Hamilton did have a lot to do with the founding of the country. He hasn't done much lately though. Reagan deserves some sort of memorialization for his winning of the Cold War and averting what could have been the end of humanity.

But I agree, this is the reason that the Catholic Church waits so long to canonize saints. #1: if there's any dirty laundry, in time, it will be discovered. #2: emotional appeals are far less effective years after the fact.

I don't think this stuff will get through. And if it does? It's only a picture on a bank note. Not really a big deal in my opinion.

Nor has Washington, Franklin, Jefferson or Lincoln. Are we going to remove them everytime a popular president dies?

Excuss me!

but everytime a Recent President does something good, well, lets change names and pictures on money or the S D Monument for Memorie, for Men who did good for this country when it was beging and still growing.

Give me a break!

Did Harry Truman take over from FDR during a war or two and have no idea until he got the job what was not told him about the Atomic Bomb?

Reagan was a Very Good Man and had problems no damn different than Harry, Clinton, Kennedy, LBJ, or whom ever.

Did you ever stop and think how much Money We spend as tax payers to have Bills or coins when they are changed?

Susan B screw me Dollars, Sac-a-crap dollars neither went far!

$2.00 Dollar Bills!

Paleeze give me a break!:(

Maybe they could reissue the two dollar bill. You could buy a gallon of gas with it this week.

Just kidding. I'm not really in favor of changing traditions. I'm sure there are other ways of honoring him.

I tend to think FDR is slightly overrated in history, but...

I'm not sure how I feel about changing currency; Reagan's presidency was certainly significant, but time will tell whether currency should be changed.

I think the C-Span ratings were actually pretty solid; Coolidge and Nixon were better presidents than given credit for in the poll (although Watergate does diminish Nixon significantly), and I think Clinton was ranked too highly, but the rankings overall were pretty solid.

It's going to take time of course to really look back on recent Presidents, until more of their documents are released, but Reagan will always have a place in history (if for nothing else than the Cold War).

I am sooo against this. My feelings on this subject have less to do with my personal feelings about Reagan (btw, not a fan), an more to do with my respect for the achievements of Alexander Hamilton. Although Hamilton was never President, I think he contributed more to this country than the last five presidents. So, I find it highly disrespectful to take this honor away from him now.

Sure, why not?

It really doesn't hurt to change. It shouldn't be change for the sake of change, but really, the contributions of Reagan are much more tangible today than those of some of the other fellows on the currency. The country (even the way the constitution is interpreted) don't even vaguely resemble what they were back then. Yes, we should pay homage to our older presidents, but the new ones deserve credit as well.

It honestly wouldn't bother me either way. I could give a crap what's on my nation's money. You could put Gerald Ford on all the paper money for all I care.

*GP dusts off her rarely donned angry feminist hat*

WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN, TOM? Susan B Screw ME? I'm pretty sure her surname was Anthony and she did more to advance my rights than you ever will.

*takes off hat*

I like the "canonization" system being discussed here. I also like Alexander Hamilton. He makes me laugh. :p

I don't really like the idea of putting Reagan on the $10 bill right not. I would rather let history judge the effect and accomplishments of a president or any other appointed/ elected offical with 20/20 hindsight than let us do something rash and let history look at us and say "Idiots! Were you thinking at all?" I like the "cannonization" process too.

GP - you're my girl and all, but here's the deal:

Older people hated the Sue B Ant dollars b/c they were the same size as quarters, and machines read them the same. People lost money using them as 'quarters' . . . I've heard my grandfather use this same term to refer to the Anthony dollars.

They're much smaller than 'walking liberty' and don't have the obvious differences of the current dollar coins . . . this resulted in confusion, and a lot of mistakes.

So people got screwed; hence the name.

Hopefully that's what he meant; Tom, if you were being an insensitive ass, i'm sorry i defended you. Hopefully you're referring to what I am.



"The people is stupid."
-Alexander Hamilton


(and that's technically a correct statement, grammatically)

If the California gubernatorial elections taught us nothing else...it's that Mr. Hamilton was on to something.

I hate LBJ!! I still believe he was behind the whole Kennedy assanination. I have totally no proof...he just looks evil! :p

Then I agree with KSigkid. Who said, FDR was overrated. Umm, yea....check out some serious biographies of his assistants. Interesting.

And then there's Clinton - I say we just name a cigar after him.

I would support the Reagan 10.00 bill And way to go KY REP-Mitch!!!!

Okay, thats my stupid opinion.

Oh, I dunno.

Perhaps it’s just because I’m a lawyer, but I think that every time our federal, constitutional system, with its balances of state-federal powers and executive-legislative-judicial powers, works, we have Alexander Hamilton to thank. The framework he gave us is a very big reason that we are the strong, stable country we are today.
No, the contributions of Reagan are more recent, which gives them the illusion of being more tangible or more important. Whether they really are, time will tell. But assuming that the more recent is the more important is always a dangerous thing.

Yes, Reagan had a major role in ending the Cold War. (So did a lot of other people, and I think it probably is a bit over the top to give Reagan credit for averting the end of humanity. But anyway.) But was that role more “tangible” than George Washington’s role in gaining this country’s independence, which we now take for granted? After all, without that we wouldn’t be having this discussion on who should be on our money. Queen Elizabeth II would be on all of it.

Or were Reagan’s contributions more “tangible” than the abolition of slavery? I think quite a few people would say “no.”
I could argue otherwise. (After all, I’m a lawyer -- I can argue anything.) When my then 3- or 4-year old son would get pennies, quarters, dollar bills or five dollar bills (the later making him rich as all get out), I was surprised that he would ask “whose picture is this on here?” When we’d say “that’s George Washington” or “that’s Abraham Lincoln,” he would then ask, “why is his picture on here?” And we would give a 4-year-old level history lesson.

When, at age 6, he made his first trip to DC, he could stand on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and say “Hey, this is the picture from the five dollars!” When he saw the statue of Lincoln, he could say “that’s Abraham Lincoln, the guy from the penny.” When he saw the Washington Monument, he knew who Washington was because he had asked about the pictures on the $1 bill and the quarter. The other day, out of the blue, he asked “Dad, is there a $100 bill? Whose picture is on it?” So, we had a talk about Ben Franklin.

Never underestimate the power of simple things like bank notes to carry messages about our history or provide teaching opportunities for our kids -- and maybe even for some grown-ups, like the reporter whose article started this thread, and who identified Hamilton merely as "the first Secretary of the Treasury."

What is that? That they picked a governor that changed things around for California? That a moron like Davis was elected to begin with and Arnold has come in and cleaned house like noneother? Maybe.

As for the currency, there is no reason Hamilton should be removed. Hamilton was one of the greatest and you don't just go around doing that. Personally I think the frigging penny should be removed from circulation and another paper amount added in - and then Mr. Reagan can be on there if people so wish.

-Rudey

No, because people did not vote for him because he was qualified. They voted for him because of who he is...an action movie hero. Also, we have yet to see how wonderful his actions will be.

Also, I agree with MysticCat. Alexander Hamilton was one of the most important Founding Fathers. I was enraged this morning when someone on the Today Show (or Good Morning America, interchangeable to me) joked that he wasn't a president so he should be removed. Also, the fact that he formulated the plan to get the country out of debt after the war and basically established our economy (in addition to the contributions mentioned by MysticCat) is just something to sneeze at.