Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
'The ever rising public debt imposes an ever rising debt service (interest charges). This, in turn, imposes the need for ever more taxes,'
As long as new debt is on the Fed's balance sheet, debt service doesn't significantly change.
I just watched Biden get educated by JP Morgan on what happens if the debt ceiling isn't raised or eliminated.
What other choice do they have, but to keep kicking the can down the road?.
Those programs already exist. How about we look at ways to get families off these programs and move more towards contributing members of society rather than propose to add to the band aids.
I don't think we have much of a hunger problem.
We do very much have a housing problem. Not everyone has a place to live by a long shot.... look at all the homeless.
We also don't have everyone getting the health care they need. Our health care system is an enormous mess. I've had health problems for the first time in my life this year and navigating the health insurance is hell. There's no rhyme or reason why some things are covered and some not, why I have to pay out of pocket for X but not for Y, and so on, with doctors telling me if I do Z, then I won't have to pay Y even if that is the less efficient course of action.
Not to mention that the homeless problem is also a health care problem. I've been actually talking to the homeless in my area and I'd estimate at least half if not up to 3/4ths of them are sick. PTSD, bi-polar, depression, addiction, schizophrenia, it's like a smorgasbord of mental health issues with them. They couldn't hold jobs if you gave them one.
If those programs exist then poverty, hunger and homelessness must not exist. I guess I just imagined the soup kitchens and the overcrowded, violent shelters.
Also, your assertion that contributing to society = employed is offensive and baseless. I guess a mom who is caring for her kids and freely helping out her neighbors isn't "contributing to society" unless she is also doing the taxes of some rich pedophile.
Those programs exist but not all want or will use them. Based on your statement, you seem to be claiming that these programs for hunger or homelessness don't exist or else not needed. I guess I imagined that you claim that these programs don't exist and then cite some of those programs in the very next sentence - either way you just made a false statement - these programs can't both exist and not exist.
Also what you said was not my assertion - please don't rewrite what I said which was "How about we look at ways to get families off these programs and move more towards contributing members of society rather than propose to add to the band aids." It was you that equated those two items as being equal - that is baseless and offensive to change words and then accuse based on your rewrite to something else.
In what way is looking to getting people to eventually able to contribute by helping to grow "offensive" - you are essentially equating those on assistance programs as being unable to ever work. What I was looking at was ways to give them a better life, you seem to want to keep them there, never able to support themselves - it is clear that you propose a permanent assistance life. It is not compassion to have people that are permanent recipients never able to support themselves or get help to get off assistance programs. You also are trying to put emotion into the discussion and to equate all taxpayers as "rich pedophiles" because your position is not really defensible.
I just watched Biden get educated by JP Morgan on what happens if the debt ceiling isn't raised or eliminated.
What other choice do they have, but to keep kicking the can down the road?.
This is an annual and unnecessary systemic risk. If I were King there would be more threatening with Trillion Dollar Proof Platinum Coins!
We do very much have a housing problem. Not everyone has a place to live by a long shot.... look at all the homeless.
We also don't have everyone getting the health care they need. Our health care system is an enormous mess. I've had health problems for the first time in my life this year and navigating the health insurance is hell. There's no rhyme or reason why some things are covered and some not, why I have to pay out of pocket for X but not for Y, and so on, with doctors telling me if I do Z, then I won't have to pay Y even if that is the less efficient course of action.
Not to mention that the homeless problem is also a health care problem. I've been actually talking to the homeless in my area and I'd estimate at least half if not up to 3/4ths of them are sick. PTSD, bi-polar, depression, addiction, schizophrenia, it's like a smorgasbord of mental health issues with them. They couldn't hold jobs if you gave them one.
Instead of restating problems - look at ways to fix - I never said that these programs did not have issues. Instead of putting band aids on these programs, lets look at real solutions that make these programs unnecessary or at least less of an issue.
There is enough housing for the homeless, just not where they currently are - do we send homeless to where the housing exists? If some of the homeless are sick and can't hold a job, why not have a program to address it directly - maybe because they really don't want the assistance - should we force it? MMT is not real so not a fix. UBI has not worked and presents its own issues and will not fix many these problems.
This is an annual and unnecessary systemic risk. If I were King there would be more threatening with Trillion Dollar Proof Platinum Coins!
This is a red herring, it was first proposed in 2011 and is based on a rather loose reading of a 1996 law on face value of coins. It is a really dangerous usurping of power - congress controls the purse, they would be basically agreeing to passing that power to the executive branch. They can not do that without rewriting the constitution.
This action requires the independent Fed to do this since they are the only ones that can issue the coin and accept the funds associated - it would also create bigger issues of inflation that would need to be offset - it is not in their interest to do this. Also the Secretary of Treasury would have to agree to accepting and depositing the coin, minting without depositing would do nothing, neither the Fed nor Yellen, support this = Yellen's comments;
Quote:
“I’m opposed to it and I don’t think we should consider it seriously. It’s really a gimmick and what’s necessary is for Congress to show that the world can count on America paying its debts,” Yellen said.
“This is equivalent — the platinum coin is equivalent to asking the Federal Reserve to print money to cover deficits that Congress is unwilling to cover by issuing debt. It compromises the independence of the Fed, conflating monetary and fiscal policy. And instead of showing that Congress and the administration can be trusted to pay the country’s bills, it really does the opposite.”
BTW - The constitution does not allow Kings or this action - there are 3 branches for a reason.
This is a red herring, it was first proposed in 2011 and is based on a rather loose reading of a 1996 law on face value of coins. It is a really dangerous usurping of power - congress controls the purse, they would be basically agreeing to passing that power to the executive branch. They can not do that without rewriting the constitution.
This action requires the independent Fed to do this since they are the only ones that can issue the coin and accept the funds associated - it would also create bigger issues of inflation that would need to be offset - it is not in their interest to do this. Also the Secretary of Treasury would have to agree to accepting and depositing the coin, minting without depositing would do nothing, neither the Fed nor Yellen, support this = Yellen's comments;
BTW - The constitution does not allow Kings or this action - there are 3 branches for a reason.
The executive issues the proof coin via the Treasury. It certainly is a balance of power issue, whether dangerous or beneficial as compared to the perpetual debt ceiling risks. The Fed just accepts the coin into the Treasury's account and into perpetuity.
Previous office holders have declined on it.
But it is law as written, if the executive decides to push the issue.
(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.
you are essentially equating those on assistance programs as being unable to ever work
I disagree with everything you said but especially this statement. You're implicitly assuming that earning a wage and working are synonymous. This is a deleterious capitalist framework. Is raising kids not work? Is mowing your elderly neighbor's lawn for free not contributing to society? "Having a job" is not the same thing as "working".
In capitalism, nobility is not found in "working" but in "spending". An unemployed parent busking and submitting aid forms while caring for their children is a bottom-rung un-person; a wealthy trust fund coke fiend buying his third yacht is nu-royalty. This is a backwards, upside-down system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
