Tom Toles for January 13, 2013

As a little bit of education, the concept of printing money for financing the government is

A) not a new and desperate idea to deal with deficitB) A crazy left wing idea.

The concept had existed essentially since the depression in Canada, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_Party_of_Canada

Originally a right wing idea, the concept is that by making simply printing money and giving it the government could eliminate all taxes at the expense of inflation.*****************************************************************However this idea by many is believed flawed, This is due to the nature that there is no guarantee as to how much the government would print, as a result the dollar is effectively believed not only to have lost the value of what is printed but also of what could be printed, in other words the dollar has lost all value.

That said a 1 time trillion dollar coin might not have such an effect when you consider the competition

The Japanese Yen, which due to a deflation spiral has been used mainly to exchange for other currency***************************************************************The Chinese Renminbi, If you think that 1 trillion dollars is manipulating currency you will have a heart attack****************************************************************The Euro…. I’m presuming this needs no explanation****************************************************************The indian Rupee, Massive inflation, highly manipulated. Trying to switch over would be the same as putting hand to try to clear a blender.

However it may not be a good idea to gamble the entire currency when a 2% marginal tax raise may be viable.

adding on, the reason it can’t be issued as a regular coin or bill is not to try and trick anyone, its because the Federal Reserve. A private institution that would print the money at an interest to give to the federal government has a near exclusive monopoly on the US dollar. The platinum is that most people would call a “loophole”

While I do not agree with every item on your list, not a bad list over all!

But, do you actually expect our current Congress (especially the Tea Party area of the House of Representatives) to even begin to do this?

Well……. there is always 2014!!

@ Clark Super, man.

If those blithering idiots in Washington do not do something to control spending, you are going to need one of these coins to buy a loaf of bread.

I suppose it’s foolish to even add anything to this but Hannity’s combined salaries were only 22 million, not forty. By contrast, Rachel Maddow only makes 2 million a year, but Fox viewership is much higher and consistently beats their competition in the ratings. I just couldn’t resist adding that, even though I cannot stand listening to either one of them for longer than 2 minutes before the image of rabid dogs starts replacing the image on the screen.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Sean_Hannity_fox_news_income

Michael wme said, “Since profits were taxed away, businesses invested the money updating capital equipment, making US industry the most advanced in the world. ….With low taxes, the rich now take the profits for themselves…”*I agree.This is no different than a homeowner buying a house rather than renting. The tax deductions often make it a financially smart decision, and in the end, you own an asset.

Since we are on such a civil, rational level I have to say I wholeheartedly agree with a very significant comment you made:“My point is the media outlets are bought and the fools who only rely on one source for their information are essentially brainwashed.”

Add to that thought that the partisan divide we are currently experiencing in this country is a direct result of that “polarizing” focus. Unfortunately it seems to be getting worse rather than better. Of course today everything is pushed to “crises mode,” which lends itself to more inflammatory reporting with few solutions to long term problems offered. I gave up on most cable news and often find better reporting of American events on BBC and other international outlets.

There is a difference between printing paper money and minting coins.This article explains

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/01/economics-platinum-coin-option

“It is never 75 or 90% on all income; a person paying 75% on (for instance) one hundred thousand isn’t actually paying 75,000 in taxes; it’s 75% of an amount past a certain amount. So, on a hundred thousand, with 75% past 80 thousand (for example) it’s 75% on 20,000, not 100,000.”-Ghostkeeper, the Fox “new” viewers on these boards do NOT understand complex concepts like this, especially about income taxes. -They cannot grasp that if your (adjusted gross) income exceeds 400K by five dollars your overall rate does not increase.

why don’t we go back on the gold standard…wasn’t it set at$32.oo per ounce at one time worldwide???back the currencywith gold and see what happens then…nothing to lose bytrying

“So in short your statement is false we can tax our way to prosperity!”**Another point of contention here. The post war economic boom was from 1945 to 1954 but the effects lasted until 1970. The world was in intense growth mode after the war and America was smack dab in the center. When Roosevelt died, Harry Truman inherited a largely republican congress and they cut taxes and turned away from the Keynesian principals enacted by FDR. So yes, growth promotes income which promotes higher tax payments, but they intentionally kept taxes low during the first part of the “boom.” The Wikipedia article is really a very good summary and presents a few different viewpoints. I like mine best of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion

One trillion songs and dances.

Great cartoon…except it apparently isn’t going to be minted…as should have been expected.