Poll of the Day > Biden Administration to revisit plan of putting Tubman on $20...

(+) Yeah! (+)

FarmDog posted...

I guess that was a bad joke lol

people think such stupid stuff nowadays its hard to know whether someone is joking or actually dumb enough to think something crazy

---

AC_Dragonfire posted...

Malcolm X or MLK would be better. Nobody wants Harriet Tubman on the fucking 20$. This is just another tactic from the left to piss off the centrist and conservative people.

Really just the same issue there.

Unbridled9 posted...

My question is; why the 20? The 1 and 5 are pretty obvious as to why they're not being changed but why not the $10 (Hamilton)? What about the $2 or the $50? I mean I guess Jefferson and Grant might be a bit disrespectful... But it seems weird that they went right for the $20.

General backlash against Andrew Jackson from reactionary elements who, if appeased, would simply move their ire to another founding father until everybody was changed and then they'd start debating the merits of the new people on the money.

grimhilde00 posted...

Oh yes her being a symbol and HEROIC driving force for freedom from slavery is just "good deeds" and not at all significant wtf.

And once you put your sound and fury aside, you're not left with much. You have countless Americans who acted heroically to save lives who also don't meet the criteria. Paul Revere, for instance, saved more lives (and not just for his midnight ride) and worked to ensure that we had an America today yet he's not on money.

argonautweakend posted...

The thing is, for a lot of currency history we've just had generic "lady liberty" figures on money, we've also had Susan B Anthony and Sacagawea on dollar coins and other things.

People say it can't be done or shouldn't be done but it's already been done, sooooooo

Overlooking that you're talking about coins in the case of SBA and Sacagawea, those were also shitty decisions. Regardless, a generic figure is more suited than randomly honoring somebody.

Joe_Biden posted...

she wasn't a politician though, and only those people are allowed to be on anything, didn't you know?

Might as well put me on the $20 at that point.

---

harriet tubman is one of the few people this country could consider to be an actual superhero

she's more worthy than most any politician

---

I don't have an issue who is on the money as long as I can spend, it's all good. Americans better hope that the dollar remains the worlds reserve currency because the day that ceases, it's all downhill from there.

---

I was talking about coins in the case of susan b and sacagawea but that distinction really doesn't matter. it's all currency, and non political historical female figures have been on US money for a long time now.

If you think susan B and sacagawea were bad ideas what does that say about the current president dollar coin series where the designs are super generic and bland, and there is so little public interest there are millions if not billions of coins the mint is sitting on they might even have trouble getting rid of if they sold them all for 90 cents a coin. You wanna talk bad ideas, let's talk about the king of bad ideas. People only cared when they first came out because you could buy them on credit with no fees....other than that loophole, literally zero interest.

Zeus posted...

And once you put your sound and fury aside, you're not left with much. You have countless Americans who acted heroically to save lives who also don't meet the criteria. Paul Revere, for instance, saved more lives (and not just for his midnight ride) and worked to ensure that we had an America today yet he's not on money.

what criteria? There's more than number of lives saved here. There's also the significance of slavery and how this impacted our nation and the power of a minority woman against all odds. Along with the heroic actions. Not everyone can go on our bills, how does that make Tubman not worthy? Your "logic" is bullshit.

---

He certainly isn't referencing any criteria from the BEP or the treasury. The treasury has this to say:

"The law prohibits portraits of living persons from appearing on Government Securities. Therefore, the portraits on our currency notes are of deceased persons whose places in history the American people know well.
The basic face and back designs of all denominations of our paper currency in circulation today were selected in 1928, although they were modified to improve security against counterfeiting starting in 1996. A committee appointed to study such matters made those choices. The only exception is the reverse design of the one-dollar bill. Unfortunately, however, our records do not suggest why certain Presidents and statesmen were chosen for specific denominations."

So all they need to be are deceased important historical figures the populace knows well, which Tubman obviously is. You can piss in the wind all you want about who did more historically, but whats the point? You could always say certain people did more, but that would also include people who aren't on money who were more important than those on our money(for example, Salmon P. Chase on the now defunct 10,000 dollar bill...not really a household name in US history).

why not make a new bill?
---

They aren't ever going to make a note higher than $100 ever again I am pretty sure, so I don't really see where a new note would fit in. Maybe take the dollar away and give us dollar coins like Canada, and make a new coin, but the American public has shown time and time again they do not care for dollar coins(no interest at all over the current Presidential dollar series. As a coin collector I certainly don't care)

so the criteria is only that the person must be dead?

i wonder what criteria zeus found that says they have to be more historically significant than someone else or a politician

---

Game_Grumps posted...

so the criteria is only that the person must be dead?

i wonder what criteria zeus found that says they have to be more historically significant than someone else or a politician

I mean, I can suggest my grandfather, but, it wouldn't mean anything. I think "historically significant american figure" is a fine reference point.

argonautweakend posted...

They aren't ever going to make a note higher than $100 ever again I am pretty sure

I disagree with that.
Once inflation hits a point where $100 bills are like $20 bills are now, you'd need a higher bill.
Wont be anytime soon, but it can happen.

---

I don't see anything to suggest specific criteria. precedence has been given to presidents, but you have other figures like hamilton, salmon chase(10,000 dollar bill holla) and ben franklin. I feel like as long as they're an important american figure it doesn't matter. Nobody living today even knows who Salmon Portland Chase was....

anyways, a page from the treasury says what i said in my post above

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/edu_faq_currency_portraits.aspx

There just isn't any defined criteria except dead, and important. they don't specify what degree of importance, though as you'd expect presidents get a lot of action.

look you may think tubman on the 20 is dumb, but nobody, and i mean nobody has any affinity for Andrew Jackson on the blue and green $20s. I collect currency and I don't care, but the reason I don't care is because I want to see the progression of our money. It keeps things interesting and gets more people involved in the hobby. The only denomination I hope they never change(out of any coin or bill) is the dollar. It's been the same design since series 1963, and it's easy to find oldies because outside of the serial number printing method(lighter ink, uneven digits to thicker ink and more even digits) it has not really changed in appearce since, making it the easiest mainline denomination to find oldies and complete the set. I did last year!