foolish to turn away. First, the Treasury would be asking that the bank perform a transaction service for the Treasury. Second, and even worse for your nonsense theory, the transaction would take place the way it has always taken place: The Bank would have to agree to pay the Treasury for the coins which would then become bank money and be deposited into the Treasury account.
But the point of trillion dollar coins isn't to circulate them, it's to use them to pay debts that the Executive Branch is lawfully and constitutionally required to pay. Is there a difference?
But, coinage is issued and backed directly by the Treasury. = Debt. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2011 10:56 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Straight Up
No, completely wrong. It works the same way when you make a cash deposit in your bank account. Does the bank "buy" the currency from you? No, of course not. They just take it and note that your account is now larger by the same amount of money you have them. You even cited a Wiki page that agrees with me!
quote:
Crashfrog in Message 145: quote:
Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), a bureau of the Department of the Treasury.[8] The Federal Reserve Banks pay the BEP not only the cost of printing the notes (about 4 a note), but to circulate the note as new currency rather than merely replacing worn notes, they must pledge collateral for the face value, primarily in Federal securities. In contrast, the Federal Reserve pays the United States Mintanother Treasury bureauface value for coins, as coins are direct obligations of the Treasury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve_note
(Emphasis added)
Perfectly simple and requires the issuance of no further government debt. You even cited a Wiki page that agrees with me!
quote:
Crashfrog in Message 145: quote:
Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), a bureau of the Department of the Treasury.[8] The Federal Reserve Banks pay the BEP not only the cost of printing the notes (about 4 a note), but to circulate the note as new currency rather than merely replacing worn notes, they must pledge collateral for the face value, primarily in Federal securities. In contrast, the Federal Reserve pays the United States Mintanother Treasury bureauface value for coins, as coins are direct obligations of the Treasury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve_note
(Emphasis added)
It's the difference between paying cash and writing a check. As far as I can tell, your proposed solution would only be even remotely possible if it involved the Treasury minting coin (and perhaps printing U.S. Notes) which it then distributed directly to those to whom it was obligated in place of a check drawn from its account. The money would still be the same thing, an I.O.U., except the Treasury wouldn't be taking anything in exchange for it, and so wouldn't technically be taking on more debt for itself. But when the Treasury sells its coin to the Bank, the Bank gives the Treasury something of actual value and receives, in exchange, a promise from the Treasury (worthless trinkets, really) to return that thing of actual value when asked for. That's a debtstraight-up.
quote:
Crashfrog in Message 149: If you have a quarter, which means that at your request the Treasury must pay you twenty-five cents, but the way they're going to pay that "debt" is by giving you a quarter
More ideally, they will give you back whatever they received from the Bank the first time around when they gave the Bank the coin in exchange for some stuff. If they give you a quarter in exchange for your quarter, then they're really not settling their debt; they're just telling you to take your I.O.U. and try to get something of value with it from someone else. Others are certainly free to accept your I.O.U., but that debt is still officially an obligation of the Treasury, even if you manage to pass along the responsibility of collecting on it to someone else. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2011 4:13 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2