Mad Miles and the new coins

[kayenelson]

The quarters in question are already in circulation.

["Mad" Miles]

The quarters in question are already in circulation.

Not quarters, George Washington dollars. And it's old news, five years old:

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17501178.../#.T1ns53nWi9s

[alanora]

I had not seen any of these new dollar coins. I purchased a package of chewing gum at the machine in the family court place, and got several as change. Must be how they get them into circulation!

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17501178.../#.T1ns53nWi9s[/URL][/FONT][/SIZE]

[Dixon]

This thread is just a continuation of the recent thread entitled "The "New" money. . . ???". Why did someone re-title it and re-start it in a different section of Wacco when it's the same discussion? That seems really strange. All I can think of is that someone didn't want to address the important, relevant issues I brought up. So of course, I'll repeat what I said so it doesn't get lost in transition:

"Why on earth would you imagine that it's somehow appropriate to endorse some god on our money? The government, including the mints that print the money, is supported by tax dollars from everyone, not just god-believers. Religious freedom means, among other things, that the government doesn't misappropriate its tax revenue to endorse any religion, even theism in general. To do so effectively relegates non-believers to the status of second-class citizen. That violates the Golden Rule! How would you like it if your tax dollars were being used to print money which invoked some god you didn't believe in? Putting "In God We Trust" on money serves no constructive purpose and is a slap in the face of all non-theistic taxpayers. I support your right to believe in some god if you wish, but do not spend my tax dollars to shove him down my throat. Yecchh!"

["Mad" Miles]

Instead of assigning deceptive intent or repressed reticence or avoidance issues to the OP, I thought maybe she was just a noob who doesn't understand the way this site works. And since I no longer have moderation rights here, I didn't see it as my role to ask. So I just replied to the response. Conscious intent varies from time to time and subject to subject. I'm not really worried about keeping the filing in proper order. Presumption without inquiry, is that rational Dixie?

[Moon]

I completely agree and would also like USPS employees to stop putting Christmas decorations
on public counters. Here's the tangent: What i'd really love is to get Andrew Jackson's
bloodthirstily white-supremacist mug off our money. How about Harriet Tubman instead,
or if it must be a dead president, maybe Franklin D. Roosevelt?

"Why on earth would you imagine that it's somehow appropriate to endorse some god on our money? The government, including the mints that print the money, is supported by tax dollars from everyone, not just god-believers. Religious freedom means, among other things, that the government doesn't misappropriate its tax revenue to endorse any religion, even theism in general. To do so effectively relegates non-believers to the status of second-class citizen. That violates the Golden Rule! How would you like it if your tax dollars were being used to print money which invoked some god you didn't believe in? Putting "In God We Trust" on money serves no constructive purpose and is a slap in the face of all non-theistic taxpayers. I support your right to believe in some god if you wish, but do not spend my tax dollars to shove him down my throat. Yecchh!"[/QUOTE]

["Mad" Miles]

Isn't there an FDR dime? As in, Brother can't you spare...?

Seems like it's still apropos. Maybe on the sawbuck as well.

Nah, we still need The Drafter.