• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Thursday Aug 14, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST. This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

New $10 bill

ThePhantasm

2 sexy 4 a stormtrooper
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
19,335
Reaction score
5
Points
31
Word is that Alexander Hamilton is about to be ousted from the $10 bill (US currency) and replaced with a female historical figure. Thoughts? [link]

Personally I think someone else should be replaced, not Hamilton. He was an abolitionist, a father of the constitution, and the author of most of the Federalist papers. He was also the first Treasury secretary. Compare that to the racist and genocidal Andrew Jackson, who will sit safely on the $20 bill, it appears.
 
Last edited:
No one cares about the constitution anymore.
 
First I am hearing of the 10 dollar bill. They have been talking about doing this for the 20. Which given Jackson's controversial history and the own man's hatred for the current monetary system makes a lot more sense.

Booting Hamilton just seems like an odd decision.

Maybe it's because the 10 is less common, they thought it would be a less controversial decision?
 
They should put Rachel Dolezal on the $10 bill. First African American on US currency.
 
Last edited:
First I am hearing of the 10 dollar bill. They have been talking about doing this for the 20. Which given Jackson's controversial history and the own man's hatred for the current monetary system makes a lot more sense.

Booting Hamilton just seems like an odd decision.

Maybe it's because the 10 is less common, they thought it would be a less controversial decision?

This is just my own conjecture but I'm assuming it would be because they revamped the $20 bill not too long ago and spent a lot of money getting the new ones into circulation so it would be moronic to redo them so soon even though they should have done it then. I'm also assuming the only reason they are bothering with the $10 is more to stop counterfeiting than actually trying to honor anyone in particular. It's just convenience for them
 
This is just my own conjecture but I'm assuming it would be because they revamped the $20 bill not too long ago and spent a lot of money getting the new ones into circulation so it would be moronic to redo them so soon even though they should have done it then. I'm also assuming the only reason they are bothering with the $10 is more to stop counterfeiting than actually trying to honor anyone in particular. It's just convenience for them

That makes sense.
 
Entirely unnecessary. Hamilton deserves to be on the bill.

Im not a person that hates on Andrew Jackson, but he really should go before anyone else. Followed by Ulysses S Grant on the $50.
 
For awhile I remember there being talk of putting Ronald Reagan on the 50 bill.
 
This is just my own conjecture but I'm assuming it would be because they revamped the $20 bill not too long ago and spent a lot of money getting the new ones into circulation so it would be moronic to redo them so soon even though they should have done it then. I'm also assuming the only reason they are bothering with the $10 is more to stop counterfeiting than actually trying to honor anyone in particular. It's just convenience for them

The $20 bill hasnt been updated since 2003. And this new bill isnt coming out until 2020...

The new note will appear in 2020 — the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/1...ar-10-bill-with-hamiltons.html?_r=0&referrer=


...so that will be 17 years since the $20 was updated.

They need to overhaul the whole damn system. Bills need to be smaller, made of sturdier synthetic materials, and have features that allow blind people to use them whithout getting help from others.
 
Last edited:
That's a better idea if they decided to put both on the bill rather than booting Hamilton altogether.
 
Horray for women's rights... you get half a bill??

I'm sorry I just don't see the point of all this?
 
Entirely unnecessary. Hamilton deserves to be on the bill.

Im not a person that hates on Andrew Jackson, but he really should go before anyone else. Followed by Ulysses S Grant on the $50.

What did Grant do to get him kicked off the 50 dollar bill? Besides win the Civil War, and preserve the Union.

Well, I guess there was that scandal.

But even Robert E. Lee liked the man.
 
Out of the non POTUS choices of the most used US currency bills, we have Franklin on the $100 who was a founding father of the US. Then we have Hamilton who was first US secretary of the treasury and never President. All the rest are Presidents. To bump a President off of the currency would be far too controversial.
 
Personally I think someone else should be replaced, not Hamilton. He was an abolitionist, a father of the constitution, and the author of most of the Federalist papers. He was also the first Treasury secretary. Compare that to the racist and genocidal Andrew Jackson, who will sit safely on the $20 bill, it appears.

Jackson was President.
 
What did Grant do to get him kicked off the 50 dollar bill? Besides win the Civil War, and preserve the Union.

Well, I guess there was that scandal.

But even Robert E. Lee liked the man.

I think the only people that should be on US bills in perpetuity are the Founding Fathers. Washington should always be on the $1 bill. And every 25 years or so they should put a different Founding Father on the $5 and $10 bills. That will take care of those bills for a long time. Paper money would likely be done away with entirely before they were able to get through all the Founding Fathers.

As for the $20, $50, $100 they can use anyone thats accomplished something noteworthy or done something extremely good for the country.

Grant has been on the $50 bill since 1914. Its well passed time to replace him. Same goes for Old Hickory.
 
Last edited:
Just get rid of the people and put some buildings or paintings on there.

In the end, it doesn't matter as long as I can pay with them.
 
Just get rid of the people and put some buildings or paintings on there.

In the end, it doesn't matter as long as I can pay with them.

By putting people's portraits on there our money becomes more than just money. When I was a kid I wanted to know who the "faces on the bills" were. It's a way to introduce kids and people to important historical figures and important people and their accomplishments.

Also these bills are meant to be monuments to these important people.These bills circulate world wide. So images of important Americans our circulating world wide.

So no to getting rid of people's portraits on our bills.
 
Last edited:
By putting people's portraits on there our money becomes more than just money. When I was a kid I wanted to know who the "faces on the bills" were. It's a way to introduce kids and people to important historical figures and important people and their accomplishments.

Also these bills are meant to be monuments to these important people.These bills circulate world wide. So images of important Americans our circulating world wide.

So no to getting rid of people's portraits on our bills.

Euro bills have famous buildings on them. There's more to cultural heritage than people.

I'm not saying we should get rid of the people on the bills, I'm saying that... I just don't give a **** who is on the bill :funny:
 
Let's just keep current money looking the same with the same people as before & introduce some new bills in increments of $5 with different people, places & things on that.
 
People have enough trouble when someone gives them $21.00 when something costs like $10 and change.

"You gave me too much."
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"