Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flying Dice]

How about we forget about this and worry about more important shit like the state of the country?
While im all forward to get E pluribus unum back, theres other issues that affect more lives than "In God we Trust".
im confused on how lots of people feel disturbed to the country's motto when i can barely find a person that even knows it. No one could even remember the Old motto. (street survey for psychology, thought it was a joke.......)

Have we not just been over this? Just because something is not the crucial issue of the moment doesn't mean it should be ignored. Change is created much more easily with pressure on multiple lines of attack, rather than concentrating on a single issue. If we make, say, the problem with Social Security generating far more costs than revenue the issue of the day and get bogged down in that, nothing gets done. If we work on a few dozen different issues, not making progress in one of them is much less serious. Not to mention that there are at least six areas which could be classified as "crucial to the survival of the U.S.". For that matter, "the state of the country" is incredibly vague. Are you talking about the aformentioned issues with S.S., the level of influence campaign donations play in the electorial process, the low rate of growth compared to China (our closest rival-though admittedly I don't believe China is a practical or theoretical threat to the U.S. for a number of reasons. Others may, however.), increasing environmental instability, increasing deregulation, bigotry (esp. towards Hispanics and GLBT these days, it seems), our involvement in numerous wars we have little/no reason to be fighting, and so on and so forth?

As MetalSlimeHunt mentioned, there shouldn't be any direct costs associated with this beyond changing the printing plates and passing a bill, which would hardly amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. We don't need to collect and reprint every bill in the world (which would likely be impossible, anyhow), just start printing new ones. At most, the Fed could start taking old bills out of circulation, but again, that is a relatively normal process for it.

[Gotdamnmiracle]

Besides, there will always be "something more important to worry about".

[GlyphGryph]

I'm pretty sure there's no legal mandate for the current slogan - the design of our money is under the control of the treasury except where otherwise specified by congress, and I've only found evidence that this is a request. Especially since the Treasure doesn't put it on all the money they issue.

As such, it really is "that easy" - it's as simple as the guy in charge of the design saying "nah, lets use the old one", or any of his superiors doing so, without being overruled to the contrary.

It then gets rolled into the next redesign for no extra cost.

It is, quite literally, simple and cheap. It is straightforward.

However, Obama has made quite clear he would override any design without the words, so its not going to happen. :/

[Nadaka]

I'm pretty sure there's no legal mandate for the current slogan - the design of our money is under the control of the treasury except where otherwise specified by congress, and I've only found evidence that this is a request. Especially since the Treasure doesn't put it on all the money they issue.

As such, it really is "that easy" - it's as simple as the guy in charge of the design saying "nah, lets use the old one", or any of his superiors doing so, without being overruled to the contrary.

It then gets rolled into the next redesign for no extra cost.

It is, quite literally, simple and cheap. It is straightforward.

However, Obama has made quite clear he would override any design without the words, so its not going to happen. :/

Really? how has he made that clear? [joke]Are you saying that Obama isn't a secret muslim? [/joke]

[GlyphGryph]

He responded to the petition and said he supports the words being on the money, and believes they are important (subtext: to his re-election chances) and he would oppose any attempt to change them. He also added that he support "under god" being in the pledge too.

[Nadaka]

He responded to the petition and said he supports the words being on the money, and believes they are important (subtext: to his re-election chances) and he would oppose any attempt to change them. He also added that he support "under god" being in the pledge too.

I don't see a response to that petition.

[Leafsnail]

So why was it said earlier in the thread that it was going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to change? I'm sorry, there's conflicting opinions on how much this will cost, and no one has given a source on it.

Because money gets redesigned all the time, so there needs to be a source on why changing the motto to be slightly shorter would cost huge amounts more than the normal redesign.

[Willfor]

That was said when I was convinced the passion in this thread was demonstrating that waiting for the next redesign would be a completely unacceptable option.

[GlyphGryph]

Nah, I don't think anyone demands anything immediate. And the old money is certainly going to stick around for a while. There's no rush.

Considering the huge uproar rased when the mint DID leave it off that coin they issued a couple years ago, though, and people demanded it be put back on (while there may be voices of caution on the liberal side saying it's not really worth it, the conservatives go full hog on shit like this).

Redesigns are actually pretty much ongoing, so even then it would probably be removed from one thing at a time over the next ten to fifteen years or so.

Nadaka:
Sorry, my bad, the response was to the the "remove the under god from the pledge" petition last year. But it made quite clear his stance on the money issue as well.

[darkrider2]

Obamas up for re-elect so anything he says is going to err on the side of supporting the god believers. So I really don't think we should be putting anything said by him recently in this thread at all.

[Sheb]

Relevant: Back in 2011, Congress voted to make clear that "In God We Trust" is your national motto. 369 to 9 (two abstentions).

Apparently the Senate did something similar in 2006. So I guess this isn't moving anytime soon. Still worth it to sign the petition, change of mindset don't appear overnight, and I'd rather have Fox news defending "In God We Trust" rather than attacking Obamacare.

[G-Flex]

Obamas up for re-elect so anything he says is going to err on the side of supporting the god believers. So I really don't think we should be putting anything said by him recently in this thread at all.

Relevant: Back in 2011, Congress voted to make clear that "In God We Trust" is your national motto. 369 to 9 (two abstentions).

Apparently the Senate did something similar in 2006. So I guess this isn't moving anytime soon. Still worth it to sign the petition, change of mindset don't appear overnight, and I'd rather have Fox news defending "In God We Trust" rather than attacking Obamacare.

The fun thing about civil rights/constitutionality issues is that Presidential policy and Congressional/Senate approval have nothing to do with it one way or the other.

... In theory, at least.

[Sheb]

Well, this level of support mean I wouldn't be surprised of an edit to the constitution is SCOTUS decided to order the change of the motto.

[Leafsnail]

Mr Forbes said the resolution was needed because President Obama had once called 'E pluribus unum' the national motto.

The gaffe occurred on a presidential trip to India in December, and prompted its addition to the new Capitol Visitors Center.

It would suggest that Obama himself would support a change, though.

[Megaman]

I doubt he would, for political reasons.