Deafening silence on the new $20

Actually, I think Eleanor Roosevelt or Susan B Anthony would be my preference if a woman is desired for a currency. They were more consequential.

If you want someone of color, then it definitely should be Dr King. What he did was very consequential besides being martyred for his effort.

Both can be done. Put a woman on the $20 and Dr King on the $50. Maybe one of the coins in addition.

Robert_Casotto said:

Brail currency.  I like that.  And for the hard of hearing, install a sound chip on each bill of that lady who played George Costanza's mom screaming.  "This is a Ten!"

Maybe a built-in spellcheck?

Dr. King and Eleanor Roosevelt (and Marian Anderson) will be on the back of the $5.  Susan B Anthony, Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and Lucretia Mott will be on the back of the $10.

So with Harriet Tubman on the $20, will you need to stock up on $10 bills when you travel to the south?

Just heard on CNN, the Treasury Secretary says that it will be much sooner than 2030.

eliz said:

Dr. King and Eleanor Roosevelt (and Marian Anderson) will be on the back of the $5.  Susan B Anthony, Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and Lucretia Mott will be on the back of the $10.

So, Dr King, et al., will be relegated to the back which hardly anyone ever looks at.

spontaneous, I'll continue the drift...that's an amazing story, to see this creature on Main Street. You're a compassionate fellow creature. 

We vacation each year upstate NY and hear their eerie cries all night long. They can barely walk on dry land, spending most of their time in air or water. In spring, one can see them swimming along with their chicks on their backs. And, as beautiful as they are, they're called the Common Loon. As a Jersey-born guy, I find them very uncommon.

What irks me is that, in typical government fashion, there is no discussion as to how much all this will cost. While nice, I do not think it is something that is essential and if it is not essential there should not be money spent on it.

bramzzoinks said:

What irks me is that, in typical government fashion, there is no discussion as to how much all this will cost. While nice, I do not think it is something that is essential and if it is not essential there should not be money spent on it.

They plan to print the money at night and then use it to pay for the costs. The government has it covered. Don't worry.

bramzzoinks said:

What irks me is that, in typical government fashion, there is no discussion as to how much all this will cost. While nice, I do not think it is something that is essential and if it is not essential there should not be money spent on it.

the updates to currency aren't done just to put a new face on a bill.  it's also an attempt at keeping a step ahead of counterfeiters.  you may not think that's an essential function, but most citizens would likely disagree with you.

bramzzoinks said:

What irks me is that, in typical government fashion, there is no discussion as to how much all this will cost. While nice, I do not think it is something that is essential and if it is not essential there should not be money spent on it.

The changes are being made at the same time the currencies in question were scheduled for routine updates for the express purpose of mitigating cost.

They didn't invite you to the table when cost and process were discussed, but the discussions have been widely reported in the news for at least a couple of years.  I haven't read them in depth very recently, so I won't give you the final cost conclusions.  However, you could find this information before you start b*tch*ng about it if you cared to do so.  There's no need to think it didn't happen because you didn't receive a hand-delivered telegram about it.

Yes I know their are routine updates. To add security features. But I expect there is an added expense to change designs. And based upon Lew's comments today an accelerated schedule to get the new design out before the normally scheduled update. So it is not unreasonable to ask how much that will cost. And if it is essential.

There is no reason to get indignant when government spending is questioned. In fact it is more appropriate to get indigent when it is not questioned. Which happens all the time.

bramzzoinks said:

There is no reason to get indignant when government spending is questioned. In fact it is more appropriate to get indigent when it is not questioned. Which happens all the time.

But you accuse "the government" of not discussing cost, apparently because you are unwilling to investigate whether they discussed cost or not.  In fact, you were completely wrong.  When I was paying attention, there was a LOT of discussion about cost and how to minimize it.  You're making assumptions about the cost of design changes, even though you know nothing at all about it.  

I'm not indignant, but I think your post was typically stupid and reactionary.  You're saying things out of complete ignorance.

I can not find it. Please enlighten me. What is the cost?

All the bills were recently changed to include new security features. Why are more changed required now? How does the cost for the changes compare with expected savings from reduced counterfeiting? 

bramzzoinks said:

There is no reason to get indignant when government spending is questioned. In fact it is more appropriate to get indigent when it is not questioned. Which happens all the time.

this has to be fraudian.

yes I know Freudian   

When is it more appropriate to get indigent?  Is that before or after college loans?

hoops said:

bramzzoinks said:

There is no reason to get indignant when government spending is questioned. In fact it is more appropriate to get indigent when it is not questioned. Which happens all the time.

this has to be fraudian.

yes I know Freudian  "> 


When is it more appropriate to get indigent?  Is that before or after college loans?

If more people were indigent, they would have less money, so we could print less and save a bit more...

Starsong said:

You don't thing there'd be an unfortunate parallel with Earhart / money? 

No.

Saw this and it seems there is more to it as to why the $20 bill. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-little-known-reason-why-harriet-tubman-on-the-20-bill-is-so-significant_us_5717b6e4e4b0479c59d6b279

The next step is to see which white actress will portray Tubman on the 20.  There's already a picture going around the internet of ScarJo all done up.    Which I can't add to the post because I suck at doing that stuff.

This one has created a bit of a stir, locally

http://banknotes.rba.gov.au/australias-banknotes/next-generation-banknotes-program/

I know many people would like to get the Queen of England off the money. 

bramzzoinks said:

I know many people would like to get the Queen of England off the money. 

I got her off my money.