Steve Benen objects to the NRCC tweeting the above image:
[T]he problem with the image and initial argument is that the NRCC appears to have forgotten how money works. A $20 bill does not have $20 worth of paper. Indeed, the paper and fibers that go into a $50 bill do not have five times the value of a $10 bill. And as such, a $1 trillion coin would not need $1 trillion worth of platinum.
Kevin Drum isn't so sure:
[A]s a lawyer friend emailed to me this morning, "bullion coins are generally understood by other statutes within the US Code to be coins with a value effectively equal to the market value of the precious metal bullion in them. The trillion dollar coin is not that."
Former US Mint director Philip Diehl argues otherwise. Meanwhile, David Silbey fact-checks whether a trillion dollars of platinum could sink the Titanic and concludes that the NRSCC "did manage to come up with a historically-plausible way to snark about the platinum coin":
[T]he Titanic could carry about 14,300 tons. The weight of the platinum for the coin is substantially larger than that, but would it sink theTitanic? Well, it would certainly drive it beyond its regular displacement, but it might not cause it to go under. Ships can carry a lot of weight beyond their design capacities. Still, it’s not the kind of thing that I’d be really eager to try.
The Dish 