Is the US likely to follow suit?
They will treat it like an invasion of their liberty, like some sort of socialist/libertarian push with some sort of a secret agenda.
And some more pragmatic reason: the exorbitant cost to replace the high number of vending machines nationwide so that they would take the new polymer notes.
And money interests: On the other hand... when the US introduced the new dollar coins, two senators took up the fight to ensure that dollar bills would continue to be printed, and in fact, that promotion of the new coins wouldn't be allowed to disparage paper currency. By astonishing coincidence, one of these senators was Trent Lott, who's constituents sold much of the cotton used to make make paper currency, and the other was Ted Kennedy, whose constituency included the Crane Paper Company, which had a contract to provide the actual sheets on which currency was printed.
> They will treat it like an invasion of their liberty, like some sort of socialist/libertarian push with some sort of a secret agenda.
What the heck are you talking about? That makes absolutely no sense and I would need to see some sources of that. I'm a conservative and anything that cheapens the cost of currency is good. Heck, I know a lot of conservatives that wouldn't mind getting rid of the $1 and $5 bills for coins since it would save money over the long term.
This isn't new in the US. If you're actually surprised, you haven't been paying attention.
Then again, you are probably (assumption warning) a reasonable conservative, and would never identify with the Tea Party. It may not have been fair of GP to say "conservative" so inclusively, but the TP has become the face of the Republican Party, especially to those of us on the outside.
[0] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the...
You'd be wrong there, but I get the fact you have no clue what anyone in the Tea Party actually believes. FreedomWorks continues to be spot on about a lot of issues.
I don't read Rolling Stone as they seem to make up quite a lot.
and once again, where is this Republicans hate plastic money crap?
It's a lightning rod and an opportunity for politicians to manufacture outrage, like the other poster said.
Once again, I don't believe any of this foolishness about Republicans opposing the changing of bills to a different material other that any Senator / Rep of any party that has a special interest in the sourcing.
You're wrong. But I can only tell you that, I certainly can't make you believe it.
The Tea Party is full of climate change deniers [0], Birther adherents [1], people that believe Obama is a Muslim/traitor/both [2], people that advocate for a return to the gold standard [3], anti-vaxers [4], people who don't believe in evolution [5], obstructionists [6], and so much more. These ideas are expressed by Tea Party candidates, leaders, and elected officials, not just fringe-groups.
So yeah, I don't put it past the Tea Party to be against anything Democrats might express support for. It's really not that outlandish.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/11/01/on...
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-birther-myth-persists-among...
[2] http://sanantonioteaparty.us/can-america-survive-obamas-pro-...
[3] http://www.teapartypatriots.org/monetary-policy/
[4] http://m.sgo.sagepub.com/content/5/3/2158244015602752
[5] http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/22/poll-tea-party-opin...
[6] http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-gop-decides-no-hearin...
Only one of your sources is an actual Tea Party organization and the rest have printed some poorly researched crud about any group right of center. I guess the Jay Leno principle of finding the fringe of a crowd and asking questions to make fun on TV works fine for newspapers. The one is basically the old libertarian thought on currency. I also love how the title of your reference [2] actually contradicts what you say about it. As to [4], most anti-vaxers are well off liberals while the right has some religious folks, the rest of the conservatives do what our doctors tell us. I wonder if Speaker Tip O'Neill would say about obstructions given he shut down the government 14 times.
But I guess I should reply in-kind, that's what we do after all.
The President we are replacing on the $20 was a Democrat with a horrendous record on money and Native Americans. A Democratic President re-segregated the Federal Government{1} and allowed the biggest KKK rally in DC. President Truman was a paid member of the KKK ($10 membership fee), and let's not forget Senator Byrd more recently. I could go on, but you get the point and I would hate to stray from why the choice of Harriet Tubman is so important by bringing up such things as Democrats having supported for President a person who allowed a woman to suffocate in a submerged car{2}.
As to the original point of this foolishness, the conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Party folks I follow on social media are extremely pleased to have a genocidal Democrat President replaced by a deeply-religious, gun-toting, Republican, African-American woman{3} whose story really needs to be told. Many would love the bill to feature the drawing from the cover of Harriet Tubman, conductor on the Underground Railroad 1st Harper Trophy ed. by Ann Petry{4}.
1} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson
2} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident#Testim...
3} http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/harriet-tubman... (although being Mother Jones, he is a bit bitter about the actual facts)
4} https://openlibrary.org/books/OL3702580M/Harriet_Tubman_cond...
That said, I find it not at all surprising that you, identifying as a right-leaning person, dismiss all scientific surveys and studies as leftist propaganda. That's a common calling card of the Tea Party. I didn't link to all Tea Party sites because I didn't want you to claim I was only linking to fringe websites. Seems it wouldn't matter what I linked to. Facts don't have much sway over belief.
Edit: actually two of my sources were Tea Party sites, not one, and anti-vaccine movement is rather bipartisan - that doesn't mean loud voices in the Tea Party aren't strongly anti-vaccine. Read the articles linked. http://www.vice.com/read/weird-politics-of-anti-vaxxers-203
I don't, I dismiss certain biased reporters. I have a great love of science, and have had to deal with scientific (and not so scientific social) studies for years. I believe that it is very important to understand the manner and methods of any study.
> That's a common calling card of the Tea Party.
That's common FUD from people trying to demean others.
> I didn't link to all Tea Party sites because I didn't want you to claim I was only linking to fringe websites.
Pretty sad logic when you don't actually ask people what their specific beliefs are but instead pick websites with a party to promote and people to dismiss.
> Seems it wouldn't matter what I linked to. Facts don't have much sway over belief.
Facts are very important, hearsay not so much. I'm getting a little sick of these political hit articles being taken as facts.
> anti-vaccine movement is rather bipartisan
Anti-vaccine, as I pointed out unlike your original accusation, has some narrow demographics (rich educated liberal, various narrow religions) and using it any political argument is really pushing it. It also wraps a lot of beliefs about people vs state in a dense heart-breaking package. It probably flared a bit this year since the flu shots didn't seem to select the correct viruses for this year in certain areas.
I'm really done with this, you want to demonize me by telling me what I believe, and I was just interested in polymer money and happy Harriet Tubman is going to be replacing a foul man on the $20. I do notice you didn't bother to answer any of the things I pointed out, but I guess never go off the attack is a fine strategy.
In any case, I'm also done. This is a circular conversation, obviously going nowhere.
(Switch in Democrat instead of Republican, and "progressive"/faux-scientific, and I'm sure you can think of some recent examples on "the other side." It's a disease of politics, not of a particular viewpoint.)
Want hard examples? Look at Ben Carson's statement regarding putting Harriet Tubman on the 20, and the fact that it's turned into a big deal at all.
The big deal for Tubman was putting her on the 10. Putting her on the 20 has a lot of conservative / Republican support. A current Republican meme is an action pose for a book cover should be the picture.
To the original point, I have seen no evidence in the Republican party of fear of plastic (well, polymer money). Whatever cuts the cost.
U.S. bills are excellent, and I would encourage them to continue printing them as-is.
If they make fibrous bills, they will likely circulate much longer.
They survive far more wear and tear than dollar notes or old Euro bills.
(Which is why small notes were switched first)
That's good planning although I still wish the $1 coin would catch on. Its good to hear at least one attempt at material advance works. Is it cheaper over the long run than the dollar notes?
But yes, Polymer notes survive about 4 times longer (2 years instead of half a year for the 5€ bill) than paper notes.
Now you might think 6 months would be very short for bills, but 5€ bills are the most circulated bills in the western world.
________________________
[1] The design of the 5€ coins that you can currently get in Germany (they’re legal tender): http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aBrmYAZ_700b_v1.jpg
The notes are basically impossible to tear by hand. At most you can "stretch" them around the point you are trying to make a rip at. We are talking about around 1 minute of effort (and your fingers will hurt a little after).
This video shows some serious abuse of an $100 canadian polymer bill (especially around 1:30) : https://youtu.be/y5WWKldu9IA?t=90