Fastpasses will now be the new money.

Got this email today:

So - they just announced the new penny redesign on tv this morning. Like the new quarters, there will be different designs on the back of pennies - each reflecting a different part of Lincoln's life.

Now - no offense to the dead President, but why are we bothering spending any money to remake the penny design in this time of financial crisis? Frankly, even if we weren't, there was some discussion about getting rid of the penny. But now in the this time of our countries impending doom, wouldn't the money be better spent on something?

When it's all any of us will have, at least they'll entertain us with their new look and shinyness.

This article explains why the Mint is interested in commemorative editions of coins: they make money; probably more than $4billion on the state quarters program.

I assume they are expecting something along the same lines from the Lincoln biography series of pennies though it will be harder, last I heard it costs more to make a penny than it is worth. But maybe their numbers show the direct collectors market compensates (and I wouldn't be surprised if at the same time minor composition changes are made to bring down the materials cost of making a penny).

But ultimately I doubt it costs that much to make the different coins.

And I suspect that the plan was in the works long before the crash began.

I'm sure it was. That doesn't mean those plans can't change though. I guess I'm of the mind that if there is a financial crisis, or budget shortfall or whatever, that things like roads and schools are better things to spend money on then a new coin design.

Kind of like at home - I should spend money on rent and food instead of HBO and Showtime.

You can't start playing the "there are better things to spend money on" game.

How can they spend money on coffee for federal employees when children are starving?

How can they spend money on a new laptop for a bureaucrat when a citizen is going into foreclosure?

How can they spend money to replace signs at a passport office that are still legible when bank employees are losing their jobs.

There will ALWAYS be "something better to spend their money on." Things can't be prioritized like that. Though it would make passing a budget much easier. "What's the single most important thing in the world to spend money on. We vote that the entire budget goes to that because we don't want to spend money on anything else while there's something more important to spend it on."

I hear ya - but to some extent they should be doing that. If there's a budget issue, they should cut out the coffee before they fire someone. I'm not suggesting they do this on a daily basis - but that should be what the budget is all about.

I'm really not very sympathetic about people going into forclosure - they knew or should have known what they were getting into. I too would have loved to buy a house - but could see that wouldn't be able to afford it. Why should they get a house for being stupid.

I'm not advocating for putting all the money in the most important thing either - but like I said - there are the more frivolous items that can wait.

I think it is because they, like the state quarters, are expected to MAKE money. The state quarters have been very lucrative from what I understand.

As usual, Alex beat me to it, and explained it far better, oops!

Personally, I don't think the federal government should be spending a dime on this.

We're here because the decision was made to deregulate and allow the free market to rein. Agree or disagree with that decision, that's where we are. But guess what, failure is a risk in the free market. These idiots gambled with it and lost and now they're begging to be rescued.

Now, I could have told them, back when they were being deregulated, that this was a possibility. And that's why I am in favor of regulation. Failure should not be an option when you're talking about the underpinnings of our entire economy. But failure IS an option in the free market and the people who chose the free market and chose to gamble deserve to bear the consequences.

It sickens me to see talk of how to limit the amount of money the people who made the horrible decisions walk away with when we should be talking about how much they're going to lose.

The fed should do little to nothing. The bare minimum to prevent things from spiraling out of control. Make the gamblers cut their loses, ensure that the people who made smart investments aren't dragged down in a rip tide. It's going to hurt. Homes will lose value, people will lose jobs. But unless the people who have been taking risks with money that's not their own without threat of real consequence (an 8 digit severance package is not a consequence) get hurt, we will find ourselves back here once again in short order.