Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

This forum can be a scary place, 'cause we got lax rules: let's see your war face. Take a breath, and roll the dice, you might find out we're really nice.

Moderator: Mod Squad

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Valhallen » Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:26 am

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?
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.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Tuor » Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:30 am

Why a coin and not a bill?
Rest Easy Ethan
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 18304
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 2:22 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Valhallen » Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:34 am

Legal limits on the printing of money, but the presence of a loophole for platinum (and not other) coins.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Q.U. » Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:47 am

Only the Fed can print bills. There are also limitations on minting representative value gold and silver coins, but no such limit on platinum. So the federal government can technically mint a $1T coin and give it to the Fed to in a way "pay off" a bit of it's debt or instead of issuing new debt. This might not affect the inflation since the coin would not be in circulation, well unless the markets and the people won't trust the Fed that the QE is merely temporary. It is, in a simplified explanation, simply a method to consolidate a part of the debt and interest into one bond at a lower interest rate, kinda like a $1T bond. This is in no way a new method of dealing with debt and interest in the market, since many companies and banks use it all the time. Only that not in this way, and not as a government. Don't know if I'm explaining it correctly, but yeah.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:45 pm

They'd also need to transport it by TANK or something, just in case this country still has anyone daring enough to pull off the caper of the century.


On an unrelated note, if they do print it, does anyone here have free time and a particular set of skills?
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11822
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Whatis6times9 » Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:51 pm

The thing will literally be minted "transferred" to the fed and immediately destroyed, intragovernment currency has no real world value outside of the value of the materials or whatever value collectors put on it.
I AM THE GOSHDARN BATMAN
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8968
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby NeoWarrior7 » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:55 pm

"We made a coin then melted it" is in no way the title for a good action-theft flick.
Image
For the Greater Good
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 11822
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:15 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Whatis6times9 » Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:09 pm

But why steal a coin that in actuality is only worth a few grand, if anything it would be a comedy with inept crooks who don't realize that a $1 trillion coin is actually only worth the cost of the platinum outside of the gov't.
I AM THE GOSHDARN BATMAN
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8968
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Valhallen » Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:34 pm

Legally, it really would be worth the face value. It's just that since it's only for intragovernmental transfers*, anyone else who would try to use it would have had to steal or counterfeit it. But as a black market collector's item, it might be worth a few million to certain people who don't regard the US very highly.

*Non-public currency has been done before. Here's the design issued in the thirties to deal with moving off the gold standard:

Image

Image

But anyway, any thoughts on the general craziness of the budget situation.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:34 am
Location: The Rotunda of Seclusion
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Icha » Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:31 pm

Well, if it's going to be melted down anyway, then why does it matter if it's stolen?

(Why doesn't the government pretend they lost it, and sell it to some sucker for millions, making loads e money?)
One time when I was high, I thought I was in an ambulance dying. Turns out I was just eating sherbert.
-stufflikehearts-
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:26 pm
Location: ???
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Riz » Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:07 am

(Uh, cuz it's actually worth a trillion?)
Image
with a heart colder than a welldiggers nutsack
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 15647
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:09 pm
Location: no.
Gender: Female

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Mir@k » Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:09 am

but outside that specific government deal it's only worth the platinum of which it's made :I
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 23 (8/12-8/19): Rumble on the Potomac

Postby Rough Giraffe » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:14 am

Ugh. This is taking a long time. It's very difficult doing the research properly while I'm underway. Simple pages take ages to load, and sometimes they cut out halfway through.

However, there is one thing right now that I can make a sufficient argument against. I'll follow through with the rest later.

Valhallen wrote:
Rough Giraffe wrote:If Obama wants to raise taxes, we're going to see a significant drop in revenue in the first year.
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.
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.

Digging into your sources, it seems you took that line directly from Paul Krugman (who himself apparently stole it from Rob Corddry, though I can't find the line he's referencing at the end there), a man whose idea of of a civil discussion is somewhere along of the lines of "I'm right and you're wrong, don't try to argue with me." I'd like to say that that's a joke on my part, but looking back on many of the things he's said (whereafter he was proven wrong but did not acknowledge this, nor change his rhetoric) and some of the discourse he's had with more Right-leaning figures (such as a recent one in which he claimed that all of his opponent's facts were "non-facts" without presenting anything to really back that up), and given some of the nastier things he has to say about the opposing viewpoint, I can't see him as anything but a well-spoken Leftist bully whose policy prescription is more often wrong than right.

But enough about Bizarro Santa Claus.

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.

While all that might be accurate at one level or another, a rather large number---if not the majoriy---of so-called Right-wingers observed that, by the polls, the country was increasingly dissatisfied with Pres. Obama's handling of the economy. They made the observation that during the 1980 Carter v. Reagan election and the 1984 Mondale election, many polls predicted that Reagan's opponent would win. But they were wrong, and Reagan won both times. The fact is that most polls and predictions are just that; polls and predictions. It doesn't mean they are always right. Granted, people on the Right wanted Romney to win, and they were extremely disappointed when he lost; myself included. But to say that people are stupid to have thought that he was going to win, or that they hate math, or that they're irrational as a result of that is kind of irrational in and of itself. After all, the left has been astronomically wrong before.

Hundreds of people made predictions that Obama would win. Hundreds of people made predictions that Romney would win. What do you think would have happened if Romney had been elected? If Nate Silver's prediction had not come true? What would be the probable outcome, and the reaction of the Right? Would it then be "Reality's Conservative Bias?" Or would the Left say that the election was a farce and Obama should have won, and demanded a recount like in 2000?




Now... I believe the original topic was taxes. First of all, I'm not making that deal under any circumstances. We can have a discussion on the merits of a certain tax rate, and we can disagree all we like. But I'm not going to put up with someone telling me I can't say something that isn't against the rules to say simply because they're in a position of power and disagree with me saying it. In any case, I'll explain why I made that statement.

As we can see, herein lies the problem with me using "absolute" language that assumes we both know what I'm talking about and are going off the same data. When I made that statement, I was going off of the idea that Obama's Federal tax rate increase was proposed at about 47%, up from 35% (12% increase in taxes) in addition to closing tax loopholes. As it stands, I can't find a source that backs up my idea that it was 47%. I know I heard it somewhere, I just can't find it. So we'll say I was going off of faulty data and made a fallacious argument on the spur of the moment. I was wrong to do so.

The thing is, I generally don't agree with increasing taxes because of the moral and logistical implications that come from making arbitrary decisions on what constitutes a "fair" or "appropriate" tax rate---which remains an argument used by the current President---which then divides us as a nation. That kind of language ("Is it fair that...") being used by people in power---by people to whom it also applies---is extremely hypocritical and inflammatory. But I know your argument was not about fairness, so I commend you on that.

Your argument seemed to be more along the lines of "we can fix the deficit by raising taxes," which is at the least a fair argument and we can discuss what you think the most optimal rate aught to be.

My argument is more along the lines of "We should first try to fix the deficit by cutting spending, not increasing taxes." That might not be what I said, but, as I have said, I was wrong for saying it.

The point I'm trying to make is that overall taxation is high, and slanted unfairly towards higher-income earners. As has been proven true time and time again, "increased taxation of an activity generally results in less of that activity." And what exactly is an income tax if not a tax on labor and enterprise? Thus, increased taxes on labor and enterprise generally result in less labor and enterprise. Thus, if labor and enterprise suffer due to increased taxation, we can predict that tax revenues will fall.

Furthermore, higher taxes generally create a disparity in business, where taxes become an excessive burden on both large and small businessmen to disproportionate levels depending on what kind of activity that business is engaged in. It creates an atmosphere where the rich have to work the system to their advantage in order to keep (more of) the money they earn, and where only someone with the right connections can get tax breaks. People in the lower brackets then see the people on the higher brackets taking advantage of those tax breaks (which are, by the way, completely lawful) and say they're guilty of "tax evasion," or else say something like "They're not paying their fair share! Raise their taxes!" Therein lies the disparity at the bottom---that those at the bottom are increasingly perceptive to the unfair tax rates, but they see themselves as the victims (which is one of the reasons why I have problems with a progressive tax rate). And since the lower classes are easier to exploit than the upper classes, that's what happens on an election year when people want to get a leg up on their opponent; they take advantage of public outcry (read: whining). That's why we have people talking so much about the class warfare from the President. It's because he's been using it to his full advantage.

The President learned his politics from Community Organizers. They operate by rallying people towards an imagined crisis and offering solutions. They manufacture victims and link them to alleged aggressors, going so far as to point blame where it doesn't belong. In this way, they're really little more than bullies.

If you don't believe me, or you think that I'm jumping to conclusions or something, feel free to call me on it, but I can offer several examples of why this is the case (not solely related to taxation). But it's a different topic of conversation, so feel free also to abandon it if you think it's too much of a tangent. Either way is fine with me.

In any case, my lunch break is almost over, and I need to get back to work. I'll keep working on my response when I have some time.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Q.U. » Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:48 pm

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.

Predictions are just predictions. What I was thinking about is that at some point during the vote count you have just HAD to admit that it is no longer mathematically possible for Romney to win. And some people couldn't accept that. I can understand when a random voter does that, they are allowed to be emotional about it and fall into denial. But for some people or news stations to fail at maths when it doesn't reflect what they hope the result to be is just pathetic to watch.

The thing is, I generally don't agree with increasing taxes

There is no "generally". Whether to raise or lower taxes depends only on the circumstances and conditions of the country and the world economy. That's all. We can spend months discussing whether the rich are being taxed unfairly high, or unfairly low, but that's not even the disturbing part. The disturbing part is that so many of the Republican politicians have vowed to "never raise taxes", by any amount for anybody.
Which is a completely retarded notion in it's very core. It is the idea au pair to the reasoning among kinder-gardeners. It's like driving a car, and saying: "we can accelerate, but we will never decelerate". Well then you're just going to be driving off the cliff my friend. This kind of notions are the reason why I think any American should be greatly concerned about the intellectual level of their elected officials.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Rough Giraffe » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:38 pm

@QU: I don't know if I've said this enough, but I don't agree with a lot of the things Republicans do. I've repeatedly said that I'm not a Republican. I think that a lot of Republicans fall victim to the same kind of "bubble" mindset that a lot of Democrats do, where they forgo their personal principles in order to simply oppose whatever the other side's argument is. That's why we saw many Democrats in favor of the debt limit when other notable Republicans were in office, and opposed when their elected representative was in office; same thing with many Republicans. Partisanship kills your core values and makes you no better than a puppet.

Edit: Whoops. Got that backwards. Fixed.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Rough Giraffe » Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:52 am

More of my reply. Not finished yet.

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.
Ah, I see. Well then I concede this point. That's what seems to have happened, and I believe you are right.

Now, I have found a summary of the President's proposed 2013 budget, but I cannot find where it was voted on in the House or Senate. Would you be willing to help me out here? I'm legitimately curious.

Valhallen wrote:
Rough Giraffe wrote:I find it rather telling that although the House and Senate Democrats want to try and call out the Repubicans on some kind of imagined obstructionism,

It is not imagined. It is unprecedented.
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?

On the 6/25/12 episode of The Daily Show, Senator Marco Rubio was invited on and painted a rather clear picture of why Senate Republicans are using the filibuster so frequently. The discussion on the filibuster starts around 7 minutes into the first. To summarize, the Republicans are using the filibuster so much because the Democrats realize they have the majority and can push any bill they want through, and will not allow the Republicans to have any amendments on it, and therefore the response to such a ploy is that the Republicans aren't going to let anything through if they can't have any say in it. The filibuster is the only tool the Republicans have to defend themselves in that case. If the situation were reversed, I have no doubt in my mind that you would be making an attack on the Republicans for what the Democrats are currently doing.

Valhallen wrote:
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?
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.
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:Just not the Democratic proposals, because Republicans control the House and enough of the Senate to hold the country hostage.
"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?

At this point I feel I should remind you that when Pres. Obama was a senator under Pres. Bush, he opposed the debt limit increases? Are you suggesting that it's a bad thing when the Republicans flip-flop on certain issues, but perfectly all right when the Democrats do it?

Valhallen wrote:Don't you remember all those fights where Democrats caved almost entirely to Republican budgetary demands to avoid various manufactured catastrophes?
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."

Also, what "manufactured" crises are you referring to? And if you're going to point out manufactured crises from the Right, you will of course give equal attention to the ones manufactured from the Left such as racism, global warming and, more recently, gun control, won’t you?

Valhallen wrote:
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.
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).
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: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.
Pardon me, but your source does not support the claim that they just had their best year ever. It says:
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.'


If it is the case that Seigel's company has been doing much better, and has returned his workforce to 12,000 or more or else has record profits for his company, I would like to see a citation to that effect.

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?
Citation? Your source above actually says he has downsized his company. Did you miss that?

To my knowledge, you have not provided a source to verify the claim that they "had [their] best year ever." And so, to answer you question: No, I will not.

[Note: "Best Year Ever" to me would mean to me they were back to where they were before they downsized, or that they were back to the manning since the downsize, or that they made a significantly higher profit in spite of downsizing. Perhaps your definition is different than mine?]
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Icha » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:08 pm

Say, you guys think this might cause some problems?

http://readersupportednews.org/news-sec ... ection-act

Also, I know that there are people out there who want to grab all the guns and destroy the second amendment because of their feelings and disregard for statistics, but will they succeed? Man, I've spent too much time on politically bent websites.
One time when I was high, I thought I was in an ambulance dying. Turns out I was just eating sherbert.
-stufflikehearts-
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 4039
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:26 pm
Location: ???
Gender: None specified

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Rough Giraffe » Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:56 am

A bill effectively saying "Even though our product is untested and potentially hazardous to one's health, you can't sue us even if someone gets sick or dies as a result?" Yes, I can see how that might cause problems.

Aren't you glad that a full one-hundred percent of Senate Republicans voted against that budget? And you'll be thrilled to know that 4 Democrats (out of 54) voted against it as well. At least now no one can blame that on the Republicans. Isn't democracy wonderful? It's a little bit like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner, isn't it?

As for gun control: Proponents of gun control measures tend not to look at all the facts before they make their assertions, which is a little bit like me saying that raising taxes will "always" result in fewer revenues (it's better to say "sometimes"), or like someone saying that Piers Morgan is "intelligent" or "open-minded" (both of which are blatant falsehoods).lol c wut i did thar?

Some people like to cite misleading statistics ("~100,000 people are hit by gunfire every year"--this one ignores that a large percentage of those are either hunting accidents, cases of victims defending themselves from attackers, and police shooting criminals in armed conflicts), or say if you ban guns, gun-related crime goes down; what they fail to notice is that violent crime skyrockets. There was a video critique by Lee Doren of HowTheWorldWorks on this very subject recently. Covered a lot of topics and didn't even make any Constitutional arguments.
Image
A little bit Ruff around the edges
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:39 am
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Mir@k » Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:19 pm

Never thought i'd miss this thread being active.
24 Karat
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:00 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Q.U. » Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:03 pm

US government shutdown.

Discuss.
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Q.U. » Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:11 pm

Hahahaha... Couldn't have been done better.

This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.
Moderator

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Zerus
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby ari-6 » Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:16 pm

I am sorry if this has already been said but how big is this coin exactly if you don't mind my asking?
My Gallery http://ari-6.deviantart.com/gallery/ Check it out when you get the chance.
gott ist tot
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:33 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Whatis6times9 » Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:25 pm

Any size they wanted it, it wasn't going to be a trillion dollars worth of platinum. Just a coin made of platinum that has $1 trillion dollars as it's assigned value.

As far as this Gov't shutdown I'm waiting for the next civil war because I think that's the next illogical extreme for the republican party, especially these hardline tea partiers.
I AM THE GOSHDARN BATMAN
Snafu Gold Card Member!

User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 8968
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:10 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby ari-6 » Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:32 pm

Then it could be the size of a regular coin? In the event that someone did try to steal it, I think the best way to transport it would be in somebody's pocket. I do not really understand these sorts of things, Why would they assign such a large worth to such a small thing only to destroy it? Could something like this not have been done through computers? I am sorry I do not really know what I am talking about, if this has already been explained then please just ignore me.
My Gallery http://ari-6.deviantart.com/gallery/ Check it out when you get the chance.
gott ist tot
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:33 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Weekly discussion 24 (1/13/13-1/20/13): $1 trillion coin

Postby Tenshi Nova » Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:34 pm

A civil war...that would be petty.
Check out Nova Island Productions
It's messy :p
Rocks
User avatar
offline
 
Posts: 4554
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 4:21 am
Gender: Male

PreviousNext

Return to Wham, Spam, Thank you, Ma'am!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Mathias, Senel and 8 guests