Moderator: Mod Squad
The Treasuty would make the coin, which would then be deposited at the Federal Reserve, where it would be credited to the federal government's account. The federal government could then draw on that to help pay its bills without technically exceeding the debt ceiling.Birdofterror wrote:I saw something about this earlier. I was certain I heard it wrong, and thought the coin was actually an alternative to the $100 bill.
To actually confirm that it's a trillion dollar coin? That just sounds bonkers. To what end- for what purpose would this even exist?
It was kind of difficult making heads or tails at first of what you meant by "Reality's Liberal Bias." At first, given the context, I thought you were just talking about some cockamamie idea that it's accepted truth that higher taxes will always result in more revenues, but of course that can't be what you're saying. After all, I think we can agree that if we raised the Federal income tax rate significantly (say, 75% with no exemptions or loopholes), we can reasonably predict that it would have a number of devastating economic effects, which we could reasonably argue would include a significant decrease in tax revenues. Of course, no one is asking for that except Sentios; I don't think anyone who knows anything about economics is actually advocating that idea. So you must be talking about something else.Valhallen wrote:As it happens, the recent fiscal cliff deal includes an increase in the top rate. If the next year has more revenue from the personal income tax than this last year, I don't want you to ever again claim that cutting taxes increases revenue or that raising taxes reduces revenue without first presenting evidence to BR or myself and getting approval to do so on a case by case basis. Deal? Or do you not want to stake a claim against reality's well-known liberal bias? Because I'm getting tired of repeating myself.Rough Giraffe wrote:If Obama wants to raise taxes, we're going to see a significant drop in revenue in the first year.
Your other sources indicate that if people disagreed with Nate Silver's calculation of Obama's victory over Romney that they were stupid, mathematically illiterate, biased, or irrational.
The thing is, I generally don't agree with increasing taxes
Ah, I see. Well then I concede this point. That's what seems to have happened, and I believe you are right.Valhallen wrote:There have been several different budgets mentioned in this line of discussion. … If you instead want to talk about the one voted down in the House, that was actually a Republican proposal intended as a political stunt very much like the one in Sentios's link above. As for your most recent link, that's the same event described in the article Sentios linked earlier, which includes this bit: "Just as they did in March in the House of Representatives, Republicans forced a vote on a bill that was supposed to resemble the president's budget, but wasn't actually the president's budget. A Republican Senator submitted it, and called for the vote." Why did they do that? So that people would talk about "Obama's budget" being rejected unanimously as if that was actually what had happened. So I'm still curious about what budget / vote you're talking about.
I'm beginning to think you have a clear bias against anything that is Right-leaning. It seems as if you don't even care about why they are abusing filibusters, just that they're abusing them. I’m sure you realize that the Filibuster laws are in place for a reason, yes? What do you think that reason is? For shits and giggles?
These "budgets" you linked are all appropriations bills, not budgets; provisional spending for specific departments. I am talking about a full fiscal year budget for the government as a whole, such as the one the President is required to submit every year and that Congress is required to propose and vote on. That has not been done since 2008. And it is because the Democrats want to pass their own bills and not let the Republicans have any inputs or pass any amendments to them.Valhallen wrote:So since the FY2010 budget, you don't think there have been budgets passed? Yet money continues to be spent, and the government hasn't shut down. Perhaps that's because budgets actually have been passed.Rough Giraffe wrote:that they haven't been able to propose or pass an actual budget since 2009. They've all voted no on nearly every budget the GOP presents; how's that for obstructionism?
"Hold the country hostage." I like how you see this as only a problem for the Republicans. So, the GOP wants something to be done about the trillion-dollar deficits, and wants to have comprehensive spending reform to fix a problem that everyone agrees is a problem, and yet it's somehow a bad thing that they're actually trying do their job?
I think you might want to rework your thought process on this one. I remember a lot of times the Republicans have caved to the Democrats, and times when the Democrats have caved to the Republicans. I don't see what the idea of either side compromising or not on any given issue has to do with holding the country "hostage."Valhallen wrote:Don't you remember all those fights where Democrats caved almost entirely to Republican budgetary demands to avoid various manufactured catastrophes?
I still don't see anything that's immoral about what they're doing. Obama had proposed a tax increase of about 42-45% for upper-income earners, which would have been a significant increase; enough so that they might have to downsize their workforce, and they were letting their employees know that. What you implied is that they were telling their employees "Vote Republican or you're fired." From what you have shown me, that is not happening.Valhallen wrote:I have been pointing out that something you described as "fucked up" (which I interpreted as a criticism of the morality involved) has actually been going on. If you carefully read the links I gave, or even the excerpts I posted earlier, you would see that threats have actually been made along partisan lines, and some companies have given employees lists of approved candidates (who all happen to belong to a particular party).The third link wrote:Bosses have little to fear from knowingly misinforming or threatening workers during election season. Calculated and determined efforts at worker intimidation are as brazen as ever this year. Professor Ferguson notes that the waning power of unions, along with non-enforcement of laws, has emboldened employers. CEOs are feeling quite comfortable putting their intimidation efforts into writing and making them public. There is no federal election law that specifically blocks bosses from telling workers they could lose their jobs if they vote for a particular person.
Pardon me, but your source does not support the claim that they just had their best year ever. It says:Valhallen wrote:As for "getting first-hand evidence why [excessive taxation] is such a bad thing," consider David Siegel and his company, the subjects of the first link I gave about this. Supposedly, if Romney weren't elected, Siegel might have to downsize his company (which had just had its best year ever) or even close it and retire.
Siegel confirmed Tuesday that he sent the e-mail, saying he felt an 'obligation to keep them informed.'
'Four years ago when Obama got elected we were doing a billion dollars a year in sales with 12,000 employees,' he told the Orlando Sentinel. 'As a result of the last four years, we are down to 7,000… We're still a viable company, but if they start taking money out of my pocket with higher taxes and ObamaCare, there's going to be less money to build resorts.'
Even before Obama was elected in November 2008, though, Siegel was saying the time-share business was bad and getting worse. That September, he had announced that he was shutting down some of the company's sales operations and preparing to lay off hundreds. At the time, the nationwide financial meltdown had caused a financing squeeze that Siegel said came on with the suddenness of a 'heart attack.'
Citation? Your source above actually says he has downsized his company. Did you miss that?Valhallen wrote:In the real world, not only has Siegel not downsized his company, he recently gave a blanket 5% raise to his employees. Since events have conformed more to my statements than Siegel's in this matter, will you reconsider your thoughts on the new relationship between corporate personhood and political speech?
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests