US Mint February 2010 Coin Production: Dimes

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

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

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?

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, 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.

James, with two holes gaping in my Danscos

"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.

JAM

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

In the early 1970's every office in our company had to maintain a "5% List"
of employees who were considered the "weakest" performance-wise. I suppose
others would have considered them deadwood, but it hurt to see them suddenly
disappear one day, several having been around sisce the 1950's.

I saw plenty of waste and abuse during my govt career, including military
service. I hold out no hope it will ever disappear.

Jefferson Nickel 0 0 0
Kennedy Half Dollar 1,700,000 1,800,000 3,500,000

Well, that isnt something you see every day!

Maybe it's just me, but from my anecdotal observations, less than 1%
of the nickels I encounter are post 2004.

Mind you, I also have never found a 2009 or 2010 penny in circulation.
Maybe my area stores enjoy using older coins?

"Jass" wrote in message
...
Jefferson Nickel 0 0 0
Kennedy Half Dollar 1,700,000 1,800,000 3,500,000

Well, that isnt something you see every day!

Maybe it's just me, but from my anecdotal observations, less than 1%
of the nickels I encounter are post 2004.

Mind you, I also have never found a 2009 or 2010 penny in circulation.
Maybe my area stores enjoy using older coins?


No 2009 or 2010 cents in my pocket change yet either. Commem nickels--
maybe one in ten. State quarters- lately maybe 60%, the other 40% are
pre-1999. As for dimes, the other day I got a really bright shiny one in
change and thought for sure it had to be a 2009. I lifted my glasses,
squinted, and saw it was a 1994.