\ Thanks. It still is, 4-5 times a year when something big happens if you know what you are doing, so im hoping for some real carnage in 2013, not only will Obama supporters get exactly what they deserve, it should make for some awesome prolonged volatility, something we havent seen since late 2008/early 2009. Like i said, i voted for fiscal sanity, the obama supporters rejected it, so at this point they deserve what they are about to get, higher taxes, and less jobs, and a weak economy. I dont care anymore, I make more off of turmoil, ill make mine, and get my money out of the U.S. It sounds greedy, but im too tired to keep being angry and too tired to keep fighting about it, im just going to keep my nose to the grindstone and try to make money off of it.
Awesome in it's stupidity. The Federal Reserve printing more money has nothing to do with the Treasury being able to issue debt, other than the buying of it. It's still counted in in the total debt and subject to the ceiling. Jem is smoking crack.
legal source for your legal conclusion? I do not think any con law professor would call someone taking the other side of this argument stupid. Particularly when the other side is probably correct. it would be interesting if your idea were written into the law. it would then be that the Fed can issues digital reserve dollars at will but the U.S. could not print money in time of need. This was be a really large give away of our soverign rights and probably unconstitutional. Under the constitution I don't see how a law could be legal that would let a private institution print our money at will be we as a country could not. Finally if the treasury writes checks... how is that debt? Debt would be issuing bonds. The treasury writes them Fed buys them in.
It's not a legal conclusion. It's the way it operates. The Fed cannot pay bills of the Federal government. The Treasury must issue debt that can be purchased by the Federal Reserve, but you can't just get the Federal Reserve to start paying everyone directly. The Treasury, in it's issuing of debt, is subject to the debt ceiling. As for where this is, legally, you might want to start with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Citing someone to the federal reserve act...is not a fruitful or serious answer. Nor is saying its the way that its done. Of course this is not the way it was done in the past. The question is what is allowed under the law. While most of this topic is far more interesting and complex than you seem to acknowledge, I will present the easiest argument... that would be a matter of first impression for a court. The treasury or U.S. govt will write the checks and the Fed would be free to either buy them up in the market place or cash them. Writing the checks is not issuing the type of debt restricted by the debt ceiling.
Finally, let me explain why the republicans are not as screwed on this as all the libs think. If the bankers do own Obama... they and therefore Obama are not crazy about the idea of showing the country there is no need for the U.S. to borrow when they could print. (I am not saying I want the inflation printing would bring, but I am saying I suspect the Fed will not let Obama let it be known there is no reason we should be paying interest. The bankers will force Obama and dems to cave on spending while the treasury talks of extraordinary measures.)
I think the Fed is required to purchase securities in the secondary market in order to monetize the debt. They can then retire those securities so the Treasury doesn't have to pay them back (monetization) or they can act as a regular owner of the debt securities and the Treasury can retire them by paying the Fed when they come due plus interest. The Fed can't just start writing checks. Talking about the Treasury writing checks to monetize the debt is just bassackward. Maybe this brief account by wiki can explain it to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetization