Townhall.com::Blog

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Get ready for some funky sized, euro-style cash, coming to America...

Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 8:00 AM

A U.S. district judge ruled this evening that the currency we now use in America is an unfair impediment to those who have visual difficulty or are blind. In the ruling he has now ordered the U.S. Treasury to come up with a way to develop a NEW currency so as to not present this impediment any longer.

The model he pointed to was the Euro, the longer the bill is, the higher the denomination of the bill.

So if you think your wallet is a mess with cramming receipts and cash in it now, just wait till you have several different sizes of paper currency to wrestle with.

I'm not the least bit for causing the blind to suffer, but I have to say the thought of changing absolutely everything we know about American paper money - to me - would be a sad, sad thing.

What do you think? If you comment below I will likely use your thoughts in an upcoming broadcast...

Email It | Print It | Comments (6) | Trackbacks (0)

View in ascending order

View in descending order

California Gentry writes:	Wednesday, November, 29, 2006 12:47 AM
A different take.
I agree with the concept that not everything should be changed to suit the sad minority du jour. Still it might be refreshing to get an overhaul in US currency. America has some of the brightest, mot artistic people in the world. It's a shame that the currency doesn't match the vibrant nation of which it serves.
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

Rick writes:	Wednesday, November, 29, 2006 6:16 AM
Money and the blind
I feel that I can speak about this because my mother was blind and she had no problem telling what bill was what. This is because she was taught to fold different money in different ways. If she needed a bill she would just get the one folded that way. If she was at home when she got money she would ask myself or one of my brothers what each bill was. If she was in a store or some where like that she would just ask the people giving her the change what each bill was. She never had any problems doing it. Was it a bother for her to do it, of course but she also believed that not everything should be changed because of her problem. If she was still here and heard about this, she would probably tell the people who sued to get a life and learn how to do things for yourself instead of wanting the government to do everything for them.
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

MuscleHead writes:	Wednesday, November, 29, 2006 7:23 AM
WOW Rick - thanks for sharing...
Your Mom sounds like a true spitfire, true American, true - take responsibility for myself type of Mom! Good for her...
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

General Patton writes:	Wednesday, November, 29, 2006 12:31 PM
Money & America's Economy
Government lawyers must appeal Judge James Robinson's activist ruling. The financial impact on the US Economy will be catostrophic if this order isn't stayed and eventually overturned. Treasury has "10 days" to determine whether they will change the printing presses to integrate brail markers, recalling currency in circulation, order various sizes of paper, this order is legislative not judicial. Almost all industry's will feel the financial impact, banks will have to modify ATM's, and money counting machines, vending machines. What cost should the majority have to bear to accomodate the minority? Out of 250 million American's there are 7 million blind or otherwise visually impaired, surely there's another soloution Judge Robinson.
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

windskisong writes:	Wednesday, November, 29, 2006 1:16 PM
This "judge" is another w/out judgement
I think it would be best to just ignore this "judge". As one of our more colorful Presidents once (IMHO wrongly, in that case) said "[he] has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Clearly this "judge" has overstepped his bounds. Clearly this "judge" has no jurisdiction. Clearly this "judge" should be impeached for having no clue. But just as clearly, as "General Patton" wrote above, this order is legislative, not judicial, and thus is irrelevant and void. If we are stupid enough to try to follow this "judge", we should at least be smart enough to make HIM pay for it.
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

gwb writes:	Thursday, November, 30, 2006 12:22 PM
Changing $$$$
Indeed, I must support windskisong's response above. I have often wondered why the Executive branch of this country does not adopt, at least on those occasions of blatant legislating from the judicial bench, the Jacksonian stance of "...now let them enforce it." I suppose the sweet siren song of political quid pro quo-ism keeps them from doing what seems to me perfectly sensible in the face of these so-called activist judges.
Email It \| Print It \| Flag as Offensive

Please take a few seconds to sign up, then you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, create your own blog and more! If you are already registered, click here.

Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.

Salutation:

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Address 1:

Address 2:

City:

State:

Zip: