Coin News On 60 Minutes

[leeg]

Just wanted to pass this along for those who may be interested:

 

 

This Sunday, 60 Minutes will feature a story on the debate as to whether or not production of U.S. cents and nickels should be eliminated. Morley Safer interviewed several experts on the hotly contested issue, including U.S. Mint Director Edmund Moy. The story will air on CBS at 7 p.m. ET/PT, 6 p.m. CT/MT

 

 

[MTHead-migration]

Is this a rerun? It sounds familiar.

[cladking]

I'd love to watch it but these guys destroy people and reputations for sport and I vowed never to watch it again many many years ago.

 

Thanks for the info though.

[DWLange]

I saw it and thought it was a fair presentation of the facts. Edmund Moy speaks very well and is a credit to the Mint. Also, Morely Safer correctly identified the misleadingly-named "Americans for Common Cents" as a lobbying group for a leading zinc producer and the supplier of blanks to the Mint. For years it has been providing survey results that are skewed to make it seem as though the elimination of the cent would cost Americans money. An economics writer was also interviewed to refute this claim.

 

The problem remains that Congress is still more likely to be swayed by lobbyists than economists. There doesn't seem to be any solution to that age-old problem.

[DC Dawg]

Edmund Moy speaks very well and is a credit to the Mint.

I have commented elsewhere that since Director Moy will be out of a job next January, he would be an excellent candidate for ANA Executive Director. In addition to his management experience, he is also a collector--which a lot of people think having an Executive Director also be a collector is a "good thing."

 

The problem remains that Congress is still more likely to be swayed by lobbyists than economists. There doesn't seem to be any solution to that age-old problem.

With the danger of getting political here, the age-old solution to this age-old problem is term limits. So when you go into the voting booth, vote for the other candidate and vote the out!

 

Scott

[World Colonial]

I saw it and thought it was a fair presentation of the facts. Edmund Moy speaks very well and is a credit to the Mint. Also, Morely Safer correctly identified the misleadingly-named "Americans for Common Cents" as a lobbying group for a leading zinc producer and the supplier of blanks to the Mint. For years it has been providing survey results that are skewed to make it seem as though the elimination of the cent would cost Americans money. An economics writer was also interviewed to refute this claim.

 

The problem remains that Congress is still more likely to be swayed by lobbyists than economists. There doesn't seem to be any solution to that age-old problem.

 

I agree with your comment about lobbyists but there is one possible solution. The government could quit debasing the currency which is the primary cause of this problem. It might not completely eliminate it permanently since the face value of coiuns was occasionally higher than the metal content even on the gold standard, but it would not be as bad as it is.

 

As I have said before, I always find it absurd when people find religion in the form of economy in government when it comes to penny ante (pun intended) stuff like this. But then they are concurrently in favor of the almost infinite number of boondoggles and bottomless ratholes that compose the federal budget which is almost all of it. I just read that the fiscal 2008-2009 budget President Bush porposed is about $3 TRILLION. Where is the concern for that? I thought so.

[CHABSENTIA]

Term limits are illegal on the Federal level. It has been tried before and the Congressman involved went to court over it. The problem is that Florida can't pass them for their Senators and Congress and Alabama doesn't have them. THis means that the ones from Florida have unequal treatment.

 

 

The only way for this to happen would be if Congress passed the Legislation for it.

 

Does anybody really believe that will happen?

[DC Dawg]

Term limits are illegal on the Federal level.

United States Constitution, Amendment 22 ratified in 1952:

 

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

 

Seems like federal term limits to me!!

 

Read what I said again... I said to "vote the out of office!" My version of term limits is from the ballot box, not by law. In fact, I am fundamentally against the 22nd Amendment--which was a knee-jerk (heavy on "jerk") reaction to the four terms of FDR.

 

Scott

[carson city]

60 minutes cannot be considered objective in anything it reports. Controlled by the right-wing media !

[Just Bob]

60 minutes cannot be considered objective in anything it reports. Controlled by the right-wing media !

 

 

[CHABSENTIA]

You just answered your own question. It is the President of the United States that is subject to Tems Limits. I specifically mentioned Congress.

 

If you check your History then you will find that the original framers of the Constitution did not provide for term limits for even the President of the U.S. and there have been Presidents that have served for more then 2 terms.

 

You own blurb shows that this was not the case until 1952. The reason this happened was purely Political as the Party in control wanted to limit it for Political reasons.

 

Recently there has been advocates that have suggested Congressional Legislation to change the requirements that the President must be born in the U,S, so that Arnold could run for President.

 

Read my post again. I specifically referred to Congress and the fact that Florida and a few other States tried limiting the Terms of Congress and they took it to the U,S,Supreme court . States can limit the terms of State Representatives such as Mayors and Governors etc.

 

States cannot limit the Terms of Senators and the House because it would be unfair to limit those from Texas if those from Georgia can serve as many as they care to serve.It takes Legislation from Congress just as it did in 1952 for the President.

 

If you ahve trouble reading my original post as it specifically applied to Congress there must be a teenager in the neighborhood that can help you etc.

[CHABSENTIA]

Gee I don't know who to believe. The Right wing Media says that sixty minutes is controlled by the Left Wing Media.

 

I guess CBS isn't for everybody.

[DC Dawg]

If you ahve trouble reading my original post as it specifically applied to Congress there must be a teenager in the neighborhood that can help you etc.

Gee... seems like someone left a bit of his sense of humor at the keyboard!

 

Scott

[CHABSENTIA]

No loss of Humor. I have never heard of a Defintion that classified State Government workers as Federal Workers .They are commonly referred to as Municipal workers such as Bons issued by States that are called Municipal Bonds.

 

A Senator or Congressman is a Federal Worker and rthere are no term lmits for them because of the reasons I mentioned.

 

I wouldn't go to the trouble of quoting three words out of a sentence or a paragraph and quoting an entire passage from the U.S. Constitution that refers to the type of Legislation that I had already cited that was needed to change the status quo as an exercise for a sense of Humor but then that is a different story.

 

But then there are different kinds of Myths etc like the deal here in Florida. I voted and uses the punch type ballot . It was also used in Chicago were a lot more were thrown out. As a matter of fact , there were 13,000 thrown out here in Jacksonville which was more than the three entire counties of South Florida that were challenged.

 

I am sure that everybody remembers the ridiculous displays of holding up ballots to try and discern the voting patterns.The problem was that each county had their own voting standards. If the Florida Supreme Court would have stepped in and enforced uniform Voting Standards instead of trying to usurp the State Legislature and enact Laws then the outcome might have been different.

 

The U.S Supreme court had no choice but to end it because just like the reason for Uniform Legislation regarding Congress there are also Laws regarding Uniform Voting Standards.

 

The framers of the U.S.Constitution were dedicated and Intelligent people.Too bad that their Ideas have been Usurped and watererd down over time.