Emphasis mine.
These features are, in some considerable measure, actually designed to enhance the stability of the currency’s function by making it harder to counterfeit.
Yes, I know. Some changes I just have to live with for the sake of function, but even there my first thought is “How bad is the counterfeiting, really? Is color *that *important?”
Ben Carson thinks Harriet Tubman belongs on a bill nobody uses:
Singles for tipping the stage dancers, and twenties for lap dances.
Or so I’m told. 
Wait until President Trump puts his own face on the 20.
And yes, I realize the precedent is to only print deceased persons on the currency, but that’s not a constitutional stipulation is it?
Jesus, the racist shit that comes out in cases like this is really disgusting. Not talking about here, obviously.
That would make him inferior to at least two other denominations. We can’t have that!
The $2 bill wasn’t last issued in 2003. $2 bills are still being printed today.
I last saw one even earlier than 2003. Does that count?
Exactly. Has anyone been even remotely interested in what money looks like before this? They propose this, and all of a sudden everyone cares.
I’m not necessarily a fan of judging historical figures with the standards and mores of the present, but I can’t help but think there is a neat little bit of poetic justice going on here. Jackson, who owned slaves, is being unseated for an individual who did everything in her power to fight against slavery.
Karma may not always be instant, but it generally catches up with you eventually.
Slaves and Indians are irrelevant - the most relevant fact about Jackson that makes his appearance on the currency problematic is that he absolutely hated the idea of a central bank, and fought hard against the idea of what is now essentially the Federal Reserve. So putting him on the notes in the first place was a bit ironic.
While the initial idea for the discussed changed involved removing the face of the founder of the Treasury from the currency.
Other serious countries change the faces and scenes on the paper currency with every generation. And yes the colors and even the materials (why do I get the feeling that if the US announced polymer dollar notes there would be a riot?). Here we add a mild teal and peach shading to the background on one side and people get all shook up.
I have a question: Why do the portraits on our bills show only the person’s last name, and not the first and last name?
This might be a bit more relevant for Harriet Tubman, who is perhaps a bit less widely known than Washington, Lincoln, et al.
The sample proposed bills I’ve seen pictured on-line show Harriet Tubman’s portrait with just the name Tubman. Maybe a lot of Americans won’t even know who that is. Why not put first and last names on all our bills?
Why does Ben Carson hate Thomas Jefferson?
When Michael Hillegas was on the $10 bill, it not only gave his first and last name, but also said what he was, presumably because nobody would have known otherwise.
I like that the reverse of the $10 bill is changing. The Treasury Building is nice and all, and it’s a National Historic Landmark, but…yawn. It’s not exactly an icon of the country. I guess it’s educational, in that nobody outside of Washington would know what it looked like if it wasn’t on the $10.
Indeed!
Where are you seeing that? I’ve pretty much only seen people saying nice things about her.
Tubman’s a great choice. But if Tubman’s on currency, we’ve got to put Dr. King on currency as well. Perhaps the $50?