Who would likely vote to get rid of the $1 bill, as president? McCain, or Obama?
malanu...@aol.com
ultimately cause the elimination of the $1 bill as president of the
United States? I know its just a guess, but, does anyone have any
ideas?
Phil DeMayo
It won't even be on the next President's radar.
He'll have a lot more to worry about than your obsessions.
Bruce Remick
<malanu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5a3863a9-622d-499c...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Last I heard, presidents don't vote on such matters. And for all I know,
presidents don't even have to bother carrying their own cash, except for the
occasional book store / ice cream shoppe photo-op.
MJKolodziej
"Phil DeMayo" <flip...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1c1699d7-5833-4ef6...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 1, 1:31?am, malanutt4l...@aol.com wrote:
> Just curious to know. Who would more likely vote to get rid of, and
> ultimately cause the elimination of the $1 bill as president of the
> United States? I know its just a guess, but, does anyone have any
> ideas?
It won't even be on the next President's radar.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Which is correct to say:
Neither candidate could give a rat's ass. OR Neither candidate couldn't give
a rat's ass.
mk
Paul Anderson
<1c1699d7-5833-4ef6...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Phil DeMayo <flip...@aol.com> wrote:
> It won't even be on the next President's radar.
>
> He'll have a lot more to worry about than your obsessions.
I agree it's not the President's business and that he'll be involved
with other things. But the elimination of the $1 bill is not an
obsession, it's a sensible and important step to keep our currency
system current and relevant. In these times, think of what we could do
for $500 million a year! That figure pales in comparison to $700
billion, but there are a lot of important programs that would love to
have a $500 million budget.
Paul
--
Paul Anderson
OpenVMS Engineering
Hewlett-Packard Company
Voltronicus
> In article
> <1c1699d7-5833-4ef6-8313-4060005cc...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Phil DeMayo <flip1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > It won't even be on the next President's radar.
>
> > He'll have a lot more to worry about than your obsessions.
>
> I agree it's not the President's business and that he'll be involved
> with other things. But the elimination of the $1 bill is not an
> obsession, it's a sensible and important step to keep our currency
> system current and relevant. In these times, think of what we could do
> for $500 million a year! That figure pales in comparison to $700
> billion, but there are a lot of important programs that would love to
> have a $500 million budget.
I keep seeing the $500 million figure bandied about but have not seen
anything to prove it.
Michael G. Koerner
It was in a GAO report on the fiscal effects to taxpayers of replacing the $1
note with the coin - from when the Sac was being debated about 10 years ago.
That figure is likely well over $1billion/year by now.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Paul Anderson
<0942a292-dbdb-4f20...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Voltronicus <fwd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I keep seeing the $500 million figure bandied about but have not seen
> anything to prove it.
That figure was in a General Accounting Office study in 2000. I'm sure
someone has the URL handy.
PC
"Paul Anderson" <paul.a...@hp.com> wrote in message
news:paul.anderson-115...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> In article
> <1c1699d7-5833-4ef6...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Phil DeMayo <flip...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> It won't even be on the next President's radar.
>>
>> He'll have a lot more to worry about than your obsessions.
>
> I agree it's not the President's business and that he'll be involved
> with other things. But the elimination of the $1 bill is not an
> obsession, it's a sensible and important step to keep our currency
> system current and relevant.
Typical Phil. Every post must be filled with some sarcastic, hateful
remark.
Voltronicus
>
> Voltronicus <fwdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I keep seeing the $500 million figure bandied about but have not seen
> > anything to prove it.
>
> That figure was in a General Accounting Office study in 2000. I'm sure
> someone has the URL handy.
And, of course, the government would never lie to us.
Phil DeMayo
> �Phil DeMayo <flip1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > It won't even be on the next President's radar.
>
> > He'll have a lot more to worry about than your obsessions.
>
> I agree it's not the President's business and that he'll be involved
> with other things. �But the elimination of the $1 bill is not an
> obsession, it's a sensible and important step to keep our currency
> system current and relevant. �In these times, think of what we could do
> for $500 million a year! �That figure pales in comparison to $700
> billion, but there are a lot of important programs that would love to
> have a $500 million budget.
>
> Paul
>
> --
> �Paul Anderson
> � OpenVMS Engineering
> � Hewlett-Packard Company
I fully agree that replacing the dollar note with a dollar coin would
be a wise economic move on the part of the gubmint. However, with
regard to the OP, it's one of his many obsessions (some just outright
nutty).
Ask him about his ideas for Balto ;-)
note.boy
a good idea. Billy
<malanu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5a3863a9-622d-499c...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
mazorj
"MJKolodziej" <mjmwcsREMOV...@htcomp.net> wrote in message
news:PrOdnfEsVvlu537V...@posted.hometowncomputing...
>
> "Phil DeMayo" <flip...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1c1699d7-5833-4ef6...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 1, 1:31?am, malanutt4l...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Just curious to know. Who would more likely vote to get rid of, and
>> ultimately cause the elimination of the $1 bill as president of the
>> United States? I know its just a guess, but, does anyone have any
>> ideas?
>
> It won't even be on the next President's radar.
>
> Exactly what I was thinking.
> Which is correct to say:
> Neither candidate could give a rat's ass. OR Neither candidate
> couldn't give a rat's ass.
They both could care less. ;-)
malanu...@aol.com
recalled, It took a signature from the president to pass a bill into a
law. So the president does vote on the issue. (Next time you guys who
would rather make remarks about me, your better, you should think
about how the government works, rather than leave room open for me to
return fire back at you)
mazorj
<malanu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:15279a50-06f1-4d45...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
It appears that you need to think about how the government works.
This hardly rises to veto level. If it were to be enacted, either
candidate would sign it without a second thought and would boast as
much as he could about the savings at the signing ceremony. Too many
more important and urgent things on their plates to fight over.
Bruce Remick
Do you actually believe that if this proposal ever made it through Congress
and to the president that it would be in its own separate bill, rather than
buried among some 300 other unrelated proposals in an unwieldly omnibus
bill?
A president doesn't "vote" on a bill by signing it. It's Congress' job to
vote. The voting is over by the time it gets to her.
Voltronicus
Congratulations! You're even dumber than Sarge.
sgt23
Voltronicus I don't see why anyone one bothers applying to your post.
If someone doesn't agree with you, or doesn't talk the way you think
they should you call them stupid. Why don't you go over to the
political rooms were someone might want to lisen and argue with your
stupid ass. You might even find a friend, I bet you don't have many of
them.
Voltronicus
I take it back, Sarge is dumber.
JHL
try.
On Oct 1, 1:31 am, malanutt4l...@aol.com wrote:
Scott Stevenson
>This topic wasn't for people to talk about obsessions. But last I
>recalled, It took a signature from the president to pass a bill into a
>law. So the president does vote on the issue.
I don't even know that it would take a presidential signature. Is
there a specific law or EO that _requires_ printing dollar bills?
take care,
Scott
Coffee's For Closers
36db7b...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, malanu...@aol.com
says...
I seem to recall that that, presidential signature thing is a
veto.
Meaning that, the Congress (both houses) would pass a bill
(introduced by one of them) and then they would send it up to the
Prez...
And then, s/he would look, and make a decision...
Although, if the Congress had a 2/3 majority, then the Prez was
over-ruled, anyway, and couldn't veto.
But.. anyway... the US Congress is currently occupied with other
economic things... Like printing humungous piles of cash to give
to Ben Bernanke... So he can fly over Wall Street in the
FedReserve helicopter... Dumping the cash out on the Fat-Cat
speculators...
And so none of the politicians really care about the physical
shape of the currency used by the lowly members of the poor
public, to buy their ration of macaroni and cheese.
--
Earn Money With Your Web Site
http://www.WebSponsorZone.Net
Web Site Advertising Directory
Scott Stevenson
<usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote:
>In article <15279a50-06f1-4d45-a2de-
>36db7b...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, malanu...@aol.com
>says...
>> This topic wasn't for people to talk about obsessions. But last I
>> recalled, It took a signature from the president to pass a bill into a
>> law. So the president does vote on the issue. (Next time you guys who
>> would rather make remarks about me, your better, you should think
>> about how the government works, rather than leave room open for me to
>> return fire back at you)
>
>
>I seem to recall that that, presidential signature thing is a
>veto.
>
>Meaning that, the Congress (both houses) would pass a bill
>(introduced by one of them) and then they would send it up to the
>Prez...
>
>And then, s/he would look, and make a decision...
>
>Although, if the Congress had a 2/3 majority, then the Prez was
>over-ruled, anyway, and couldn't veto.
Close. A president can still veto. If 2/3 of both houses then vote
to override the veto, the bill becomes law.
Historically, about 4% of vetos are overridden, although those numbers
are skewed because the first 10 presidents had a grand total of one
veto overridden
take care,
Scott