Audience share is King. To pay the bills, media elites must flatter the audience with how smart they are and how stupid the other side is.

The GOP is simply beating progressives over the head with their cute nerdy idea that happens to make DEMs look irresponsible when the opposite is true. It's how DEMs snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. No fair blaming them for taking advantage of the really bad optics of the coin idea.

It was our stupidity, not theirs.

Of course, this message is not especially flattering to our ears. Everyone prefers to laugh, but the truth is we have opponents who pose a serious threat, and are intelligently using the craft of politics to shape public opinion in their favor.

It is irresponible to try to laugh it away with the progressive version of the teleprompter meme.

We pay their bills. They don't even understand the processes they are supposed to support; they are on vacation most of the time, and when they are supposedly working, they do nothing but vote no on everything, yet they have the audacity to imply that the other side is to blame for the Reagan/Bush debt.

Throw all the teabaggers out.

yet they have the audacity to imply that the other side is to blame for the Reagan/Bush debt.

Starderup,

Is it OK to blame the "other side" for the Trillions in debt added after Reagan and Bush or do you think none has been added in the past 4 years and/or that is also Reagan or Bush's fault? I do not care at this point who or why we have such a huge debt and continuing massive deficits - we can't go back and change it. We must move foward and really address the debt and deficits. For all the drama and stress of the fiscal cliff and the "compromise", very little was actually done to correct any of this.

Skip,

"We must move foward and really address the debt and deficits."

Why? People like to say this as if it's obvious, and it's not. The majority of our debt is owed to US citizens. I have yet to see a compelling argument that addressing the debt is more important than investing in infrastructure, healthcare, etc. I haven't seen a compelling argument that convinces me that paying down the debt is important at all.

Really Matt,

Then what was the fiscal cliff all about? Apparently a lot of folks in Congress along with the former politicians on the committee that recommended sequestration (which Obama commissioned them to do) all think it is a big deal. Also, just because most of it is owed to US citizens does not make it any less of a debt. A lot of that debt is owed to SS - you know that agency that sends out a ton of checks (money) every month. If we don't pay back our debt to the "citizens" of the US, don't you think that may affect the checks (money) that is supposed to be paid out of SS? This is the reason we got to this point - people with the mindset that running up a world record of debt and/or paying it down is no big deal "at all". I would imagine that you are a rather intelligent, pragmatic person, but like many (too many) of your fellow citizens, when it comes to the financial realm of government, it is all just magic and will always be OK no matter what we do.

The GOP and those who have accumulated great wealth, who the GOP represents, have lost sight of where their money originated. Now that a lot of their income comes from the money itself going to work for them, via interest/investments, they think that these are how money originate, and that, if you are too stupid or too poor to get this kind of income, then you are just a drain on them.

They extend this logic not only to the poor but to anyone who earns or has had to earn their living by working.

They have a big impediment in their vision, a huge blind spot. And that is because, psychologically, they cannot admit that the origin of their money was those very people whose labor allowed them or their forebears to profit. They and their forebears were the original takers ...

Why is it that when the Republicans were in the White House the refrain was, "Deficits don't matter, " and now that Democrats are in the White House the deficit is a national emergency?

To me K9 Sasha it does matter regardless of party. To paraphrase Senator Obama during his first Presidential campaign "to run up deficits that high is unpatriotic". Don't remember the exact quote, but he did say it was unpatriotic. And remember it was President Obama that commissioned the Simpson-Bowles commitee to look into the deficit and debt problem. Apparently he thinks it too may be a national emergency.

@Skip I'm confused about what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying that deficits only matter if the President says they matter. If the president (Reagan, Bush) says deficits don't matter, then they don't? Or am I misunderstanding and you think deficits matter even if the party in power says they don't?

K9Sasha,

I am saying deficits matter - at least very large ones like the ones we have now and have had for the past 8 years or so. And right now I think both parties and the President are saying they do matter. Which is why we had all the hand wringing and last minute negotiations between the parties to try to lower them. To me I do not care what party is in power - or even what each party thinks at the time - I think that continual deficits in the range of a Trillion dollars can not be a good thing down the line.

How do you pay down a deficit, i.e., pay back a loan, without putting more people to work to pay taxes instead of not being able to find work and getting unemployment and food stamps? It's obvious that until money gets circulating in the economy, no one is going to hire if there are no customers with money to buy goods. If you need proof of that, look at what austerity has done to the European economy.

So explain why getting rid of deficits now is more important than putting people to work, improving infrastructure to make future work more efficient and productive, and creating whole new industries to hire people for a 21st century economy, and, by the way, creating actual wealth to pay back the loan.

PS. Why do you think our present deficit is so extraordinarily large compared to past deficits?

dkm,

I am not the only one thinking that getting the deficits down now is a good thing. The current government (Democrats and Republicans) also think it is - that is what the whole fiscal cliff thing is/was about. I did notice that you only mentioned the tax side - putting more people to work to pay taxes. I do agree we need more people paying in as well as increasing the tax rates (and not just on the wealthy). But there is also ways to slow spending - and without touching unemployment and food stamps. There are myriad programs - large and small that savings through reduction of waste and fraud can come from. And actually some programs that I would classify more as "wants" than needs that can be scaled back big time or eliminated until we get back on more stable financial footing. I am all for things like the National endowment for the arts or funding for public television, but I would rather see a large percentage of their funding or temporarily until we slow/reduce the deficits. Some may not generate much in savings but then again the recent tax increase on the upper 2% will only bring in around $60 billion a year. At this point every million or billion in tax revenue AND spending cuts must be considered.

The fiscal bump was only marginally related to the deficit. The problem was that a bunch of nincompoops had convinced the voters that reducing government spending was more important than putting people to work, so in order to get an increase in the debt limit to pay bills that had already accrued, the administration agreed to cut spending if nothing could be worked out. The amounts that would be cut in domestic were more than the general population could afford, and the amounts that would be cut in military spending were more than the war profiteers wanted. Then tax rates on the middle class, that presently can't afford increased taxes, would go back to what they were under Clinton.

All of this is related to the deficit only because of an agreement to get legislators to vote to raise the debt ceiling. Otherwise there is no relationship, and in absence of that agreement, the date would have passed with no one getting excited.

The trillion-dollar coin is entirely legal. From Daily Kos:

Philip Diel ran the U.S. Mint from 1994 until 2000, and wasn't just the author of the 50-state quarters, but was also the co-author of the law that authorizes the Mint to issue commemorative coins—the same law that would authorize the Trillion Dollar Coin being discussed as a way to bypass Republican opposition to raising the debt limit. He dropped us an email, spurred on by this diary, to further discuss the idea.

You've written the best article I've seen yet on the trillion dollar platinum coin idea. [Those kudos are for Letsgetitdone/Joe Firestone-- kos.]

I’m the former Mint director and Treasury chief of staff who, with Rep. Mike Castle, wrote the platinum coin law and produced the original coin authorized by the law. Therefore, I’m in a unique position to address some confusion I’ve seen in the media about the $1 trillion platinum coin proposal.

* In minting the $1 trillion platinum coin, the Treasury Secretary would be exercising authority which Congress has granted routinely for more than 220 years. The Secretary’s authority is derived from an Act of Congress (in fact, a GOP Congress) under power expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). What is unusual in this case is that the law gives the Secretary discretion regarding all specifications of the coin, including denominations.

* The accounting treatment of the coin is identical to the treatment of all other coins. The Mint strikes the coin, ships it to the Fed, books $1 trillion, and transfers $1 trillion to the treasury’s general fund where it is available to finance government operations just like with proceeds of bond sales or additional tax revenues. The same applies for a quarter dollar.

* Once the debt limit is raised, the Fed ships the coin back to the Mint, the accounting treatment is reversed, and the coin is melted. The coin would never be “issued” or circulated and bonds would not be needed to back the coin.

* There are no negative macroeconomic effects. This works just like additional tax revenue or borrowing under a higher debt limit. In fact, when the debt limit is raised, Treasury would sell more bonds, the $1 trillion dollars would be taken off the books, and the coin would be melted.

* This does not raise the debt limit so it can’t be characterized as circumventing congressional authority over the debt limit. Rather, it delays when the debt limit is reached.

* This preserves congressional authority over the debt limit in a way that reliance on the 14th Amendment would not. It also avoids the protracted court battles the 14th Amendment option would entail and avoids another confrontation with the Roberts Court.

* Any court challenge is likely to be quickly dismissed since (1) authority to mint the coin is firmly rooted in law that itself is grounded in the expressed constitutional powers of Congress, (2) Treasury has routinely exercised this authority since the birth of the republic, and (3) the accounting treatment of the coin is entirely routine.

* Yes, this is an unintended consequence of the platinum coin bill, but how many other pieces of legislation have had unintended consequences? Most, I’d guess.

Philip N. Diehl
35th Director
United States Mint

While this is true for most coinage, the opposite is the case for bullion gold/silver/platinum coins. In these coins, the value is actually determined by the metal content, so a one ounce platinum coin with a $100 face value is actually worth $1500-$2000 based on the market price of platinum. While it is legal tender at $100, you'd be shortchanging yourself badly if you ever spent it as such.

If you were to change the face value to $1 trillion, then one could argue it is no longer a "bullion coin" and thus not legal under the secretary's power to "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". Proof coins are intended for collection rather than circulation or investment, so that would also be an iffy loophole.

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt the Obama administration would bank on what seems at a glance to be a rather flimsy case.

Nathan, are you saying that Obama is more principled than Republican presidents, governors, and Congressional leaders? They have been perfectly willing to proceed on the flimsiest of evidence, and with little, if any, justification, on any number of issues.

Not principled so much as smart enough not to want to hand Republicans an actual example of a massive overreach of executive power which would likely get smacked down in the courts.

Besides, the last thing the administration really wants is to take pressure off of the Republicans by suggesting that there's an easy out which would free them from blame or accountability for deliberately trashing the economy.

The trillion dollar coin is both a huge risk and a political loser, and for those reasons, it's unlikely to receive any serious consideration from the White House. At best, it is just a distraction from the real issues, and that is the real reason the NRCC is playing it up.

I feel dirty.. \snark

Try tipping a trillion dollar coin...

Exactly ..death panels redux

I hesitate to even get a glimpse of Faux news ...as this will shortly become conventional wisdom

Yeah, Steve -- enough with the faux naivete -- call a lie a lie.

Exactly. Another right wing talking point meant for the ignorant. Those who will believe any lie they spew - which is virtually every word out of their mouths.

Given the moron stupidity of Das Base (Al Qaeda - Arabic for "the base", these idiots couldn't even get to that level) I am sure they will be spreading this demonstration of idiocy far and wide.

I would LOVE to get one of them on camera and ask him point blank if he's lying or he's stupid. Then run it non-stop. This deliberate deception of an unwitting electorate is completely out of hand.

Entropy is correct. The idiocy is the lack of response to it. Where is the Democratic response mocking it and explaining to the public?

Don't store the coin on an island, either! Hank Johnson would think it might tip over.

While some may think 2+2 = 22, the others truly believe there can't be two number ones, as that would only make eleven! -Kevo

No they don't believe it, but like others have pointed out they're trying to make it seem that way to confuse the issue.

I'm surprised they haven't taken this to its conclusion and come up with the true cost of minting a $1 Trillion platinum coin, under their scenario, which is that the U.S. Mint would need to acquire $1Trillion worth of platinum and would have to manufacture the largest coin press ever constructed, which if their graphic is to scale, would require its own massive building to house. It would then need to get the rocket/shuttle transport vehicle from Cape Canaveral to deliver the minted coin from the Mint's new building to the Treasury and then to the Fed. Add it all up and those demonrats will need to spend something like $1.001 Trillion and 2 - 3 years to mint the $1T platinum coin ($1T for the platinum and an estimated $1B for the building, press, delivery and the new vault for the Fed).

Therefore, the Dem solution is no solution at all and will add another $1T to the debt and would take too long to solve the problem. RWNJ blogs will have posts about how stupid the libruls are much in the same way we point out how stupid they are, but as usual we are grounded in reality, while they are in fantasy.

I used to think that too but you know the old adage "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a probably a duck" I am beginning to think the addition of the Tea Baggers to the GOP has induced some sort of critical mass IQ reduction. Not only do they think that a trillion dollar coin would have to be big enough to sink the Titanic but they also believe that hitting the debt ceiling would only result in a partial govt. shutdown. I think they have all really lost it.

So, will the Republicans come up with their own version, made of tin?

"THis is Glen Beck. Send me ALL of your tinfoil hats (ok, keep one for emergencies) at once! Be sure to include a check for $5,000 to cover handling and shipping...

Always nice to be reminded what a person who has his papers certifying he had his prefrontal lobotomy so he could become a Republican looks like.

Go back to whatever rock in WackoWorld you crawled out from under and get back to fornicating your sheep, moron. It's what you're good at.

One need not be racist, or homophobic, or even white to suspect - for even a moment - that mandating one trillion dollars of value into a standard-sized coin would not actually impart one trillion dollars of value into said coin. That perhaps there would be some consequence, that perhaps the current value of a dollar would diminish, even a bit. One could have voted for Obama and still, perhaps briefly, contemplate that a government mandate does not, cannot, create wealth in a single instant. You on the far left, who agitate so vociferously for open minds, please stop for a second lambasting those who might object to "the coin" and similar measures. Please, open your minds - just a bit - and endeavor to learn just a bit about fractional reserve banking, inflation, hyperinflation, and its consequences.

Scott, for all your condescension, you don't even know what the word "triple" means.

Also, although the minting of the coin is legal, even most of us on the left think the idea is pretty silly. The only thing more silly than the coin idea is the fact that your side would default on debt that THEY AUTHORIZED to try and make the President look bad.

Hey Scott w/a bazillion numbers - I'm not one of those lefties you are a bit upset with about the "coin" but I would suggest you keep your horse in front of the cart!

The talk of the "coin" is only taking place because leaders in my own party (I've been a Republican since 1978.) have the gull to treasonously take us to default by employing a strategy that serves no one good save the egos of those who can't tolerate our current duly elected President!

Congress proposes, then writes legislation that carries the power of the purse! It is absolutely asinine to attack the President as an out of control spender when it is Congress that controls what is allocated in the first place. To hold the rest of us hostage is untoward for those instigating such action!

Here's the madness in the current formula as Republican leadership has defined it:

Congress has over spent, and now the President is responsible! If those in Republican suits insist on such a misnomered way of thinking, only two choices are evident for the rest of us:

Republicans are economically and politically retarded vis a vis Constitutional relationships, or they are damn liars and opportunists disguised as public servants! -Kevo

Not to put too fine a point on it, Bob, but your repeated use of the word 'use' when you mean 'used' (as in 'used to') labels you as someone who is not widely read. I suspect you get most of your information from spoken sources. Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? Am I right?

And thank God you aren't, moron. Go back to Wacko World and crawl back under your rock where you belong. Your existence proves that white male Republicans are lower on the evolutionary scale than amoebas.

Speaking of needing an education....

"To prevent a run on the dollar, stabilize the economy, and decrease unemployment and inflation rates, on August 15, 1971, Nixon issued Executive Order 11615, pursuant to the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, which imposed a 90-day maximum wage and price ceiling, a 10% import surcharge, and, most importantly, "closed the gold window", ending convertibility between U.S. dollars and gold. The President and fifteen advisers made that decision without consulting the members of the international monetary system, so the international community informally named it the Nixon shock."

So by Executive Order a Republican President ended the Gold Standard post Bretton Woods... or are you trying to tell us that Nixon is now a democrat?

Actually it was done way back during Woodrow Wilson's term. A Private Banking Consortium called the Federal Reserve approached the Government and offered to take over the printing of our currency. We could "borrow" the money from them with interest. This allowed the "banks" to own the currency and the Government got out of printing their own money and also having to use the Gold Standard to back it.

The Federal Reserve is not a Government Agency. It is a private corporation. So in light of this information if the Government were to make a trillion dollar coin it would need the Federal Reserve to do it and thus be liable for the debt plus interest.

Since most people do not know that this is where our money really comes from even the thought of making a coin as such is ludicrous.

You can read up on the creation of the Federal Reserve here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act, Note that while it was signed under a democratic president the bill was formulated by Republican Senator Nelson Auldrich. A financier and pro business legislator. The bill was originally rejected by the democrats as it gave too much power to private banks. The final bill was signed by President Wilson after there were many provisions put into place to protect the Citizens of the US. If you want to read the full history of the Federal Reserve the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" will make for some very interesting reading of how the bankers, through Republican Senator Auldrich, took control of our money.

So in essence, all of our debt is the result of the still pro bank and pro business republican party. Ever wonder why the banks got their bailout without strings attached?

It amazes me that so few people even know or understand how the government works yet feel they have the right to comment on the workings.

really?-531314, your comment prompted me to do some quick research on the Fed, via Wikipedia. I was only vaguely aware of this before, but here's some of what I learned there.

The Fed was created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, to address several banking "panics," particularly one in 1907. The President appoints its Board of Governors (Bernanke is the current chairman), although its policies aren't reviewed or approved by the President or Congress. Its purpose is to create policies that enable maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. And it's still the Department of Treasury that creates currency.

At any rate, I don't mean to contradict, but want to keep the MaddowBlog readers up to speed. Interesting reading on this at Wikipedia for anyone who's inclined to dig deeper.

;-)

BobBuford

With your argument you are telling Obama to go ahead with any and all expenses because he can just print more money to cover?

Again Bob, I know it's hard, but try: These are not the President's "expenses". The spending was already done, and every penny approved by Congress. The request to raise the debt limit is so that the Treasury can be authorized to PAY THE BILL!

Your elected Republican representatives are LYING TO YOU because they believe you're too stupid to understand this.

Agreed. I did the math. Platinum is currently trading at $1592 per ounce, and a trillion dollars worth is just under 20,000 tons. When I Google "What weighs 20,000 tons?" (under images) this website is one of the ones that comes up:

http://ultramanjapanhero.webs.com/monsters.htm

They should have put the platinum coin next to Godzilla!

Yes, thank you John for your response.

'A $20 bill does not have $20 worth of paper. Indeed, the paper and fibers that go into a $50 bill do not have five times the value of a $10 bill.' It use to not be this way. It use to be that a $1 was backed by that much in gold by the federal government so that a $1 bill was worth $1 but the democrats did away with this so they could literally grow money on trees. It is obvious through this article that the author needs education on how INFLATION works along with even just the BASICS of money.

I use to be in the middle but the ignorance of the Left has definitely allowed me to say that I'm not with you kids.

Nice to see two idiots find each other. "Birds of a feather..." and all.

Now if you go back to WackoWorld, you can really "get together", if you know what I mean, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Uh....isn't the whole point of decoupling money from precious metal to stabilize the value of our money?

Say we were pegged to gold (or silver). Gold (or silver) is a commodity sold on international markets and has a certain global value (which, BTW is measured by the value of American currency, since we are the "reserve currency" for the world)--currently, it's like $1650/oz.

Now assume that China, Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan, and Japan, all coordinated to sell their gold all at the same time, flooding the market with gold and thereby dropping the price of gold from $1650/oz. to $3/oz. In the matter of one day, your $20 bill would now be worth approximately 4 cents.

Congratulations, your monetary policy just made it super easy for global powers to cripple our economy and collude to devalue our currency because of your short-sighted need to have money pegged to something that you currently find to be a valuable substance.

This is why Ron Paul is a currency quack. Anyone who thinks that we should go back to backing money to some precious metal is living in the 19th Century. Come into the 21 st Century. 200 years have passed. Get with the time, old man.

^^^^^Moron. Look up the gold standard and equillibrium

Bush inherited a surplus and then lowered taxes, started two unfunded wars, and a couple other things, and turned that surplus into a deficit. The Republicans are the ones who caused the deficit and the Democrats are trying to keep the whole economy from sinking while they dig us out of the hole.

There is a reason that the economy does better with Democrats in charge than with republicans. That reason is that Democrats understand business a lot better than republicans do. Case in point. Right now republicans don't want to invest in the country because they focus on the amount of the loan. Democrats, on the other hand, are like Warren Buffett who realizes that if you spend $XX and get back $XX+0.5X, then it doesn't matter how much X is. So if you invest in creating jobs that add value to the economy like building roads, power distribution lines, clean power sources, improved communications, energy saving buildings, and that kind of thing, then you get back more than you invested. Republicans can't understand that concept.

To make it easier for the right wing christianists, consider the parable about the master who left on vacation and gave 10, 5 and 1 shekels to three different slaves. Two of them invested in the market while one hid his money in a hole in the ground. Those that invested got rewarded, and the one who didn't got sold down the river.

It's also ridiculous to make an issue of the phony "debt ceiling," but that doesn't seem to stop the wacko Republicans. Especially since they never seemed to be concerned with it (or with deficit spending in general) when there was a Republican president.

A silly solution to an idiotic problem. Sounds like a good way to handle it.

Weren't the Bush tax cuts achieved through the device of 'reconciliation'?

Yeah, just hit Delete on the whole comment by RobDon. Every bit either untrue or irrelevance masquerading as proof. Zip--gone!

Bush's tax cuts were passed by support from both parties. JL, nice try to dismiss but instead you might try contributing facts. Care to attack the facts instead of me? Probably not.

Ah, nice to see another idiot out on liberty from WackoWorld. Time to go back and get back to work fornicating your sheep, dipwit. You know it's what you're good at.

And guns don't kill people, either.

TCinLA,

What's wrong with what he said? So you would or would not pay $1 for someone's $1 bill? Does it make you feel smarter to just tell everyone to go fornicate with sheep when you don't yourself understand how all this works?

"An Obama executive order to mint such a coin would put the full faith and credit of the US government behind the purported value."

This, by definition, means that someone would pay $1T for it, since that is exactly what the government would be doing.

A denomination of money, whether paper or coin, is worth what the treasury says its worth, no matter how much paper, copper, nickel, silver, gold, or platinum is contained in it. That's the way it works.

Some people are just plain old too stupid to research anything. How do Republicans put their clothes on correctly everyday? Sheesh!

"An Obama executive order to mint such a coin would put the full faith and credit of the US government behind the purported value. Only a fool would $1T for a novelty coin unless it did contain $1T in platinum "

You do realize that you wrote two contradictory statements here, don't you? If the full faith and credit of the US government is behind the coin, then it doesn't matter how much platinum it has in it. You will get $1 trillion for it if you take it to the Treasury and ask them to change it for you. It's just like you got a check from the IRS for $485. Would you accept 25¢ for that check just because it's printed on paper worth 20¢?