The US Treasury Department has announced that the $10 bill will have a depiction of a woman, in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment, which allowed women to vote.
And now, apparently, everyone can vote on who that woman will be. Or, at least, make a suggestion.
The bill will be come on line in 2020.
You can learn more go HERE.
So, who do you think it should be?
Are they going to --should they?-- limit the candidates to those who have served in leadership positions in the federal government (as is the case with all the other portraits*)?
(*Other than those who were presidents, we have Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury, Franklin as Postmaster General & ambassador to Sweden & France, and Salmon P Chase as Chief Justice & Secretary of the Treasury.)
Grammar peeve: It should read "Which woman" not "What woman'... Women are people, not property!!!
Taylor Swiftly flying out of my wallet? Seriously now...
Okay, I vote for either Aporia, Penia, Amekhania, or Ptokheia, since we are talking about America in the 21st Century.
I'm thinking it should be Elanor Roosevelt, who was defacto president during the final years of her husband's illness, who then became the US ambassador to the UN.
I agree. Mark my ballot for Eleanor Roosevelt.
Brainstorms, that is not the distinction between which to chose among what and which. Has nothing to do with it, really. Which is better if you have a limited range of choices, as in a list. Which of these shirts smells better so I can wear it? What is for when there is an undefined population of choices.
In this case it could go either way. If I said "which" someone might look above to see where I had written the list of choices. I picked "what" (well, my brain picked what, I didn't give it a lot of thought) because, I think, the population of choices is wide and at the moment there is no mid list to consider.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Jean, I like the idea of Elanor Roosevelt.
My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.—Barbara Jordan at impeachment hearings for President Richard Nixon, 1974
Greg, yes, you are correct, grammatically... And yes. it probably can go either way.
I took the question to mean, "From the set of candidates, which woman should we choose", taking that set as being limited -- It's not open to all women (I don't think, obviously), so per #1 would be a fairly tight set by comparison. A matter of perspective, then.
Also, being old-school, the phrase, "From among these possibilities, what should we choose" for me (YMMV) connotes a perspective of dissociation or non-inclusion, as though selecting from inanimate objects. Hurts my ears to even think of people being referred to that way!
See the following for examples of others included on obverse.
I wonder if the new note will include mention of a god.
...or, if you want to make the feminists implode, just go with Marilyn Monroe.
I like the nomination of Martin @9: Brilliant person, amazing speaker, inspiring from the get go.
"Women are people, not property!!!
Woah! Mad Max: Fury Road flashback!
The Statue of Liberty has shackles and chains on her ankles and feet. Maybe include broken chains in the new theme for the note.
Broken chains? You mean... Wonder Woman!
"I wonder if the new note will include mention of a god."
Well, hell [pun intended], it *should*. After all, moolah conveys the blessings of Mammon to his faithful disciples...
Why do think they strive so hard to accumulate it, and bellow so loudly when the government forces them to hand over some of it? They're losing their salvation with every dollar in taxes that they pay. They *know* that...
It just depends how they're asked to give it up Brainstorms. Here in Michigan the tea baggers are up in arms because state universities are announcing tuition increases for next year, primarily because there tea bag buddies have choppd state monies to schools to just under half what it was in 2002. Of course that's the fault of the liberal faculty.
But when it's announced that schools are ponying up good amounts of money to support athletic programs that can't pay for themselves ($20 million from the general fund for my old school, same as each of the last 10 years), that's not a problem at all. Because, well, of teabagger stupidity I assume.
It's all about carefully, craftily, systematically shifting tax debt to the poor & middle class in America, so that they (mainly the middle class) end up paying the obligations of the rich. Obligations which the rich have accrued as "accounts payable" to society.
The wealthy elite gleefully draw on a wide spectrum of the nation's social & physical infrastructure to make their money machines operate, running up a debt that goes to pay for the interconnected systems that provide them with the personnel (including their health, education, & training), protection (including legal, border, & military), resources (utilities, communications networks, clean air, potable water), transportation (roads, highways, airports & air traffic control), regulation (laws that prevent them from preying upon each other, including patent & trademark enforcement), diplomacy (to keep overseas markets available to them) -- the list goes on & on.
All that costs money. "It takes money to make money", and those who are making the most money are spending the most (on giant, generous credit accounts) to buy the means to build enterprises to make themselves ever more wealthy.
Gone are the days when they aspired to be "mere millionaires" and had become billionaires to maintain an untouchable elite status. Now being a billionaire is becoming unsatisfactory and the race is on to become trillionaires... Where does all that wealth come from to make these titles possible? Hint: They're not earning it. You & I are providing it.
And for the last 30+ years they have been using those riches to purchase legislation to gerrymander the tax laws and enable themselves to craftily pass those debts downward and make the middle class pay for them -- the very group that extended them this financial credit in the first place!
They understand one thing very, very well -- a key financial concept that has yet to dawn on most of the voters in the U.S.: The easiest, safest, fastest way to wealth is not to increase your earning power (which means making an effort to earn it, which entails business risk, ::gasp::), but to run up huge debts (paying yourself handsomely from the proceeds), then foist those same debts upon the weak & less aware to pay in your stead.
Today the ever-shrinking American middle class is being gradually destroyed by this decades-old financial slight-of-hand. We are working more than ever before, yet have less over time to show for it -- this is why.
Their tactics result in shrinking the government in order to eliminate their primary debt-collector, forcing Joe & Mary Public to pay out of pocket directly for the lost services their parents enjoyed during America's heyday -- a time of incredible prosperity when top-tier progressive tax rates exceeded 70% and at times went as high as 91%!
As those tax rates were chopped down, so was our standard of living and quality of life. Now we have members of anarchist political parties who want to destroy what's left of government, completely eliminating any ability for the tax man to come collect those accounts payable -- leaving those of us who are owed to slowly go broke, holding worthless IOUs that will never get paid.
That's what they did when they were asked to give it up, and finally figured out a winning formula to corrupt a working system and avoid being asked any longer...
This has all been done before in America. And few are left to remember "The Roaring Twenties"... Soon there will be no one to recall its aftermath, either: The Great Depression.
We already have Silence Dogood on the $100. Amelia makes sense because all my tens seem to fly away and disappear. Eleanor has the stature. Taylor and Marilyn would never settle for ten bucks. Maybe Bo Derek? She was a 10. Harriet Tubman or Rosa Parks would make a lot of heads explode.
There is no way to avoid the exploding heads.
Ah, I see someone just before me mentioned her. So I'll change my comment into:
Regardless of which woman is chosen for the ten dollar bill, Sarah "half-term" Palin should be on the five dollar bill.
Dr. Sally Ride. First American woman in space. Brilliant scientist. Especially active with children - the future of the country.
"I’m thinking it should be Elanor Roosevelt, who was defacto president during the final years of her husband’s illness, who then became the US ambassador to the UN."
In particular "defacto president during the final years of her husband’s illness" - I think you're thinking of Woodrow Wilson's wife, during the end of WW I.
The final years of Franklin's life would include all of WW II, and he most certainly functioned at a high level during that stretch until he died.
However, he definitely delegated much to Eleanor, she pushed him hard especially in regard to civil rights, and she was influential with progressive industrialists like Henry Kaiser. Their Presidency was in many ways a partnership.
And as you mention became UN ambassador after her husband's death.
She would be my choice for the woman on the $10 bill ...
Given that Alexander Hamilton was quite far to the right by the standards of American Revolutionaries, the two of them could argue politics endlessly if they end up on opposite sides of the same bill :)
I would love to see an image of Veronica Lake on the $10 bill.
But Elanor Roosevelt is a good suggestion too, but for much different reasons,.
Mr. Thomas, as a feminist, I'm at a total loss as to why it should make my head explode if Marilyn Monroe, or more correctly, or more properly Norma Jean Mortenson, were portrayed on our nation's currency. She is more of a role model that Jackson, who's actions regarding the Cherokee are reprehensible.
I would still vote more for Elinor Roosevelt.
Those are all good suggestions. Except for Amelia Earhart, all of them have some "head-splodey" clout — which is not a bad thing. Having recently watched A Sense of Wonder, a PBS interview with Rachel Carson, I'd be inclined at this moment to vote for her.
Some other names come to mind, but being living persons, they are not eligible. I wouldn't object to Marilyn Monroe, who was a good actress and smarter than her popular image represents. She is, however, probably too controversial. Another possibility is Hedy Lamarr, good actress as well as technical innovator. (She became an American citizen in 1953.) But I expect she too would be considered too controversial. Among entertainers, someone like Katherine Hepburn has a better chance.
Who (woman) should be on the $10 US bill?
Sally Ride, but I'm also liking Rachel Carson and Harriet Tubman, so far.
(I have to admit that seeing Miss Piggy on my sawbucks would make me smile every time I open my wallet instead of weep... I'm assuming we'll have paper money for the remainder of my lifetime.)
That's why Amelia Earhart would be a good choice.
And it's always good to have some pictures of aeroplanes on your notes.
Yes, and if a Republican wins in 2016, we should have images of rocketships on our notes - for the speed at which they will fly out of our wallets. Perhaps images of vacuum cleaners would be appropriate as well in that case.
A lot of great suggestions here - Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, Sally Ride and so many more.
There's also a list here :
of few more that may be worth adding - maybe even on a few other denominatiosn of dollars too!
1) Bessie Coleman - first black female pilot (already on stamps)
2) Madam C.J. Walker overcame all adversity to become America’s first black self-made millionaire. (So apt to have her on $)
3) Shirley Chisholm was the first black woman to be elected to Congress, winning in New York in 1968 and retiring from office in 1983.
Could be nice to have Coretta King and MLK together on one note and maybe Sojourner Trutha s well ..
Posted on this topic somewhere else(fb?) before a week or three ago somewhere but can't seem to find that now.
PS. Probably - hell pretty definitely - not eligible but imagine how Republican heads would explode if we had Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton's faces on your cash!
At least be better than the Queen's face which is what we get here in Oz ..
Astrostevo @39 -- I think Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton (not to mention Taylor Swift) all fail to qualify, since they share the drawback (with the unfortunate plague victim in the Holy Grail) of being "Not dead yet!"
the answer is margaret Sanger ... the woman responsible for the deaths of millions of unborn babies. society is worshipping satan these days. might as well put a person who chooses human sacrifice on money to make it all work out.
I vote Margaret Sanger... racist Progressive Icon who promoted Eugenics and abortion...
If not Sanger... why not Lady Gaga?? Gaga has the same low impact and low qualifications as all the other women on this list...
This guy says we should replace Old Hickory instead of Hamilton:
If not Sanger… why not Lady Gaga?? Gaga has the same low impact and low qualifications as all the other women on this list…
phillipe and danny seem to be cut from the same low iq dishonest cloth