Reagan the new face of the $10 bill?
 

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Ronald Reagan's face could one day adorn the $10 bill or half the dimes minted in the country, if fans of the late president get their way.

USA Today reported Tuesday that Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., plans to sponsor legislation to have Reagan replace Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first treasury secretary, on the $10 bill.

Meanwhile, an effort is underway in the House, led by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.), to put Reagan's face on the $20.

If either effort is successful, it would represent the first change of a person on U.S. currency since 1929, when the nation's paper money was standardized in size and general design. Although various anti-counterfeiting measures have altered the look of paper notes since then, the principals depicted have not changed.

The proposal has the support of Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, which is headed by Grover Norquist, an influential conservative activist.


http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

This is another crazy idea. He already has a federal building, aircraft carrier and a airport named after him.

Re: Reagan the new face of the $10 bill?
 

The Florida Turnpike also. It is the Ronald Reagan Turnpike.

Re: Re: Reagan the new face of the $10 bill?
 

As I'd stated in another thread, it's gonna take me a while for me to get used to calling Washington National Airport Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Or the Florida Turnpike the Ronald Reagan Turnpike. (Anyone remember when it was originally called the Sunshine State Parkway?)

I will never call it Ronald Reagan airport. To me it will ALWAYS be National Airport!

Damn I miss DC!

Those who follow basebrawl... remember when Bob Costas flat out refused to call Candlestick Park 3Com Park?

I think it is a great idea for a great american and a great president. It comes pretty dam close instead of the mt rushmore idea instead the currancy...i say go for it!

I think it's a great tribute. Why should it matter that he already has an airport, aircraft carrier, and turnpike named after him? Think about all of the things named after other people - George Washington, Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy, etc.

I completely agree. I think the left will be against it because Ronald Reagan was a great conservative republican, and they are being partisan as usual. Remember that many of the left hated Pres. Reagan during his term.

So when Jimmy Carter dies its ok to put him on currency since he won the noble peace prize?

Or how about Clinton? He was a popular president even during his scandal. Reagan had Iran Contra, Clinton had Monica. I liked Reagan and he was TKE, but putting him on Mt Rusmore or on money is way overboard.

No. Carter was one of the worst Presidents ever.

No. Jimmy Carter was one of the worse presidents ever. Yasser Arafat the terrorist won the nobel peach prize as well. Reagan wouldn't be put on because he was just a popular president. He would be put on because of his achievements.

Clinton's achievements?? Now you're bringing up scandals. And switching from achievements to scandals as if it's just a huge popularity contest.

-Rudey

Comparing Carter to ANY other President is hilarious.

We were kicked around by oil cartels, the Soviets, a few Iranian thugs.. Not to mention (as Dems would say) "The economy, stupid". All of that changed just as soon as Reagan took office.

Haven't they been working on this for a while?

There are a number of surveys that have attempted to rank the presidents -- here are a handful:

http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/ (performance within context of times is probably the most relavent, though some of the others are interesting)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/hail/rankings.html

While Reagan is ranked fairly high, I'm not sure it's high enough to justify putting his face on the ten-dollar bill this soon.

And this is just me, but I don't really like the idea of having recent political figures on currency, regardless of political party. What's wrong with the old guys?

Reagan did advance the fall of communism in the Soviet block yes.
He boosted people confidence about the economy.

Does this qualify him to be on some form of currency?

Probably moreso than Hamilton.

That ranking BTW was a joke. It had LBJ and Woodrow "Great Depression" Wilson ahead of Reagan. And there was JFK. He really did nothing of consequence except get assassinated (unless you want to count the Bay of Pigs).

And when they did this--the area was in general financial troubles and it didn't help that every street sign, map, bus route, metro route, and tourist brochure had to be changed.
Oh, and you haven't missed much.

Civil rights. Or is that something not of consequence?

Ah, there's that. That was probably more LBJ.

But Vietnam really overshadows both of those administrations in my opinion. Especially LBJ. Neither of them, in my opinion (of course, this is all completely subjective) are as "great" as Reagan. Of course, you may disagree.

Everyone, including myself is entitled to their own stupid opinion :D

Reagan - Money
 

Here's an idea - instead of everyone complaining - how about we let the Congress and the Senate vote on it. Since they represent America. If they pass it - then let it be so. If when another President dies they want to do the same, and they propose legislation and it passes - then so be it!

Re: Reagan - Money
 

Listen... this is a message board. We gripe, argue and complain about things. That is what this forum is for.

Just because we're not congresspeople doesn't mean we don't get to have opinions on these things.

Yep everyone seems to think their own parties president is better. There is the occasional bi-partisanship thought

Griping
 

So sorry to offend anyone - in the semantics war. What I should have said, "If you don't have an intelligent argument one way or the other, then don't say anything." I wasn't trying to call to an end to the evil Greek Chat Politics forum! I was responding to another's post.

It's not like I'm planning to abolish Free Speech. Geez - lay off the coffee.

Jimmy Carter already has a Seawolf-class attack submarine named for him (SSN-23), to be commissioned next year. (PCU (Pre-Commissioning Unit) Jimmy Carter (the USS designation does not apply to the boat until it is commissioned). It's extremely rare for a living person to be so honored by the Navy.

(Before anyone gets even more riled up there is a USS John S. McCain. Not named after the ex-Vietnam POW and senior senator from Arizona, but after his father, Adm. John S. McCain, Jr., commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet in Vietnam.)

Not bad for a glow-in-the-dark bubblehead. (Disparaging Navyspeak for a nuclear submariner - Carter was an engineering officer in the early days of the Nuclear Navy. The title of his first autobiography "Why Not The Best?" comes from a remark said to him when he underwent his dreaded interview with Adm. Hyman Rickover, the 'father of the nuclear Navy'.)

LOL! Ah yes, it did -- for some. Those less affluent among us didn't get much trickle down from the "voodoo economics." (Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?) And of course, the federal deficit went out of the roof. That didn't change, of course, until President Scandal came along. (And then W went and blew it all.)

I respected President Reagan. I didn't ever vote for him -- always campaigned and voted against him, in fact. Like pretty much any president he did some good and some not so good. I thought, and in some instances, continue to think that many of his policies were not good for the country. And, no, I'm not a left-winger.

But I respected him, if for no other reason than because he was President. That alone demands my respect, even if the holder of that office is Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. I have little patience with those who place partisanship above simple repect for the person who holds the highest office in the country.

My opinion -- Congress should never consider placing a president on money unless (1) it has been at least 25 years since that person was president and (2) it has been at least 15 years since that person died. History does give some perspective, such as whether Reagan deserves to be on the $10 bill more than the author of the Federalist Papers, without whom we would not have constitutional system we have enjoyed for the last 200+ years.

I am against it but I don't see why Democrats would care. It's not like they are putting Reagan's pic on foodstamps. As long as his pic is put on a large denomination bill the Dems won't have to see him.

$10 is large?

lol

Actually what Mysticat says is a pretty decent notion.

Kind of like Catholic Sainthood. It must be so many years past your death before you qualify.

I like that.

Uhm, yeah. Hamilton's role in the development of this nation is far more significant than Reagan's role. No one is alive who knew an yone who knew anyone who knew Hamilton. There is no emotional support for him. The support for Reagan is being based purely on emotion, and not on a rational analysis of his overall contribution to America. This debate should not occur now. it should occur in several years after everyone has calmed down.

Also, blaming Woodrow Wilson for the Great Depression is absolutely absurd, and indefensible. His outlook on international affairs almost completely composes the Post-WWII international stage. He may actually prove to be the 20th century American president with the greatest influence in global affairs.

Ranking LBJ ahead of Reagan deserves debate though. Reagan clearly beats him in foreign affairs. Domestically, the Great Society was a double edged sword. It advanced civil rights, and allowed many to escape poverty, while institutionalizing poverty for many more.

Dont know this for certain, why Im asking:

Wasnt Lincoln involved in some fairly shady activity? I remember reading that his successor, Andrew Johnson, was essentially impeached for things done by Lincoln that he would have been tried for, had he not been assassinated. If someone knows more, please post.

Just illustrating that no president was perfect, and its more the traits we admire in others that we should emulate instead of the person himself. Its okay to admire Clinton for the good things he did in office without thinking of the Monica thing, and its okay to admire Reagan for the things he did, even if in '47 his weekend softball team was racially disproportionate. :rolleyes:

This article mentions that Nancy is against the idea but they are still going to try to push the bill through.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...gan_us_money_1

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)