You're viewing a single thread.
It's the US, we put presidents and Founding Fathers on our bills. Harriet Tubman is neither, so of course we're not putting her on the twenty.
Instead we should compromise with historical precedent and put Obama on the twenty - he's both a president and a black historical figure and he'll piss off the people pissed off by the idea of Tubman on the twenty even more. It's a win all around!
Anyone on the $20 would be better than Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson. The dude also caused the deepest, by percentage not dollar amount, and longest depression in US history by paying off the national debt.
Hey, franklin pierce also sucked pretty hard. He didnt actually do anything, which is the problem. His lack of action dropped us right into the civil war iirc
Ehh he did try to prevent it, it's just that he did everything wrong. It's Buchanan that didn't do shit and fucked the country.
It wasn't paying off the debt that caused the depression, that's deliberate misinformation to make you think debt is good, take out a lifestyle loan, don't think about it! What's a forever war or two paid paid for on credit, anyways?
What caused the depression was how he paid off the debt, namely by crashing the real estate market selling off stolen native land for cheap.
Government debt is in no way comparable to personal debt. You are spreading misconceptions and misunderstanding of high finance, if not outright lies.
Paying off all American debt is directly what caused the depression, since we were founded as a nation of traders. Pay off all the debt, and we don't have any currency that is useful to other countries, and all our trade agreements died up.
Now how much debt is too much for the US to carry, is another discussion altogether
Okay buddy, keep on sucking on that hyperinflation and asking daddy for more👍
It's not like the same people telling you debt is good are out to "Starve the Beast" or America doesn't have comparatively more debt than it ended Fucking World War 2 with.
The hyperinflation that has been going on in Japan for the last 30 years while they have had the money hose on? Oh, wait that's right. They're barely staying off deflation. Or maybe there was some hyperinflation here in the US? No? Not since the Great Depression? Huh. Strange that.
You're just showing that you know nothing about either modern economics or monetary theory.
Bruh, you're bare assed trying to compare Jacksonian policy to modern deficit spending, like they weren't on the GOLD FUCKING STANDARD, lmao.
Dudes with one college econ class acting like experts, I swear.
Historically the US has been loath to use our gold stockpiles to buy anything. Even when we were on the gold standard, we didn't trade with it. It is historical fact that our trade agreements collapsed and that caused the longest and deepest depression in US history.
Just because you happen to be fiscally conservative, doesn't mean that is a good way to run a government, and history has shown this time and again. Conservatives wreck the economy, liberals attempt to fix it, and the one time in history that we started to look at progressive policy, in 2020, it caused such a massive economic surplus that the rich freaked out and imposed artificial austerity.
Yes, and that's one of the reasons why it's ridiculous to compare the two situations. Jackson might have been able to spend his way out of the depression the market collapse caused but it wasn't paying off a debt that caused it.
Anarchist btw.
If you think that history is divided into discrete events, which you seem to do, you will never be able to parse what was going on.
It isn't surprising, since you openly claim to be a conservative, but the problem with most anarchists is that they are conservatives at heart and want to divide history into discrete moments in which a single great figure managed to change things.
From here is what I have heard from the mouths of multiple "anarchists" in 49/50 states, IRL. These are the people you are aligned with. : You are actively opposed to democracy, which means that you are actively opposed to the US Constitution. You don't believe in corporations, which I wouldn't have an issue with, but you are also opposed to nationalized co-ops. You want to keep money, but you want to somehow get rid of capitalism? None of this shit works in the real world, which just underscores your complete lack of ability to take a look at multiple variables at once. In case you didn't know, Jackson policies created Keynsean economic theory, and the lack of the gold standard. Do try to keep up.
Comparing the two situations is perfectly logical once you realize that one literally created the other in the case of the US.
I’ll get flamed for this but even trump would be better than Jackson.
The only one who I can think of that’d be as bad is Bush Jr.
Jackson didn't commit treason though. But he needs to be replaced. Harding would be a better choice.
They should put FDR on it to trigger the cons
Oh boy yes please
Give him time, he's already promised to do a genocide.
I’m just counting the first term. Second term will definitely take the cake
He's literally planning his own ethnic cleansing that's going to kill and displace a whole lot more people than Jackson dreamed of.
Yes I’m talking about his first term.
Not at all what your comment implies but, regardless, I think you're sleeping on a whole bunch of slaver and genocidal Presidents.
Even Lincoln got in on that action, the Navajo's Long Walk impacted about as many people as the Trail of Tears and was done during his first presidency.
True. My knowledge of the 1800s is pretty lackluster
Salmon P. Chase was neither a president nor a founding father yet he was on a bill. Though he was qualified in that he served as a white man for, I believe, his whole life.
He put "in god we trust" on the money.
That's why he's on a bill.
Granted it's the 10k note and there's kind of an inverse relationship with value of note to respect of person.
Which is why Washington is on the 1 dollar note and Hamilton is on the 10.
Thats not even a good thing though. And why not put other historical figures on money? Would it be so objectionable to out MLK Jr or General Sherman on money?
They only reason Tubmam isn't on the $10 bill right now is because of the musical changing the fact no one gave a shit about Alexander Hamilton and didn't care he was or wasn't on money to him suddenly being a massively well known founding father with several massive showtunes explaining his life.
The plan was seriously already in place and nearly happened before the musical.
Huh. Til. Tbf, of all the founders, Hamilton probably deserves to be on money more than most of them
I appreciate the note about putting Obama on the bill, but the first sentence is incorrect. 😅
The $10 (Alexander Hamilton) and $100 (Ben Franklin) do not feature presidents.
Edit: welp if you Lemmy at 5 a.m then you might not be able to read well
founding fathers?
Ah I'm dumb. My mind turned off after "presidents"
I did the same and was going to comment the same, but fortunately realized my mistake, then kept reading to see you make the same one haha. What a ride.
Boy, reading comprehension is hard huh buddy? There's like 4 whole sentences there! I'm sure you'll get em next time.
Man my guy just missed a part of a sentence, no need to go full asshole over it.
That's not a rule. It's just what's been done before. There is no rule that we can't have Harriet Tubman on a bill. The universe will not end if we tell the traditionalists they are welcome to get in a time machine if they want to live in the past.
She was a General in the Civil War, she's qualified.
New rule, if you haven't navigated a minefield, you can't be on the money.
No, if you've never completed Minesweeper on expert, can't be on the money.