Special Report: Congress May End Dollar Coin Program

What I don't understand is why they have to mint so many of them. Kennedy halves are minted mostly for the collector, about 4 million a year for both mints.

Here are the mint figures for the Presidential dollars:



There there's the SAC dollars also which went from 3.6 million minted in 2008 to 71 million minted in 2009 because of the 20% law.

Seeing as how no one is using them and it's the law they have to mint them, can't they just mint them for the collector's market? Do they really need to mint 400 milllion a year? How about just minting 4 million coins per President, P & D mint combined and a couple million SAC's for the collectors market. That would still be 6 million dollar coins minted per year which is still too much, but it makes more sense than 400 + million.

It was a bad program to begin with. There are too many dead Presidents on coins anyway, and how many collectors want to rush out and get the Rutherford B Hayes dollars?

The ATB Quarter program shouldn't have started to begin with too. It was the mint's desire to make money and thought collectors would be all over this program like the State Quarter program but it's not working. At least they don't mint an oversupply of the ATB Quarters.

If you're listening mint..... you don't have to mint 300-400 million Presidential dollars a year.... just mint a few million for the collector's market. Or better yet, do away with the $1 banknote and use these coins, but I'm 99.9% sure that would never take effect because politics get in the way of everything.

whenever I go to the bank these days I ask for dollar coins. I really don't collect the presidentials or the sacagewa or SBA (Ugliest coin I can think of) but it would make so much sense to have dollar coins rather than dollar bills, the lifespan is that much longer and the ultimate costs are lower. Hey it works in Canada quite well doing it that way.

So I just spend them and people are genuinely surprised to see them.

smokeriderdon said:



Since it was a Canadian banks who would tell me the shipping costs were a large problem - and the Canadians are the ones who accept and readily use the Loonie dollar coin, the opinion you state here does not apply. This "ignorant argument" was given from a country who has already gone through the process.




When the US was fist announcing the Sacs, and I was making trips to different Canadian banks - getting Loonies and Half dollars - the conversation would come up - initiated by the bankers - of how they thought the US would be smart enough not to make the same (their words) "mistake."

I know that over the years of living near Canada, that many Canadian friends said the same thing. They felt they were "stuck with them" and did not like having to carry so many around, but it was more difficult to exchange them b/c the banks did not want them due to the extra costs the banks underwent in shipping them back to get larger bills. As one friend said, "so, as usual, the little people get stuck with the repercussions."

This is not my opinion. This is what I was told by many people from a country who have had the $ coin in their system for quite some time.

They also were the ones who told me that as soon as the dollar coin was out and became "pocket change" that retailers took advantage and started raising all the prices - trying to make a dollar be in the same status as how a quarter is perceived.

B/c so many Loonies were in people's pockets, the Toonie came into being. It made for less coins having to be carried in the pocket (although it is a larger coin). It - sort of - helped the problem (their words).

Another note is that I was told that Canadians were forced into using the dollar coin also b/c they stopped making the paper $1 and $2.00 bills at the same time (or close). Although Canada had always accepted the $2.00 readily, I was told the overall attitude to the Loonies was similar to what the majority of people in the States currently have towards dollar coins.

Why should the elected officials in our country be able to ram these down our throats if the general populace does not want them? The elected officials are just that - elected - to serve the people. Since tax payer money is not used for making coins/bills, it saves tax payers nothing to make the coins. The "loss" is only out of the profits that go back to the (Not)Federal Reserve Bank and BP&G. So the choice comes down to whether or not a more cost cutting procedure (hence more profits for the big guys - with which I have no problem) is worth more, in the long run, than the will of the people en masse.

BTW - my only real aversion to the $1.00 coins is the aforementioned opportunity it gives our greedy society to price gauge everything upwards sine the price is "only a dollar - mere pocket change." It will happen if the sheeple start accepting these coins readily. Why would any person want to see this happen? If there is really that much more money out there that people do not want, send it to me and I'll build my collection of older coins

If you were talking to the backs around the time of the Sac dollar that might explain their comments about the dollar coin. The Loonie was introduced in 1987 and the paper note was phased out in 1988 or 89. At that time the Canadians seemed to accept it with just the initial grumbling. The twonie was introduced in 1996 and the two dollar note was discontinued almost immediately either in 96 or 97. At that point the banks DID have a serious problem with the loonies piling up in the banks because for some reason everyone was switching over to the twonie. I don't know why but it did happen so around the time of the introduction of the Sac dollar the banks were flooded with dollar coins. That was probably the source of the bankers comments.

Well, he does have a cool beard lol

So Congress and the Government believe that removing the dollar bill and replacing it with coins saves money, but yet, they still have NOT changed the metals in pennies and nickels?

But there was a pretty fast change after 1964 when silver was removed.