Congressional Democrat Proposes Minting $1 Trillion Coin to Pay off Debt


TBSchemer's avatar
[link]

Can't pay your debts? Just print larger denominations of money!
Has this guy ever heard of hyperinflation? More importantly, have those of you who vote Democrat ever heard of hyperinflation? This $1 trillion coin proposal is a seriously dangerous idea, which would instantaneously make the dollar a worthless scrap of paper. It has happened before with other currencies, and it will happen again with our own currency if this is allowed to go through.

How does hyperinflation affect you? Imagine the total loss of all of your savings. Got $200,000 saved up to buy a house? Too bad, now you can only buy a cheeseburger with it. Oh shoot, you waited too long- now you could maybe get a pack of gum with that kind of money.

How can you people vote for these idiots?
Comments238
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
FerricPlushy's avatar
Almost as ridiculous as a government having an arbitrary debt limit that can't even be enforced
Couldn't help but notice that there was no problem increasing the debt limit over a half dozen times under GW who was the first leader in history to wage war while lowering taxes
And last time I checked Obama said he wouldn't use the trillion dollar coin
TBSchemer's avatar
Right, because Democrats never have any problem with any level of irresponsible spending. So, when the Republicans succumb to its temptations, all barriers are lifted.

If the Democrats cannot be convinced to allow entitlement cuts, then this country will collapse economically.
FerricPlushy's avatar
So you're saying it's the democratss fault GW increased the debt by 10 trillion dollars, and then it's Obama's fault he increased the debt 8 by 8 trillion? you can't have it both ways
TBSchemer's avatar
I'm saying the fault for the spending under Bush falls on both the Republicans and Democrats, but the Democrats are solely to blame for the spending under Obama. In other words, the Republicans are occasionally responsible, but the Democrats have no shame or sense.
FerricPlushy's avatar
If republicans want so much fiscal responsibility why can't we cut our bloated military budget? Our defense budget is largest than the next 8 largest federal defense budgets combined.
TBSchemer's avatar
Fine. Cut it in half, and you save $300 billion per year. Yet, to actually balance the budget in the long term, you still need to cut at least another $700 billion per year from somewhere. Where are you going to get it?
FerricPlushy's avatar
How much does freezing pay growth for elected officials, cutting all foreign aid, making all elected officials buy their own health insurance, limiting the number of tax deductions a corporation can take, creating tariffs on foreign electronics and imported cars, and not lending 7 trillion dollars on .001% interest to banks that turn around and buy government bonds for 2.75% interest save?
View all replies
VorpalPen's avatar
It's as ridiculous a notion as the one the Republicans have of 'letting the U.S. default on it's payments because everybody hates their ideas', which is why the coin was brought up in the first place. Obama said there would be no cuts attached to the next self-imposed debt ceiling fiasco because Republicans don't want to pay the bills they've incurred, and he meant it. When he told them bitches he wasn't playing games, however, he was lying...who needs a coin when you have the 14th amendment!
TBSchemer's avatar
You're forgetting that it's the Democrats who are unrelentingly driving us into debt.
VorpalPen's avatar
Any spending Obama sees fit is justified in the eyes of those who elected him. Perhaps if Republicans hadn't been so eager to let Bush double the debt, people would take them seriously when they talk about spending. It's taxes that need an overhaul, first.
Jeysie's avatar
Addendum: In fact, that's the real reason the debt crisis exists: Because expecting workers to work that aren't paid enough to afford to do so is unsustainable without running up enough debt to cover the difference.
VorpalPen's avatar
No kidding. It is cheaper to not work these days...I'm pissed that the payroll tax was increased, too. Let every corporation with overseas operations not related to national security eat the tax -- it's too early to hit working stiffs with this shit, for Christ's sake! It does nothing for growth. Gas was also a biggie for me, as well. I used to drive an hour one way to work. I'm all for nationalizing, for sure -- we pay for it all already.
Jeysie's avatar
I'm actually not upset the payroll tax is extended. It's like how if you contribute less to your IRA, then you eventually get less money from it, so you don't necessarily want to drop that contribution.

On the whole though, yeah, that's something the conservative retards don't understand. There is a definite gap where you start working and make too much to stay on benefits, yet you don't make enough to make up for the benefits you lost, especially when you factor in the other costs of working (more need for transportation, more need for grooming, daycare if you have kids, etc.). You can end up in this perverse system where moving from welfare (or other assistance) to working can actually leave you worse off.

And of course, instead of doing the intelligent thing and raising wages & benefits so working is always beneficial, the conservatives either retardedly reduce benefits (so you get to be just as fucked while on benefits as you are working, so absolutely nothing you do leaves you better off, yay), or retardedly insult people for not being dumb and being willing to leave themselves worse off anyway just to get a job.
Jeysie's avatar
:whisper: Actually Schemer doesn't like that the liberals understand how reality works and that a job can't be worked unless a worker can afford to work it, so every job that exists deserves at least a living wage by pure logic divorced from retarded ideology.
TBSchemer's avatar
And that's the central problem with Liberalism: The Liberal philosophy of what constitutes a "right" is too far-reaching and indiscriminate. Society will never be able to support all of it, because in the Liberal mind, everyone has a "right" to have every comfort the average person has.

But some people are worse than average at supporting themselves, so giving them average reward for sub-standard work negates the point of trying to improve. Instead of having everyone help pull the wagon, more and more people jump into the wagon while fewer and fewer people keep on pulling it. Eventually, there just aren't enough people supporting themselves to keep the wagon moving, and it stops. The system breaks down. The debt crises we're seeing throughout the democratic socialist nations are the real-world manifestations of this collapse.
ChakatBlackstar's avatar
I'm a liberal...and even I think that's a bad idea. Making such a drastic change to the economy would result in disaster no matter what the effects are due to the sheer size of the change.
ChakatBlackstar's avatar
trioditis's avatar
Because that worked out so very well for Germany.
Agburanar's avatar
We would not be discussing this if the lunatic fringe of American politics were not attempting to hold the country's economy hostage.

As much fun as it would be to mint trillion-dollar coins (perhaps bearing the faces of the Koch brothers?) it is unlikely to happen, because it would be too easy for Republicans to capitalize on politically.
tehbigd's avatar
(perhaps bearing the faces of the Koch brothers?)
I'd much prefer the likeness of them engaged in a degenerate sex-act, maybe a Rusty Venture. Wouldn't it be hilarious for the USA to be the only country in the world with coinage that pretty much says "fuck you"?
TBSchemer's avatar
By "lunatic fringe," you mean the wing that is currently considering a plan to deliberately send the US currency into hyperinflation, right?
katamount's avatar
Unless the population of the US suddenly died overnight, went insane and started Condemned for realz, or decided to have a Civil War again, you won't encounter hyperinflation.
Zucca-Xerfantes's avatar
Lemme try to explain this to you...

The currency is, unless it is inherently valuable (Like a gold coin) is a reserve note. A way of saying 'This is just a placeholder for the thing of actual value.'

The problem with this *stupid* trillion dollar coin idea is this:

What is it representing? It sure as hell isn't worth a trillion dollars in and of itself. It's not like it's a sliver of some rare element wrapped in platinum.

What is it a placeholder *for*?

So when you casually toss a TRILLION dollars into the pond, ALL money would be less valuable.

AKA inflation.

AKA gumball machines that accept five dollar bills.

The coin is nothing more than a political move. An idiotic thing that the administration, because they believe deep down that we're a nation of idiots and we won't call him out on it. That we'll believe it's the magical silver bullet solution we've been conditioned to expect.

Hope that explains things.
mgonzales041090's avatar
Hope that explains things.
No, it doesn't. Firstly, the US dollar isn't a placeholder for things of actual value other than the credit of the United States. It's a fiat currency. Secondly, the trillion dollar coin has no effect on inflation because it isn't injected into the economy. It's a debt being paid back to the Federal Reserve. It's not a trillion dollars just going out.