tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post8983839893788805701..comments2024-03-29T02:22:59.827-04:00Comments on the daily howler: DAYS OF THE COIN: Columnist Krugman talks pork to the people!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-62739370767794635262013-01-13T08:59:45.972-05:002013-01-13T08:59:45.972-05:00"admits"!!!
Because it's clearly so..."admits"!!!<br /><br />Because it's clearly soooo shameful a thing.<br /><br />Bernanke doesn't "admit" it, you wantwit. <br /><br />He *explains* it. <br /><br />Lost on you, naturally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-4054568545535213942013-01-12T10:17:49.502-05:002013-01-12T10:17:49.502-05:00Great quote, gravymeister. Here's a fuller ve...Great quote, gravymeister. Here's a fuller version of it, where Bernanke admits that the Fed is effectively printing money:<br /><br /><i>Asked if it's tax money the Fed is spending, Bernanke said, "It's not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It's much more akin to printing money than it is to borrowing."<br /><br />"You've been printing money?" Pelley asked.<br /><br />"Well, effectively," Bernanke said. "And we need to do that, because our economy is very weak and inflation is very low. When the economy begins to recover, that will be the time that we need to unwind those programs, raise interest rates, reduce the money supply, and make sure that we have a recovery that does not involve inflation."</i><br />David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-31364134586588355562013-01-12T09:39:52.671-05:002013-01-12T09:39:52.671-05:00SCOTT PELLEY: Is that tax money that the Fed is sp...SCOTT PELLEY: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?<br /><br />CHAIRMAN BERNANKE: It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed.gravymeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16075831177588700301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76860966817813163292013-01-12T07:45:55.709-05:002013-01-12T07:45:55.709-05:00Hume et al are repeating what Pat Toomey, one of m...Hume et al are repeating what Pat Toomey, one of my senators, has been saying for 2 years and they ignore the timing effects of receipts and spending. If the bills come due when there is insufficient cash on hand, the Treasury auctions bills and notes to raise fresh cash. Those bills could be matured debt, bills or bonds, or it could be the more than 30 billion that goes out each February for tax refunds or EITC payments or it could be payroll for government workers, troops etc. or it could be payables such as fuel, lights etc. <br />Yes, it could be that there is enough cash on hand but the forecast by Treasury is that there will not be enough ergo, if we cannot raise fresh cash, there will be a default. Congress knows that and doesn't care. Hume and his confreres don't want to say that and Krugman short hands it.<br />The risible notion that Obama (his staff) will sit around sifting through the pile of bills, as if they could, deciding which to pay leads me to conclude the Rs here really are vile.Tom Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-51247381820143181562013-01-12T01:17:38.447-05:002013-01-12T01:17:38.447-05:00Following up on AnonymousJanuary 11, 2013 4:57 PM,...Following up on AnonymousJanuary 11, 2013 4:57 PM, this <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/opinion/buchanan-dorf-debt-ceiling/index.html" rel="nofollow">analysis by two law professors</a> argues that if the debt ceiling isn't raised, any action the President took would violate some law. They have a good argument that in that case, he should follow the spending laws and override the debt ceiling. <br /><br /><br />http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/opinion/buchanan-dorf-debt-ceiling/index.htmlDavid in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-12068306099511334632013-01-11T23:44:33.657-05:002013-01-11T23:44:33.657-05:00Bob, why do you insist on lowering the national di...Bob, why do you insist on lowering the national discourse and catapulting the republican propaganda machine by repeatedly referring to what would be completely legal United States tender as the "magical coin?"<br /><br />If you received a tax refund of a few thousand in the form of a check from the United States Treasury in the mail, would you stare at it in befuddled amazement or ridicule it as a "magic paper?"majnebnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-73486090228629946742013-01-11T23:03:18.777-05:002013-01-11T23:03:18.777-05:00I didn't have any trouble understanding Krugma...I didn't have any trouble understanding Krugman.<br /><br />Congress, with it's GOP members, has already approved the spending. Now they're threatening to renege on their obligations.<br /><br />I tend to agree with you that "vile" isn't the best of word, but the failure to illustrate I don't agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-24063520669890959272013-01-11T16:57:22.474-05:002013-01-11T16:57:22.474-05:00Nope, 4:20 (What are you smoking?)...
The preside...Nope, 4:20 (What are you smoking?)...<br /><br />The president can't "cut" any programs. He lacks that Constitutional authority.<br /><br />And we wouldn't be talking about "cutting" them anyway -- we'd be talking about not paying defense contractors for work they've already been doing for us, for salaries of people who've already been hired, for weapons systems we've already told them to build and deliver.<br /><br />Hitting the debt ceiling isn't about cutting expenditures. <br /><br />It's about reneging on legal commitments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-1856479697058394792013-01-11T16:20:14.494-05:002013-01-11T16:20:14.494-05:00CBO projects that the debt will rise to $20billion...CBO projects that the debt will rise to $20billion over the statutory limit in 2013. Interest on the debt will be $218 billion... total outlays of $3,554 billion......so we could service the debt and cut a few fatty (defense) programsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-11212436808285658482013-01-11T15:11:16.771-05:002013-01-11T15:11:16.771-05:00"The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Con..."The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to perceived abuse of the power under President Nixon. Title X of the act, and its interpretation under Train v. City of New York, essentially removed the power. <br /><br />This severely inhibited a president's ability to reject congressionally-approved spending.<br /><br />The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days."Wimpyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09900034528127189849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-75945581467504093432013-01-11T14:41:09.664-05:002013-01-11T14:41:09.664-05:00"...we'd also have to cut lots of other s..."...we'd also have to cut lots of other spending"<br /><br />To be very clear, we (the Congress) have *already* set the spending levels for 2013.<br /><br />It's not so much that we'd have to cut spending as the notion is usually understood (i.e, "tighten our belts," etc).<br /><br />No, what we would have to do is start reneging on payments that we already owe and have legally committed ourselves to.<br /><br />That's why it's a legal problem for the President, Somerby's "we'd have to say no" notwithstanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-13709509992196914102013-01-11T13:40:43.492-05:002013-01-11T13:40:43.492-05:00Brit Hume is correct and Krugman agrees with him. ...Brit Hume is correct and Krugman agrees with him. Both of them say that a failure to raise the debt limit wouldn't necessarily result in a default on the national debt (even though it's commonly reported this way).<br /><br />Hume: <i>what you'll hear, John, in the weeks ahead, is that we'll be defaulting on our obligations. That doesn't—that's not reference to the kind of default you'd have if you didn't make payments on the national debt. That means you can't pay for all federal spending.</i><br /><br />Krugman: <i>if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, the president will be forced to break the law, one way or another; either he borrows funds in defiance of Congress, or he fails to spend money Congress has told him to spend.</i><br /><br />BTW if the debt limit weren't raised, defaulting on the national debt wouldn't be sufficent. Debt service on the national debt is about 6 percent or 7 percent, but the deficit is around 30%. So, even if the US stiffed its creditors, we'd also have to cut lots of other spending. David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-77334278293173786172013-01-11T13:37:19.009-05:002013-01-11T13:37:19.009-05:00Hey Anon,
I'll go you one better: I have no i...Hey Anon,<br /><br />I'll go you one better: I have no idea what you're talking about, which presumably means you don't know how to talk about Somerby's inability to talk about things. Score one for philosophy. Next?cacambonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-78804105132572407332013-01-11T13:01:28.466-05:002013-01-11T13:01:28.466-05:00"We liberals don't know how to talk."..."We liberals don't know how to talk." One need not have been a philosophy major to realize that such statements, commonly made on this blog, are self-referential. Regarding the instance at hand, it immediately follows that you, Mr. Somerby, don't know how to talk. Do you accept the inference? If so, fine. But if not, you should write more carefully.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-62858153333333878692013-01-11T12:46:06.680-05:002013-01-11T12:46:06.680-05:00I would like to be treated to a good long detailed...I would like to be treated to a good long detailed exploration of the 14th amendment issue. Can Obama simply ignore a debt ceiling? Has Congress in effect reset the ceiling by appropriating beyond and above the previous one. Where would the Supreme Court come down were Obama to say "Ceiling, what ceiling? You guys appropriate, I spend. End of story." Has the debt ceiling law ever been constitutional? Has Professor Obama chickened out yet again in not pressing his advantage? Does such an advantage exist in a proper reading of the amendment? Tune in again tomorrow, same bat time, same bat channel.Jeeves Stumphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716700263908484003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5658551791537544142013-01-11T12:30:45.483-05:002013-01-11T12:30:45.483-05:00I agree, in part -- the "exactly like threate...I agree, in part -- the "exactly like threatening to set off a bomb" part of Krugman's essay was idiocy.<br /><br />That said, Bob, I still contend that you are off in cloud cuckoo land thinking that only what can be adequately explained is possible or desirable. Our recent political history disproves that thesis entirely.<br /><br />Also, "Would Obama be breaking the law if he doesn't pay some our nations bills?" <br /><br />You'd "have to say no."<br /><br />Your understanding is different than mine, so make with the enlightenment, guru: <br /><br />What basis is there for the executive to decide what bills will and will not be paid, as a matter of law?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com