US Mint February 2010 Coin Production: Dimes

On Mar 3, 7:51*pm, "Bruce Remick" wrote:

At least half of the people I worked with in the govt returned after
retirement as an independant contractor or consultant, often in the same
office. *Many of those who didn't had the opportunity to but chose to retire
for good. * One reason was that you could retire at age 55 with a healthy
pension and benefits, leaving another 20 or 30 years of leisure. *Before I
retired I remember being irritated at having to find busy work for a couple
contractor hires in our office who were making more than many of our staff
employees.

My experience was different. A few came back as contractor or
consultant. Typically, they were ones that were exceptional. Some
stayed quite a long time. I was not aware of retired annuitants or
consultants that were kept beyond their usefulness. Generally, those
that took contract work had to submit a proposal and show tangible
results commensurate with the work promised and funds expected. There
was perhaps a little more leeway, there, but for the most part what I
saw looked pretty sound.

What I also saw was normal and happy retirements and some exceptional
employees that struck out in business in unexpected ways (in some
cases quite successfully). Naturally, it was a small organization and
I did not know everyone.

"mazorj" wrote in message
...

"Richard L. Hall" wrote in message
...
It doesn't surprise me in the least. Whenever we go through economic
upheaval, the demand for coins decreases. And certainly the recession
that began in Jan 2008, the financial collapse in late 2008 and the slow
recovery are about as bad as I've seen in my lifetime. The last similar
depression-like economic situation occurred during the Reagan
administration when the unemployment rate hit 10.1% in September 1982 and
10.8% in November and December 1982 and stayed above 10% for almost a
year. SBA production was discontinued. Half dollar production dropped
in 1982 to 23 million pieces from about 57 million in 1981. Quarter
production dropped by about 200 million pieces at the two mints. Dime
production dropped by 330 million pieces, etc. And there were no mint
sets produced in either 1982 or 1983.

Fortunately, Reagan, who claimed to be a fiscal conservative, became the
great fiscal liberal, borrowing and spending almost $300 billion a year
that he didn't have. In his 8 years, he quadrupled the national debt
from about $900 billion to about $3.2 trillion. Fortunately, in the
early years of his administration, the US was still the greatest creditor
nation in the world and the greatest net exporting nation in the world.
That meant that most of the $300 billion he borrowed and spent yearly
stayed in our economy. And with the average salary being about $15-20
thousand (closer to $15 thousand) that meant that he created 15-20
million jobs. It took a year to bring the unemployment rate under 10%
(July 1983) and another 4 years to bring it under 6% (5.9% in Sept 1987).
I remember colleagues at the time comparing the Reagan depression to the
Nixon/Ford depression ( 9% unemployment in May 1975). I can speak from
experience since I was caught up in the Nixon/Ford depression.

The net result of Reagan's spending was that he took the United States
from a net creditor nation to a net debtor nation and from a net
exporting nation to a net importing nation. And despite all his talk
about reducing the size of the government, there were about 16% more
government workers when Reagan left office than when he took office. And
that didn't include the military.

I remember talking to a federal civil servant at the time who said that
yeah, they riffed a lot of people - most of whom came back to work
(sometimes at their same desks) as consultants and contractors. The civil
service rolls went down but they ended up paying as much or more for all
those supposed "waste and abuse" positions on the payroll. The work still
had to be done. It was just an elaborate Kabuki dance so that Reagan
could claim he was shrinking the bureaucracy.


When Reagan assumed office, he was going to cut spending, freeze government
hiring, etc. And predictibly within two years the country was in a
recession. The 7.2% unemployment rate he inherited from Jimmy Carter
swelled to the 10.8% rate that I cited for November and December 1982. Those
figures come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was the highest
unemployment rate since the end of the Great Depression. Reagan changed
course and not only unfroze the government hiring but he started funding all
kinds of programs from the Strategic Defense Initiative to the
Superconducting Super collider to the beginning of the Space Station to the
1000 ship Navy. After November 1982, Reagan didn't meet a science program
he didn't like. And as spending increased dramatically, government
employment also began to rise. Thee 16% increase in government workers I
cited came from the 1990 Information Please Almanac.


Had he not been so generous with his tax cuts for his millionaire
friends, he could have paid for his spending with the tax structure that
existed before he came to office with slight modifications. To be sure,
there was a need for tax reform. The tax code had never been adjusted for
the inflation of the late 60's and 70's. Middle income people making
$30,000 per year were burdened with a marginal rate (the rate applied to
the last dollar earned) of 50%. And Reagan's radical restructuring of
the tax code to favor the highest earners still weighs heavily on us
today. A typical person with a million dollar income today (and there
are more than 2 million such people in the US today), still benefits from
the Reagan tax cuts to the tune of about $350,000 per year per million
dollars of income. That's more than $700 billion that's been removed from
the tax rolls because of the Reagan tax cuts. That tells me that if we
need money for any of the programs necessary to pull us out of this
depression, I know where I'd go. And I'd know who I'd tax. Personally,
I'd undo the Reagan tax cuts and adjust the pre-Reagan brackets for
inflation from about 1960. Even Warren Buffet says that the very wealthy
in this country are under taxed in comparison to the middle income
people.

IIRC, my first tax return in the 1960s still had a top marginal tax rate
of 90%. LBJ was financing the Vietnam war and there even was a luxury tax
on things like yachts. I was nowhere near those stratopheric levels, but
knowing how the rich were protecting their sons from the draft, I figured
it was only fair that they pay in treasure if not in blood.

President Kennedy's tax cut in early 1961 reduced the top marginal rate from
73% or so to 70%. Reagan reduced it from 70% to 28% initially. IIRC,
Johnson did have a surcharge that was levied to support the war.

Actually, getting a deferment was easy in the early stages of the Vietnam
War. When I entered college as a Physics major in 1962, I got my first
draft classification. It was a 2-S. I didn't know what that meant. It
turned out to be a student deferment. But you could get a deferment by
getting married, having kids, etc. At least that was true initially. After
I entered graduate school in 1966, I kept my deferment. However, the
following year, to keep a deferment, entering graduate students had to be
teaching classes. My class just had to be enrolled in a science program.

Actually, the 2-S deferment was a holdover from WWII. And back then, only
the children of the wealthy and the very smart usually went to college. So
there weren't that many.deferments. But all that changed with the GI bill,
when all of the returning soldiers were eligible for government paid
tuition. And then by the end of the 50's, lots of kids were going to
college using borrowed money. And then came the kids who were born during
the war. There were a sizeable number of them including myself. And then
came the baby boomers, born after the war to returning soldiers. College
became a matter of right for just about everyone, a 4-year extension of
childhood.


We've got to get the mint striking coins again.

Congress has burdened the Mint with silly mandates that resulted in
languishing supplies of dollar coins that will never enter circulation,
and bullion strikes taking precedence over the 2009 AES proof strike.
What say they turn their micromanagement urges to something that would
benefit collectors. Mandate that one or two of those billion-dollar
stimulation or rescue packages be paid only "in Unted States coinage of
existing issues in denominations of less than one dollar". Instead of a
check, beneficiaries would get rolls and bags of coins. That would
exhaust existing supplies and have the Mint machinery running overtime.
Who knows, the half-dollar might actually circulate again and production
demands might even cause some quality control slips that lead to some
interesting error varieties to look for.

"Frank Galikanokus" wrote in message
...
"Richard L. Hall" wrote:

It doesn't surprise me in the least. Whenever we go through economic
upheaval, the demand for coins decreases. And certainly the recession
that
began in Jan 2008, the financial collapse in late 2008 and the slow
recovery
are about as bad as I've seen in my lifetime. The last similar
depression-like economic situation occurred during the Reagan
administration
when the unemployment rate hit 10.1% in September 1982 and 10.8% in
November
and December 1982 and stayed above 10% for almost a year. SBA production
was discontinued. Half dollar production dropped in 1982 to 23 million
pieces from about 57 million in 1981. Quarter production dropped by
about
200 million pieces at the two mints. Dime production dropped by 330
million
pieces, etc. And there were no mint sets produced in either 1982 or
1983.

Fortunately, Reagan, who claimed to be a fiscal conservative, became the
great fiscal liberal, borrowing and spending almost $300 billion a year
that
he didn't have. In his 8 years, he quadrupled the national debt from
about
$900 billion to about $3.2 trillion. Fortunately, in the early years of
his
administration, the US was still the greatest creditor nation in the
world
and the greatest net exporting nation in the world. That meant that most
of
the $300 billion he borrowed and spent yearly stayed in our economy. And
with the average salary being about $15-20 thousand (closer to $15
thousand)
that meant that he created 15-20 million jobs. It took a year to bring
the
unemployment rate under 10% (July 1983) and another 4 years to bring it
under 6% (5.9% in Sept 1987). I remember colleagues at the time
comparing
the Reagan depression to the Nixon/Ford depression ( 9% unemployment in
May
1975). I can speak from experience since I was caught up in the
Nixon/Ford
depression.

The net result of Reagan's spending was that he took the United States
from
a net creditor nation to a net debtor nation and from a net exporting
nation
to a net importing nation. And despite all his talk about reducing the
size
of the government, there were about 16% more government workers when
Reagan
left office than when he took office. And that didn't include the
military.

Had he not been so generous with his tax cuts for his millionaire
friends,
he could have paid for his spending with the tax structure that existed
before he came to office with slight modifications. To be sure, there
was a
need for tax reform. The tax code had never been adjusted for the
inflation
of the late 60's and 70's. Middle income people making $30,000 per year
were burdened with a marginal rate (the rate applied to the last dollar
earned) of 50%. And Reagan's radical restructuring of the tax code to
favor
the highest earners still weighs heavily on us today. A typical person
with
a million dollar income today (and there are more than 2 million such
people
in the US today), still benefits from the Reagan tax cuts to the tune of
about $350,000 per year per million dollars of income. That's more than
$700 billion that's been removed from the tax rolls because of the Reagan
tax cuts. That tells me that if we need money for any of the programs
necessary to pull us out of this depression, I know where I'd go. And I'd
know who I'd tax. Personally, I'd undo the Reagan tax cuts and adjust the
pre-Reagan brackets for inflation from about 1960. Even Warren Buffet
says
that the very wealthy in this country are under taxed in comparison to
the
middle income people.

We've got to get the mint striking coins again.

--
Richard
http://coins.richlh.com/MyCoinLinks.htm
http://www.richlh.com
Don't lament that the rose bush has thorns. Rejoice that the thornbush
has
roses. [Ancient Egyptian Saying]

"Frank Galikanokus" wrote in message
...


The pace of striking coins at the US Mint has been much like watching a
crawling turtle stroll through the mud. Mintages levels were way down
last year, ...

http://tinyurl.com/ybncqmu

JAM

Be careful with all those facts. Sara, Glen and Mitt will call you a
liar and a communists.

Personally I wish Sarah, Glen and Mitt would read this and check the facts.
It would certainly point them in the right direction. Their only solution
to the current recession is tax cuts. But history tells us that the only
thing tax cuts accomplish is to drive up he naional debt. It's no accident
that the two biggest tax cutters, Ronald Reagan and George Bush 43, created
about 80% of the national debt that existed when George Bush 43 left office.
And a significant part of the debt in Obama's first year came from George
Bush 43's final budget. The way out of a recession/depression is to spend
your way out.. Tax cuts just don't cut it. Pardon the pun.

"Richard L. Hall" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Richard L. Hall wrote:
Even Warren Buffet says that the very wealthy in this
country are under taxed in comparison to the middle income people.

But won't the rich be able to find (buy) loopholes to avoid any
higher taxes that are imposed on them?

The IRS has closed many of the loopholes that existed. I don't see
that as being a big problem. And, just think, we won't even have to
worry about big bonuses in the banking system because most of it
will be taxed away. The net effect of a really high tax rate is
that it will being salaries of executives back in line with their
workers.

Ever hear the term "grossing up"? It means adding enough to a bonus,
salary bump, or other benefit in order to cover the added income tax
that the recipient will have to pay as a result. I doubt that
grossing-up will suddenly disappear from the corporate compensation
bag of tricks. So higher taxes won't do much, if anything at all, to
curb executive compensation. In fact, since employee compensation
usually is deductible from taxable corporate profits, it makes every
dollar paid to executives cheaper than it's nominal cost. And if the
corporate tax rate also goes up along with the rates paid by the
executives, it costs the company even less in terms of post-tax
profits to pay those high executive salaries.

"Richard L. Hall" wrote in message
...

"mazorj" wrote in message
...

"Richard L. Hall" wrote in message
...
It doesn't surprise me in the least. Whenever we go through economic
upheaval, the demand for coins decreases. And certainly the recession
that began in Jan 2008, the financial collapse in late 2008 and the slow
recovery are about as bad as I've seen in my lifetime. The last similar
depression-like economic situation occurred during the Reagan
administration when the unemployment rate hit 10.1% in September 1982
and 10.8% in November and December 1982 and stayed above 10% for almost
a year. SBA production was discontinued. Half dollar production
dropped in 1982 to 23 million pieces from about 57 million in 1981.
Quarter production dropped by about 200 million pieces at the two mints.
Dime production dropped by 330 million pieces, etc. And there were no
mint sets produced in either 1982 or 1983.

Fortunately, Reagan, who claimed to be a fiscal conservative, became the
great fiscal liberal, borrowing and spending almost $300 billion a year
that he didn't have. In his 8 years, he quadrupled the national debt
from about $900 billion to about $3.2 trillion. Fortunately, in the
early years of his administration, the US was still the greatest
creditor nation in the world and the greatest net exporting nation in
the world. That meant that most of the $300 billion he borrowed and
spent yearly stayed in our economy. And with the average salary being
about $15-20 thousand (closer to $15 thousand) that meant that he
created 15-20 million jobs. It took a year to bring the unemployment
rate under 10% (July 1983) and another 4 years to bring it under 6%
(5.9% in Sept 1987). I remember colleagues at the time comparing the
Reagan depression to the Nixon/Ford depression ( 9% unemployment in May
1975). I can speak from experience since I was caught up in the
Nixon/Ford depression.

The net result of Reagan's spending was that he took the United States
from a net creditor nation to a net debtor nation and from a net
exporting nation to a net importing nation. And despite all his talk
about reducing the size of the government, there were about 16% more
government workers when Reagan left office than when he took office. And
that didn't include the military.

I remember talking to a federal civil servant at the time who said that
yeah, they riffed a lot of people - most of whom came back to work
(sometimes at their same desks) as consultants and contractors. The
civil service rolls went down but they ended up paying as much or more
for all those supposed "waste and abuse" positions on the payroll. The
work still had to be done. It was just an elaborate Kabuki dance so that
Reagan could claim he was shrinking the bureaucracy.


When Reagan assumed office, he was going to cut spending, freeze
government hiring, etc. And predictibly within two years the country was
in a recession. The 7.2% unemployment rate he inherited from Jimmy Carter
swelled to the 10.8% rate that I cited for November and December 1982.
Those figures come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was the
highest unemployment rate since the end of the Great Depression. Reagan
changed course and not only unfroze the government hiring but he started
funding all kinds of programs from the Strategic Defense Initiative to the
Superconducting Super collider to the beginning of the Space Station to
the 1000 ship Navy. After November 1982, Reagan didn't meet a science
program he didn't like. And as spending increased dramatically,
government employment also began to rise. Thee 16% increase in government
workers I cited came from the 1990 Information Please Almanac.


Had he not been so generous with his tax cuts for his millionaire
friends, he could have paid for his spending with the tax structure that
existed before he came to office with slight modifications. To be sure,
there was a need for tax reform. The tax code had never been adjusted
for the inflation of the late 60's and 70's. Middle income people
making $30,000 per year were burdened with a marginal rate (the rate
applied to the last dollar earned) of 50%. And Reagan's radical
restructuring of the tax code to favor the highest earners still weighs
heavily on us today. A typical person with a million dollar income
today (and there are more than 2 million such people in the US today),
still benefits from the Reagan tax cuts to the tune of about $350,000
per year per million dollars of income. That's more than $700 billion
that's been removed from the tax rolls because of the Reagan tax cuts.
That tells me that if we need money for any of the programs necessary to
pull us out of this depression, I know where I'd go. And I'd know who
I'd tax. Personally, I'd undo the Reagan tax cuts and adjust the
pre-Reagan brackets for inflation from about 1960. Even Warren Buffet
says that the very wealthy in this country are under taxed in comparison
to the middle income people.

IIRC, my first tax return in the 1960s still had a top marginal tax rate
of 90%. LBJ was financing the Vietnam war and there even was a luxury
tax on things like yachts. I was nowhere near those stratopheric levels,
but knowing how the rich were protecting their sons from the draft, I
figured it was only fair that they pay in treasure if not in blood.

President Kennedy's tax cut in early 1961 reduced the top marginal rate
from 73% or so to 70%. Reagan reduced it from 70% to 28% initially.
IIRC, Johnson did have a surcharge that was levied to support the war.

Actually, getting a deferment was easy in the early stages of the Vietnam
War. When I entered college as a Physics major in 1962, I got my first
draft classification. It was a 2-S. I didn't know what that meant. It
turned out to be a student deferment. But you could get a deferment by
getting married, having kids, etc. At least that was true initially.
After I entered graduate school in 1966, I kept my deferment. However,
the following year, to keep a deferment, entering graduate students had to
be teaching classes. My class just had to be enrolled in a science
program.

When I entered college in 1959, there was no war to speak of, but there was
the draft. That's why many college kids sought deferments. I was one who
didn't bother. Then in 1962 a couple of my classmates, who like myself
neglected to get a deferment, were drafted. I checked with my local draft
board and found that I, too, was in line to be drafted. Too late to apply
for a deferment so I dropped out of college and enlisted in the Army with a
guarantee for specific training assignment. When I completed training in
1963 they were soliciting volunteers to do a tour in Saigon. We had to be
shown on a map where that was and were told that the job would be mostly
administrative. I don't recall anyone volunteering so most ended up with
orders for Germany, Korea, or stateside duty. I ended up in Alaska.

"Richard L. Hall" wrote:

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Richard L. Hall wrote:
Even Warren Buffet says that the very wealthy in this
country are under taxed in comparison to the middle income people.

But won't the rich be able to find (buy) loopholes to avoid any higher
taxes that are imposed on them?

The IRS has closed many of the loopholes that existed. I don't see that as
being a big problem. And, just think, we won't even have to worry about big
bonuses in the banking system because most of it will be taxed away. The
net effect of a really high tax rate is that it will being salaries of
executives back in line with their workers.


We've got to get the mint striking coins again.

I'm trying to remember when any of the branch mints failed to produce
certain denominations because of economic conditions, and in what years.
Certainly in the 1921-23 period, and again in the 1930-33 period,

Actually, there was a mild recession in the mid-1950's, and the mintages of
all the coins struck in 1955 (except the P and D cents) were well below what
they were in 1954. The San Francisco mint struck only dimes and cents in
quantities well below previous years, and no Denver half dollars were
struck. And, of course, the San Francisco mint closed after 1955 not to
reopen until the mid-1960's.

but now I wonder if we'll see 2010-D nickels and dimes at all, with
virtually the entire 2009 Denver output languishing in vaults somewhere.
2009 is the first time in my entire collecting experience that I have
failed to get the current year's circulation-strike coins by the end of
the year.


I know from whence you come. I've only found 3 professional life Lincolns
(P-mint) and 2 DC quarters.


"The IRS has closed many of the loopholes that existed."

I don' think so. Only the congress can change the tax laws. The IRS only
enforces them.

JAM

Bruce Remick wrote:

"Richard L. Hall" wrote in message
...
It doesn't surprise me in the least. Whenever we go through economic
upheaval, the demand for coins decreases. And certainly the recession
that began in Jan 2008, the financial collapse in late 2008 and the slow
recovery are about as bad as I've seen in my lifetime. The last similar
depression-like economic situation occurred during the Reagan
administration when the unemployment rate hit 10.1% in September 1982 and
10.8% in November and December 1982 and stayed above 10% for almost a
year. SBA production was discontinued. Half dollar production dropped in
1982 to 23 million pieces from about 57 million in 1981. Quarter
production dropped by about 200 million pieces at the two mints. Dime
production dropped by 330 million pieces, etc. And there were no mint
sets produced in either 1982 or 1983.

Fortunately, Reagan, who claimed to be a fiscal conservative, became the
great fiscal liberal, borrowing and spending almost $300 billion a year
that he didn't have. In his 8 years, he quadrupled the national debt from
about $900 billion to about $3.2 trillion. Fortunately, in the early
years of his administration, the US was still the greatest creditor nation
in the world and the greatest net exporting nation in the world. That
meant that most of the $300 billion he borrowed and spent yearly stayed in
our economy. And with the average salary being about $15-20 thousand
(closer to $15 thousand) that meant that he created 15-20 million jobs.
It took a year to bring the unemployment rate under 10% (July 1983) and
another 4 years to bring it under 6% (5.9% in Sept 1987). I remember
colleagues at the time comparing the Reagan depression to the Nixon/Ford
depression ( 9% unemployment in May 1975). I can speak from experience
since I was caught up in the Nixon/Ford depression.

The net result of Reagan's spending was that he took the United States
from a net creditor nation to a net debtor nation and from a net exporting
nation to a net importing nation. And despite all his talk about reducing
the size of the government, there were about 16% more government workers
when Reagan left office than when he took office. And that didn't include
the military.

Had he not been so generous with his tax cuts for his millionaire friends,
he could have paid for his spending with the tax structure that existed
before he came to office with slight modifications. To be sure, there was
a need for tax reform. The tax code had never been adjusted for the
inflation of the late 60's and 70's. Middle income people making $30,000
per year were burdened with a marginal rate (the rate applied to the last
dollar earned) of 50%. And Reagan's radical restructuring of the tax code
to favor the highest earners still weighs heavily on us today. A typical
person with a million dollar income today (and there are more than 2
million such people in the US today), still benefits from the Reagan tax
cuts to the tune of about $350,000 per year per million dollars of income.
That's more than $700 billion that's been removed from the tax rolls
because of the Reagan tax cuts. That tells me that if we need money for
any of the programs necessary to pull us out of this depression, I know
where I'd go. And I'd know who I'd tax. Personally, I'd undo the Reagan
tax cuts and adjust the pre-Reagan brackets for inflation from about 1960.
Even Warren Buffet says that the very wealthy in this country are under
taxed in comparison to the middle income people.

We've got to get the mint striking coins again.

It would seem to me that when consumer spending diminishes, there's less
need for coins to make change. Sounds normal to me. Economics 1.
Meanwhile, IMO we should already have enough coins in circulation to satisfy
demand for the next five years without minting any new ones. The only ones
who panic seem to be coin collectors.

There is also the effect of the coming cashless society. People that use
cash are becoming a minority.

JAM

In article ,
Frank Galikanokus wrote:

There is also the effect of the coming cashless society. People that
use cash are becoming a minority.

I just don't understand why people are willing to put up with higher
prices instead of just paying with cash.

http://truecostofcredit.com/

If people knew who they were making rich by their use of credit cards,
and how much it costs all of us, maybe the Mint would need to produce
more coins.

Paul

"Frank Galikanokus" wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:

"Richard L. Hall" wrote in message
...
It doesn't surprise me in the least. Whenever we go through economic
upheaval, the demand for coins decreases. And certainly the recession
that began in Jan 2008, the financial collapse in late 2008 and the
slow
recovery are about as bad as I've seen in my lifetime. The last
similar
depression-like economic situation occurred during the Reagan
administration when the unemployment rate hit 10.1% in September 1982
and
10.8% in November and December 1982 and stayed above 10% for almost a
year. SBA production was discontinued. Half dollar production dropped
in
1982 to 23 million pieces from about 57 million in 1981. Quarter
production dropped by about 200 million pieces at the two mints. Dime
production dropped by 330 million pieces, etc. And there were no mint
sets produced in either 1982 or 1983.

Fortunately, Reagan, who claimed to be a fiscal conservative, became
the
great fiscal liberal, borrowing and spending almost $300 billion a year
that he didn't have. In his 8 years, he quadrupled the national debt
from
about $900 billion to about $3.2 trillion. Fortunately, in the early
years of his administration, the US was still the greatest creditor
nation
in the world and the greatest net exporting nation in the world. That
meant that most of the $300 billion he borrowed and spent yearly stayed
in
our economy. And with the average salary being about $15-20 thousand
(closer to $15 thousand) that meant that he created 15-20 million jobs.
It took a year to bring the unemployment rate under 10% (July 1983) and
another 4 years to bring it under 6% (5.9% in Sept 1987). I remember
colleagues at the time comparing the Reagan depression to the
Nixon/Ford
depression ( 9% unemployment in May 1975). I can speak from experience
since I was caught up in the Nixon/Ford depression.

The net result of Reagan's spending was that he took the United States
from a net creditor nation to a net debtor nation and from a net
exporting
nation to a net importing nation. And despite all his talk about
reducing
the size of the government, there were about 16% more government
workers
when Reagan left office than when he took office. And that didn't
include
the military.

Had he not been so generous with his tax cuts for his millionaire
friends,
he could have paid for his spending with the tax structure that existed
before he came to office with slight modifications. To be sure, there
was
a need for tax reform. The tax code had never been adjusted for the
inflation of the late 60's and 70's. Middle income people making
$30,000
per year were burdened with a marginal rate (the rate applied to the
last
dollar earned) of 50%. And Reagan's radical restructuring of the tax
code
to favor the highest earners still weighs heavily on us today. A
typical
person with a million dollar income today (and there are more than 2
million such people in the US today), still benefits from the Reagan
tax
cuts to the tune of about $350,000 per year per million dollars of
income.
That's more than $700 billion that's been removed from the tax rolls
because of the Reagan tax cuts. That tells me that if we need money
for
any of the programs necessary to pull us out of this depression, I know
where I'd go. And I'd know who I'd tax. Personally, I'd undo the Reagan
tax cuts and adjust the pre-Reagan brackets for inflation from about
1960.
Even Warren Buffet says that the very wealthy in this country are under
taxed in comparison to the middle income people.

We've got to get the mint striking coins again.

It would seem to me that when consumer spending diminishes, there's less
need for coins to make change. Sounds normal to me. Economics 1.
Meanwhile, IMO we should already have enough coins in circulation to
satisfy
demand for the next five years without minting any new ones. The only
ones
who panic seem to be coin collectors.

There is also the effect of the coming cashless society. People that use
cash are becoming a minority.

JAM

Exactly.

"Paul Anderson" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Frank Galikanokus wrote:

There is also the effect of the coming cashless society. People that
use cash are becoming a minority.

I just don't understand why people are willing to put up with higher
prices instead of just paying with cash.

http://truecostofcredit.com/

I haven't run across many stores that charge less if you pay with cash.


If people knew who they were making rich by their use of credit cards,
and how much it costs all of us, maybe the Mint would need to produce
more coins.


I don't care who profits when I make a purchase, as long as the price is
acceptible. All I know is that it costs me exactly the same whether or not
I use a credit card to pay for something. To me, a credit card is handy, it
eliminates the need to carry more cash than I'm comfortable with, and
there's no other way to take advantage of online shopping. I haven't paid
any credit card interest in 30 years. Any fee for this convenience that is
incorporated in an item's price is invisible to me. It's just one of dozens
of bites taken along a product's history trail that end up establishing that
product's final retail price.