Posted on 08/21/2010 7:17:45 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Today, the U.S. Treasury released a $1 coin commemorating former President James Buchanan. And people aren't happy about it.
To understand why, some background is helpful. In 2007, thanks to a bill promoted by then-Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, the Treasury began minting $1 coins with the likenesses of former Presidents, starting with George Washington.
The coins -- which have been appearing ever since, featuring a new President every three months -- are meant to improve use and circulation of America's dollar coins, which are often seen as an awkward misfit among currency, neither fish nor fowl.
Sununu's initiative drew inspiration from the 50 State Quarters Program, which launched in 1999. The runaway success of that effort, according to his legislation, "shows that a design on a U.S. circulating coin that is regularly changed... radically increases demand for the coin, rapidly pulling it through the economy."
The bill also suggested that a program wherein Presidents are featured on a succession of $1 coins, and First Spouses commemorated on gold $10 coins, could help correct a state of affairs where "many people cannot name all of the Presidents, and fewer can name the spouses, nor can many people accurately place each President in the proper time period of American history."
So the bill passed, and the Washington dollar coin appeared not long after. It was followed by Adams, Jefferson, et al., with the First Spouse coins minted alongside.
Now we're up to Buchanan, the fifteenth President, who took office in 1857 and turned things over to Abraham Lincoln in 1861, and whose coin (produced at the Philadelphia and Denver Mints and purchasable through the U.S. Mint website) has occasioned the aforementioned grousing. Here's where some feel the coin program is falling short:
1. The coins aren't circulating.
Many Americans have never gotten into the habit of using $1 coins, and as a result, over a billion commemorative Presidential coins are sitting around in a stockpile at the Federal Reserve. As BBC News reports, if these coins were stacked up and laid on their side, they'd stretch for 1,367 miles, or the distance from Chicago to New Mexico.
2. They don't seem to be educating people, either.
In February 2008, a year after the first presidential coins were minted, The New York Times reported that a survey had found large numbers of American teens to be woefully ignorant of their country's history. It was far from the first time Americans had gotten a dismal grade in history, suggesting that Sununu's commemorative-coin campaign isn't having much of an effect in that arena, either.
3. James Buchanan was kind of a crappy president.
In fairness, this is a grievance with a specific president, not the presidential coins program as a whole. Still, it seems to come up in all the coverage of the new coin: Buchanan wasn't very good at his job.
That's the consensus of historians, anyway, who have traditionally censured Buchanan for his failure to prevent the Civil War. Last year, a C-SPAN survey of historians granted Buchanan the dubious distinction of worst president ever.
Still, all of this isn't reason enough to declare the commemorative-coins program a total failure. If more coin collectors start avidly pursuing the presidential coins, it could have the effect of pushing down the national debt, thanks to the way the value of the coins fluctuates with their availability. And if the dollar coins were to catch on and replace paper $1 bills entirely, it could save the country between $500 and $700 million each year in printing costs.
Plus, if things stay on track, 2012 will see the release of the Chester A. Arthur dollar coin -- marking the first time that long non-commemorated president's face has ever appeared on any nation's currency. And who are we to deprive him of that?
The mendacity of Yankee culture (and I’m not talking about all Northern folks here) was obvious to some as early as 1860
It was obvious to Arkansas' Governor Rector in 1861. His response to Lincoln's demand for troops (emphasis mine):
In answer to your requisition for troops from Arkansas to subjugate the Southern States, I have to say that none will be furnished. The demand is only adding insult to injury. The people of this commonwealth are freemen, not slaves, and will defend, to the last extremity, their honor, lives, and property against Northern mendacity and usurpation.
Congratulations, mstar! Enjoy:)
There's just nothing like a Southern gentleman:)
We're talking hypothetically of course. If Dixie would rise again and shake off federal tyranny, I'd be the first to concede to possible issues. I'm sure you'd have plenty of your own. Nothing is perfect.
Ronald Reagan once said, "Vote with your feet." If Alabama restricted welfare to nursing mothers and extreme cases of hardship, then Vermont kept liberalizing it's qualifications. Where do you think third generation welfare recipients would reside? This would be the same scenario for firearms, abortion, labor laws, taxes, etc.
Now, if every State in Dixie would pass mandatory firearms ownership laws; well heck, you'd get the gun banners on top of the welfare brats. Looks as if this wouldn't be such a bad thing, for us. :)
A contradiction in terms. IMHO, of course.
So you would rise up and shake off the 'federal tyranny' just so you could impose tyranny of your own. And y'all wonder why we call you hypocritical.
Ronald Reagan once said, "Vote with your feet." If Alabama restricted welfare to nursing mothers and extreme cases of hardship, then Vermont kept liberalizing it's qualifications. Where do you think third generation welfare recipients would reside? This would be the same scenario for firearms, abortion, labor laws, taxes, etc.
But that's not what you said. You said all the transplants would be sent packing. "...you'll receive all of the sun seeking transplants back." That doesn't sound like it would be voluntary to me. But restoring your Southern culture will require wholesale purges of all your 'undesirables' wouldn't it?
Now, if every State in Dixie would pass mandatory firearms ownership laws; well heck, you'd get the gun banners on top of the welfare brats.
And of course the first thing you do is impose big government controls. "Mandatory firearms." What's next? Mandatory voting, for the correct party of course? Mandatory church going, so long as it was one of the select Protestant denominations? You all bitch and moan about 'federal tyranny' when in fact your only complaint is the federal government may stand in the way of you imposing tyranny of your own. You like to claim that you stand for freedom, but Southern culture has always been founded on a very narrow definition of what a Southerner is and your idea of freedom ends at that border. You want freedom for you, but not for any non-white, non-Anglo Saxon, non-Christian person you're forced to rub shoulders with. And even the Christian part has its limits so far as you're concerned. You people are a walking, talking bundle of contradiction, and I would truly pity anyone who didn't fit your mold in your new Dixie. You would suppress them, grind them down, maybe deport them as you said. All to achieve your homogeneous Southern Reich.
You're the one that was crying to the mods and refused to accept my invitation for a visit. You're The Great Balless One.
You're just an internet wannabe jacking your jaw without anything useful to say and never actually doing anything.
Good for you.
We just celebrated our 49th this past week. I suspect we will take a long trip somewhere for our 50th. I've toyed with various ideas like going an African safari, touring Egypt, doing a private cruise in Alaska, visiting the Alhambra in Spain, going to the Galapagos, taking my wife to see some of the South Pacific islands I've seen, etc., etc. We haven't made our minds up.
That's a non-answer.
If properly executed, total war will always have the effect of ending the conflict quicker with fewer losses for the victors.
So, given that, one must assume that you're all for waging war on the civilian population of Afghanistan.
Of course, if you don't advocate waging war on the non-combatants in Afghanistan, one can deduce that you have more compassion for the Afghan muslims that you do for American Christians because A) total war would reduce the losses of American troops currently deployed and B) you celebrate the total war that was inflicted upon Christian Americans in the South.
If you're man enough to reply to the above please don't dance around like that POS non-sequitur would do. Just be honest.
Here's another question for ya: if total war is so good, shouldn't both sides do it? Would a future war scenario where the armed troops from both sides purposely refuse to engage each other and attack the civilian populations of their opponents instead meet the approval of Colonel Kangaroo?
If the above meets your approval, one could further assume that you're a M.A.D. proponent.
The funny thing about your ignorant reply is that everybody on FR knows you to be a lying POS, even your coven comrades, dufus.
BTW, how are the SDS meetings going?
Are you kidding us? A liberal Chicagoan (you) and a liberal New Yorker (the fat headed lesbian, rosie) would be like two peas in a pod.
Thus playeth the race card. Very unseemly.
LOL - you’re the one constantly whining about the state of things and how you want to leave the United States to form the Confederacy of Inbreeding or whatever.
Do it. Go for it. Don’t tell us how righteous your cause is and then not DO anything. It makes you look like what you actually are - an internet wannabe who knows nothing he does will ever come to fruition.
The joke is you. It’s not “on” you, you’re the joke.
And the argument goes on forever. I am more worried about how we will divide the nation in the next few years. Obama makes Buchanan look like a genius.
And the argument goes on forever. I am more worried about how we will divide the nation in the next few years. Obama makes Buchanan look like a genius.
You’re the joke, punk.
Everybody knows it. Even your comrades in the coven think that you’re an ignorant poser and troll. I know this for a fact.
But, keep posting your drivel. You just keep proving my assertion that yankees are an ignorant bunch of sissies and punks.
The premise of the title of this thread is where it all ends. The worst U.S. President ever (for far) is Barack Obama. Period.
Negative. You would be the only joke going here.
Well you and your “friends” who think you’re going to form your own country. You people can’t even get off of the internet.
Better yet, all you can do is threaten people to “meet up offline” who disagree with you and rightfully call you out on your crap.
as for the whole coven thing, that’s on them. I’ll still be around either way.
“In a nutshell Mike, let us go in peace.”
That’s great. Don’t fire the first shot this time.
And I seriously doubt you’ll have a majority of the states you live in even wanting to secede.
“Mike you seem obsessed with us, I thought we were unworthy, stupid throw backs, why all the attention from you? Are you a psycho? “
1 - because it’s fun
2 - because left unchecked, this BS you spew will paint all conservatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.