Obama to change $20 bill

[136 or 142]

No, and I wonder how the Indians would've turned out if Worcester went the other way? Clearly they were exploited but, then again, the reservation system and allowing them to be treated as separate nations (instead of a conquered nation and US citizens) has resulted in a lot of corruption, sexual abuse, drug&alcohol addiction, and marginalization on many of their reservations. Then again it allowed them to keep some traditions and land. I don't know. But I don't mind Jackson's fight on the issue because the Supreme Court expanded its own jurisdiction and assumed far too much power than was originally intended in the Constitution or by the writers. Of course today it, essentially, runs the country determining everything regardless of public opinion, public voting, Congressional legislation, state legislation, executive decisions, etc. I wouldn't mind a President, or State or Congress, who said "now let him enforce it," on several issues.

I don't know that Andrew Jackson had any problem with the Reservation system.  He just didn't believe that treaties should be honored.

I do believe I might owe you an apology though, Albrecht.  Reading your post, I believe you are the one that believes the Supreme Court has too much power and that decisions should be left up to elected politicians. So, your views are consistent. 

I think I mixed you up with several other posters here.

[albrecht]

I don't know that Andrew Jackson had any problem with the Reservation system.  He just didn't believe that treaties should be honored.

I do believe I might owe you an apology though, Albrecht.  Reading your post, I believe you are the one that believes the Supreme Court has too much power and that decisions should be left up to elected politicians. So, your views are consistent. 

I think I mixed you up with several other posters here.

No need to apologize- this is Bellgab!  I think there is a place for Federal courts and the Supreme Court but their jurisdiction should be much more limited and have become far too powerful (the fault of the people viewing them as almost godlike and fault of the politicians who instead of dealing with potentially divisive issues would rather rely on the Court, lest they be forced to take a side or position that could hard them in future elections.)

[136 or 142]

Just for point of clarification if anybody cares, I don't really think President Reagan is "Satan" Ronnie, it's just my wait of rebutting the reference to him as Saint Ronnie.

I personally believe Reagan got the two big issues of the day completely right:  allowing Paul Volker to raise interest rates to the point where they choked off inflation, which Jimmy Carter kept dithering on and, when it came to dealing with Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan told the biggest neocon of his day, Richard Perle, to get lost.

Reagan deserves enormous credit for both of those things.  The first because raising interest rates to the point where they would be effective against inflation, knowing that that would also result in significant unemployment all on the basis of Milton Friedman's then unproven theory and having no idea how long it would take for the reduction in inflation to result in a turnaround in market certainty which would lead to businesses hiring again, and thereby threatening his own reelection chances took enormous courage.

Going against his hardline political base in foreign policy, led by Richard Perle also took enormous courage.

That said, I do find it more than a little ironic that so many of today's Republican working class voters seem to be rebelling against much of Ronald Reagan's economic policies at the same time as at least some of them still regard Reagan as Saint Ronnie.

When it comes to rising income inequality I personally believe that the two major issues that contribute to this are outside of the control of government: globalization and technological change.  Although people tie globalization and free trade together, globalization started up post World War II when West Germany was the first industrial nation to build itself up again (with American assistance) in the mid 1950s and begin to challenge some U.S manufacturing. However, other nations only became a problem for the U.S when Japan became the first nation that hadn't previously been a a major industrial exporter to become one. First with horribly made products (much like many Chinese products today) but, increasingly, with higher and higher quality (at the same time that, for instance, U.S automobiles got worse and worse.)   

So, the United States was already losing its dominance as an exporting nation long before they started engaging either in the GATT (now WTO) or with FTAs and even had the U.S never signed on to these, the U.S would have lost its foreign markets to the cheaper manufacturing competitors (all else being equal.)

Similarily, technology has taken away many 'lower skilled' jobs and helped to concentrate wealth.

That said, government actions also do play a large role in determining income outcomes, and pretty much down the line Reagan favored the upper middle class and the wealthiest at the expense of the working class and the poorest.  This included his attack on unions, his attack on social welfare programs and cuts to education and his changing the tax system to  lower taxes for the wealthiest via cuts in income tax while raising taxes on the lower middle class and middle class by increasing payroll taxes.  On that regard though, Reagan also did significantly increase the EITC, so he wasn't as bad in this regard as some claim.

I personally find his cuts to social spending that he justified through the use of the fictitious 'welfare queens riding in limousines' to be the point where he comes closest to being Satan Ronnie.  Although I suppose one can always debate if welfare spending is too high, to cut social spending at the same time that he allowed Paul Volker to raise interest rates knowing that that would result in increased unemployment and a reduction in available jobs is simply unconscionable to me.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

No one look while we get the TPP through.

Look, look here. We are putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill.

[136 or 142]

Ronald Reagan's Administration also has by far the most number who worked for it who went to jail.  Second place isn't even close.  That said, I suspect that following Reagan, successive administrations made it far more difficult for its staffers to be investigated.  The repeal of the Special Prosecutor Act being the most obvious.

So, I suspect Republicans would say that The Clinton Administration might well have had more people sent to jail than Reagan and I would argue that it's almost certain that the George W Bush Administration should have the most people in jail (including both Bush himself and Cheney.)

Befitting his 'rugged individualist' administration, most of Reagan's criminal members seemed to be lone wolves whereas George W Bush's Administration seemed to engage in genuine criminal conspiracies, from engaging in torture, (which involved more than just waterboarding but included all sorts of 'enhanced interrogation,' a term that has no legal standing) to lying to justify the re-invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein to covering up illegal spying on its citizens. 

I don't think even the Andrew Jackson Administration comes close to the likely criminal conspiracies that the Bush White House engaged in.  It's unfortunate, that as I wrote above, the laws seem to be have been changed to the point where it is very difficult for an Administration to be criminally investigated on matters that the Administration argues are policy matters.

[136 or 142]

No one look while we get the TPP through.

Look, look here. We are putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill.

Conspiracy theory.  I can't even find any indication that the legislation on TPP will be introduced in either House of Congress this year.  While Congress can't amend it, they will almost certainly hold hearings on it.  But, I can't find any evidence it will be introduced yet alone voted on.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Conspiracy theory.  I can't even find any indication that the legislation on TPP will be introduced in either House of Congress this year.  While Congress can't amend it, they will almost certainly hold hearings on it.  But, I can't find any evidence it will be introduced yet alone voted on.

That's just what the conspirators want you to think.

[Juan]

The United States does not tax wealth.  Such a tax would be constitutionally prohibited.  Income is taxed.  In other words, the people trying to get rich are taxed while the already wealthy are largely left alone.  Until you recognize the distinction, you don't understand what's going on. 

Jackson did not ignore the Supreme Court - he openly defied it, saying Chief Justice "John Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it."

[136 or 142]

The United States does not tax wealth.  Such a tax would be constitutionally prohibited.  Income is taxed.  In other words, the people trying to get rich are taxed while the already wealthy are largely left alone.  Until you recognize the distinction, you don't understand what's going on. 

Jackson did not ignore the Supreme Court - he openly defied it, saying Chief Justice "John Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it."

From what I read, most historians don't believe that Jackson actually said that.  Beyond that, I don't see any practical distinction between ignoring a ruling and defying one. Minor point though.

I don't agree with your first point in that wealth is taxed when it is inherited.  The distinction from the government perspective, as you point out, is that the inheritance is income to the people receiving it.  I find it all the stranger that so many working class people used to buy into this notion that taxing inheritance (dishonestly renamed a 'death tax') was somehow "unfair".  Even stranger given that the beneficiaries of this argument, those who wanted to pass on millions to their children and the children themselves were usually the ones to sell this argument and they still frequently argue when pressed on say "why can't we do anything to address unequal education" "life isn't fair."

It's been said that Americans opposed inheritance taxes and higher taxes on the wealthy because they saw themselves not as the poor or working classes that they are, but as 'future rich' and that the reason for the success of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in this election is that these people have finally realized that not only is the United States one of the most unequal nations in the world when it comes to distribution of wealth (you can see my discussion on Ronald Reagan on that) but that they no longer have a chance to move up more the economic ladder more than one quintile.    This has actually been a slow realization, as, for instance, you'll still see the Republican wealthy establishment and their enablers falsely argue that 'there is a greater chance for economic advancement in the United States than there is in Europe."  While at one time this may have been true, it hasn't been true since at least the 2000 recession and it probably hasn't been true since at least the 1980s. 

Of course there are some very poor nations in Europe, but this is on an aggregate scale.

[Rally Squirrel]

I wonder if it's dawned on folks that she was a gun rights supporter and most likely a Republican.

She was a Republican and Jackson was a Democrat.

So we have a Democrat being replaced by a Republican and Republicans are upset.
Why? Because it is a woman? A black person? Or just because Obama is doing it?

It certainlt can not be the cost as mentioned in this thread. We have changed the twenty several times over the years. Making the portait bigger is the same thing, it requires new designs, new plates ect, same cost.

[VtaGeezer]

I wouldn't mind a President, or State or Congress, who said "now let him enforce it," on several issues.

Faubus and Wallace tried hiding racism and oppression behind the threadbare old states' rights veil and learned the lesson about enforcement of the Constitution the hard way, and in doing so did far more to extent Federal control in all directions than the establishment of any Federal regulatory body.

[albrecht]

Faubus and Wallace tried hiding racism and oppression behind the threadbare old states' rights veil and learned the lesson about enforcement of the Constitution the hard way, and in doing so did far more to extent Federal control in all directions than the establishment of any Federal regulatory body.

Yeah, as Emmanuel says "never let a crisis." The Feds will use any opportunity to expand or aggrandize their power- whether we are talking about the Executive branch or the Courts. Interestingly, black lives mattered more back then. Not that I'm advocating it but it would appear from the crime data that "black lives mattered" both to them and in general society back in those evil days.  Compare the murder rate in "old DC," (as the Redskin song went) to DC in the 80s and 90s. Milwaukee? Newark? Baltimore? Chicago? A great example of BLM. It is weird. Community Organizers working and democrats, often black, in charge now for decades. But back on subject,  I'm not sure why States rights has a bad connotation. That was the original idea and many of our States are larger than most countries. Countries like Luxembourg can get along just fine. Why couldn't a Texas or California do same? I would think some devolution, or even dissolution to a more original-style confederate or real federal system, would allow more democracy (your vote would actually matter) and less war (we wouldn't have such a huge military to go fight in other lands.) And it would have more democracy and better style of life (one State, say Texas, could enforce their borders and another State, say Mass could import all the illegals they wish. Same with guns, borders, abortion, homosexuals, etc. If NC wanted low taxes but California wanted complete confiscation and redistribution they could do so.

[Juan]

I don't agree with your first point in that wealth is taxed when it is inherited.  The distinction from the government perspective, as you point out, is that the inheritance is income to the people receiving it.

If you have enough, you put it in trusts and foundations where it passes from generation to generation tax free - Kennedys, Fords, Rockefellers, etc.

[JesusJuice]

Stop pandering to the mayates, please. Their population is going down. I demand representation for my people as we will be the majority in a few decades. Cesar Chavez on the money now! We'll start with him.

[albrecht]

If you have enough, you put it in trusts and foundations where it passes from generation to generation tax free - Kennedys, Fords, Rockefellers, etc.

Yep, but even if you aren't mega-rich certain trusts can be a useful vehicle for wealth protection and wealth/land transfers upon death, like "living trusts," in dealing with your healthcare and assets etc if incapacitated or death. Also (in most places) not probated so keeps more privacy and more speed in distribution in your financial affairs post-death. But there is a problem (though some benefits in some cases) of these multi-generational Foundations and that rich people can "opt-out" of taxes going to the general fund but to pick pet causes (and employ family/friends and/or expense travel and entertainment) by creating Foundations and "Charities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pujo_Committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_to_Investigate_Tax-Exempt_Foundations_and_Comparable_Organizations (Cox Committee and Reece Committee)

[SciFiAuthor]

I don't have a problem with Harriet Tubman being on a bill, she's more deserving than most. And I don't mind booting Jackson, I have a low opinion of him. I have a problem with Thomas Jefferson being relegated to the $2 bill. Put him on the $20, Tubman on the $2, and James Madison on the nickel.

[norland2424]

Stop pandering to the mayates, please. Their population is going down. I demand representation for my people as we will be the majority in a few decades. Cesar Chavez on the money now! We'll start with him.

La raza

[albrecht]

La raza

Si Se Peute! Sometimes I wonder if Obama's plagiarism in his campaign ("Yes, We Can" loosely translated) is one of the reasons for the Obama Doctrine, even this character Obama needs to give back to the people/movement from which he stole? But I imagine that he would actually prefer more of a Plan of San Diego if his true goals could be met. Well, if you talk to all the victim's families, maybe it is?

[ItsOver]

Stop pandering to the mayates, please. Their population is going down. I demand representation for my people as we will be the majority in a few decades. Cesar Chavez on the money now! We'll start with him.

"Like... wow, man!"

[136 or 142]

"Like... wow, man!"

So, Dave's not on the $1 bill either.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtDAK7Umk7A

[NowhereInTime]

Yep, but even if you aren't mega-rich certain trusts can be a useful vehicle for wealth protection and wealth/land transfers upon death, like "living trusts," in dealing with your healthcare and assets etc if incapacitated or death. Also (in most places) not probated so keeps more privacy and more speed in distribution in your financial affairs post-death. But there is a problem (though some benefits in some cases) of these multi-generational Foundations and that rich people can "opt-out" of taxes going to the general fund but to pick pet causes (and employ family/friends and/or expense travel and entertainment) by creating Foundations and "Charities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pujo_Committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_to_Investigate_Tax-Exempt_Foundations_and_Comparable_Organizations (Cox Committee and Reece Committee)

And isn't this what conservatives are really about? All this euphemistic bullshit about "freedom" & "that character Obama" and the apoplexy about "illegals" is the smokescreen to hide your near panic about treasure.

I don't doubt (given your multitude of derogatory posts) that you fear blacks, latinos, women, the poor, etc. but you dropped trou here and showed the world your deepest secret (no, not your vestigial genitalia; we get that from your posts, too); you are terrified of "them" taking what you "earned".

It's 7+ years into Oblackman's administration. Still waiting for the brown hordes and negro army to take "yours"...

[albrecht]

And isn't this what conservatives are really about? All this euphemistic bullshit about "freedom" & "that character Obama" and the apoplexy about "illegals" is the smokescreen to hide your near panic about treasure.

I don't doubt (given your multitude of derogatory posts) that you fear blacks, latinos, women, the poor, etc. but you dropped trou here and showed the world your deepest secret (no, not your vestigial genitalia; we get that from your posts, too); you are terrified of "them" taking what you "earned".

It's 7+ years into Oblackman's administration. Still waiting for the brown hordes and negro army to take "yours"...

I love your racism, "Obama's Negro army" is a phrase I'm going to use more often. Thanks. Although, it is Bellgab and an internet forum after all, I'm not sure what your problem with estate planning is, most rational people want to take care of their family or even protect their assets, but we have gotten far afield from the subject: this character Obama replacing a former US President, general, and genuine, for good or ill, historical figure with a minor historical figure simply because she is black and a woman. Though it is in keeping with the President elected via affirmative action and white guilt (and Bush policies) and his animosity towards the country. Hopefully, what is 'good for the goose' after all, we will soon be able to remove all vestiges of this character Obama from our schools and government buildings.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

What's wrong with treasure?

[Auslandia]

And isn't this what conservatives are really about? All this euphemistic bullshit about "freedom" & "that character Obama" and the apoplexy about "illegals" is the smokescreen to hide your near panic about treasure.

I don't doubt (given your multitude of derogatory posts) that you fear blacks, latinos, women, the poor, etc. but you dropped trou here and showed the world your deepest secret (no, not your vestigial genitalia; we get that from your posts, too); you are terrified of "them" taking what you "earned".

It's 7+ years into Oblackman's administration. Still waiting for the brown hordes and negro army to take "yours"...

Wow that came out of nowhere lol. 

[136 or 142]

...but we have gotten far afield from the subject: this character Obama replacing a former US President, general, and genuine, for good or ill, historical figure with a minor historical figure simply because she is black and a woman. Though it is in keeping with the President elected via affirmative action and white guilt (and Bush policies) and his animosity towards the country. Hopefully, what is 'good for the goose' after all, we will soon be able to remove all vestiges of this character Obama from our schools and government buildings.

Well, if you believe that only Presidents count as major historical figures, and I believe that the people on the currency should reflect the diversity of the U.S, especially diversity of ideas, then I'm sure we can agree that Andrew Jackson should be replaced with President Obama or soon, with President Hillary Clinton.

[albrecht]

Well, if you believe that only Presidents count as major historical figures, and I believe that the people on the currency should reflect the diversity of the U.S, especially diversity of ideas, then I'm sure we can agree that Andrew Jackson should be replaced with President Obama or soon, with President Hillary Clinton.

Andrew Jackson, unlike Billary or Obama, had a career, political career, and important military experience before becoming President that was far more influential and historical (some of it is hated, now, but you can't argue that he is more important to history.) Though I agree Obama will be more famous in the future for his attack on the country, the divisiveness and Balkanization scheme he caused and promoted, and the one President who willfully worked against the national interest and people (at least many people.)he is  But not worthy of remembering except to say "never again" and, maybe, the experience will also sway the public to understand that getting on band-wagons due to political-correctness and that affirmative action doesn't work, assuming the country survives (is there even such a thing as a country without a border?)

[BelgianCarbonFibre]

Auslandia, mah bitch, you're a race-baiting SJW...and not even very good at it.  When you can come back with something other than "lol lol lol ur a homophobe!!!" (by the way, every time you utter something with the "-phobe" suffix, a black child dies and goes to hell), or wanting to compare your dick, we'll chat like a couple of bros.

[136 or 142]

Andrew Jackson, unlike Billary or Obama, had a career, political career, and important military experience before becoming President that was far more influential and historical (some of it is hated, now, but you can't argue that he is more important to history.) Though I agree Obama will be more famous in the future for his attack on the country, the divisiveness and Balkanization scheme he caused and promoted, and the one President who willfully worked against the national interest and people (at least many people.)he is  But not worthy of remembering except to say "never again" and, maybe, the experience will also sway the public to understand that getting on band-wagons due to political-correctness and that affirmative action doesn't work, assuming the country survives (is there even such a thing as a country without a border?)

You need to be reminded:
1.There were more illegal immigrants entering the U.S during the W. Bush Presidency than during the Obama Presidency. 

2.The U.S financial meltdown occurred during the W. Bush Administration and it was allowed to happen due to the disinterest of that Administration in regulating the financial institutions.    It was Barack Obama's Administration, in contrast, through first the Stimulus Program and then through working with the Federal Reserve to implement 'quantitative easing' that has allowed the economy to reverse and slowly recover from the meltdown that the Bush Administration is partly responsible for.  It is almost certainly true that there hasn't been an inflationary spiral caused by quantitative easing because the chartered banks have lent little of that money, but the achievement of the money printing was that it gave the banks confidence that they had liquidity and allowed them to begin lending again.

I don't know what you are referring to by "(Obama) worked against the national interest of the country," but to me, I'd say the above sounds like the exact opposite.  He, in fact, worked FOR the national interest of the U.S by helping to save the economy from falling into a depression that would have rivaled and likely  been worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s.  And, this isn't idiots like Gerard Celente and Mish Shedlock who predicted such a great recession would occur following the financial meltdown, but many genuine and mainstream economists expected that to happen.

Of course, for the Republicans here (which I don't believe you are) I know the W. Bush Administration is history and it's supposed to be politically correct (or is it politically incorrect?) to bring it up (although for some reason Republicans had no trouble bringing up Jimmy Carter until the Clinton Administration) and many of these same Republicans who decry the mention of George W. Bush still bring up Ronald Reagan, but in the case of illegal administration I wasn't pointing out this Mal-Administration to blame it for failing to stop it, but merely pointing out the difficulty in trying to police such a wide border.  For both the W. Bush Administration and the Obama Administration the rate of illegal immigration has largely waxed and waned depending on the political and economic situation in Central America.

I agree with you though that as George W. Bush benefited his entire life from both affirmative action and from his family legacy that affirmative action is in, some ways, a bad thing.  However, I sincerely have no idea what affirmative action has to do with either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton, unless you are claiming that any black or woman who achieved success only did so as a result of affirmative action.  That is not only ridiculous and contrary to all evidence, but is both racist and sexist, and I don't believe you actually mean to suggest any such thing.

Finally, in regards to this divisiveness, I simply note that anybody who dislikes any government says stuff like 'they're divisive', or 'they don't listen or consult' and what this usually translates into is 'they aren't doing what I want them to do.'

In regards to Andrew Jackson, he not only ignored a Supreme Court ruling as President, he also disobeyed his President as a general.  I can't think of anybody less deserving to be honored by his government than Andrew Jackson.

If you feel that he is being dishonored, I suggest you start a kickstarter campaign or something to have a bust or something built for him, but I can't think of anybody who makes a more fitting replacement for this vile slave owner than Harriet Tubman, who, despite what you write, is far from a 'minor historical figure.'  In fact, other than for the terrible things that he did, I don't know of any major accomplishment of President Andrew Jackson. 

[AvDaBr]

In fact, other than for the terrible things that he did, I don't know of any major accomplishment of President Andrew Jackson.

You being the economics guys, I'd think him being the only president to actually pay off the national debt would give him some points.  I really hope I'm right on that by the way.

[136 or 142]

You being the economics guys, I'd think him being the only president to actually pay off the national debt would give him some points.  I really hope I'm right on that by the way.

The debt to GDP ratio is important, actually eliminating the debt isn't.  He paid it off by vetoing all infrastructure spending.  Sort of like choosing to live in a tent rather than getting a mortgage to live in a house.