Regan on the $10?
 

I've heard that there has been some talk of printing new $10 bills bearing
Regan's image instead of Hamilton's. So, what say you? A good idea, yes, no?

I personally like the idea. Regan may have been the best President we've
ever had, IMHO. He certainly was better than anyone we've had since.

But that's just me, and I realise that it probably won't happen. But I can still
hope :D

So, what do the rest of you think?

I dont know about changing the $10. (i like Hamilton) but maybe on a new coin or dollar denomination. does anyone else remember some sci fi show/movie where it was set in the future and they had a dollar coin with reagan on it called "the Ronnie"?

Well, least if they did it he'd get more face time then poor Thomas Jefferson. He got shafted and put on the rarely used two dollar bill.

Umm, not to be the resident asshole, but what did Reagan do that was so special?

Yeah, he died, everyone does that, whoohoo.

He helped beat Russia in the Cold War.

Indirectly, he ran the US into a huge debt by spending billions of dollars on our military, and forced Russia to do the same. The US could take the slam, Russia couldn't.

Ok, that's all of my political commentary today.

back in the 70s the US was in dire economic situation, there was rampant stagflation, which is when there is rising inflation and a stagnant economy. Nixon proved unable to fix it with his wage fixes and price ceilings, Ford couldnt fix it with his Americans to voluntarilly take lower wages, and Carter certainly couldnt fix it by saying it was the American people's fault. But Reagan comes into power and fixes it. he put paul volker in as the fed chairman and kept him there. volker finally reigned in the ever expanding money supply. this at first led to a very bad recession in the early 80s, but Reagan knew he was doing the right thing for the long term economy. by late 82 i think America had come out of the stagflation crisis and Reagans policies led America to unprecedented length of economic prosperity.

The deficit was wiped out once a republican controlled congress deadlocked with a democratic president thus stopping any further spending and allowing the still growing economy to outpace the budget.

also i think you put too little emphasis on "beat russia in the Cold War"
Reagan was the first the call communist russia what it was, "the evil empire" before reagan people were talking about the USSR like it would always be around and we would be in a constant struggle against them. but Reagan gave people hope by showing them that Communism wont be around forever, that we will win the cold war. It was his constant uplifting optimism that gave hope to those who knew no hope before

he says it better than I

The thing is, everyone who's on the current money is there because of a reason, and shoving them aside is problematic. (I'm especially against the idea of him sharing dime-time w/ FDR, who deserves better than time-share.) Frankly, I don't think Regan should take anyone's place, but maybe a new denomination should be made for him.

Maybe a $25 dollar bill?

And maybe its just me, but I feel its a bit shameless how Regan's death is being dragged out. I mean, how does this compare to other Presidents who've had this kind of special treatment? Also, Nixon didn't get this hoopla over his death, did he?

Then there's the irksome bit about Carter & Clinton being snubbed. I mean, from what I've heard, this sort of precession has always prior been attended by all living Presidents. And at very least, I can't see why Carter was uninvited, as he was Regan's predecessor.

Sky Warrior Bob

He also screwed over every non elected government employee.

Yes. The Cold War was surely a minor event in the scope of national and world history. Nothing to see there.


I haven't heard of this, so I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. I think you mean someone's proposed to have, say, half of all dimes minted with FDR and half with Reagan? An interesting idea, at least, and possibly a way to honor some more people, but I'd also agree we should be keeping FDR at about the top of the list.


Eh. He's been lying in state or being transported by honor guard, for the most part, so people can pay their respects. It's not the funeral administrators who are "drawing it out," it's more the media doing so. That said, Nixon's funeral procession was shorter, I think, although the webpage for the Nixon library says his funeral was attended by approximately 4,000 people and nationally televised -- I'm not sure how that fits in with what you mean by "hoopla." If I remember right, Lincoln's funeral processions (the train trip, among others) lasted nearly a month. I'm not sure I see much wrong with letting people who want to pay their respects do so.

It's not that it was minor, it's just that saying Reagan won the Cold War is like saying the guy who scored the last touchdown won the game when it was already 42-21 (granted, the scoreboard was pretty much covered until the game was over).

I must grant as Reagan took the prosecution of the cold war in a different direction, but it's a hard call as to whether that was a good or a bad thing. Depending on your view, he either decisively broke the back of a system that could have survived, rebuilt itself and become a real threat, or dangerously destabilized a transition that was already bound to happen, leading to the chaos and deeply flawed efforts at democratization in the former USSR. I'm not even going to try to make that call, as I don't have nearly enough knowledge of the relevant events to do so. But in any case, the fall of the USSR was not just Reagan's victory, but the culmination of decades of effort by a succession of presidents going all the way back to Truman.

...

Anyway... oh yeah, he raised taxes on the working class.

Last touchdown? Let's say the Cold War lasted from 1945 until the collapse in 1991; that's 46 years. Presidents during that time were Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and a smidge of Bush. Reagan, having served two terms, would then have been President for just a little shy of the last fifth of the Cold War. While it is assuredly true that Reagan didn't win the whole thing singlehandedly, not by any means, he played a pretty major role. Drakolan seemed to be dismissing the whole event, to me, thus the response. It's hard to be well-clarified when one is busy being a sarcastic punk. <_<

As for the views you listed, I think there's ample evidence to support either argument. Neither stance feels conclusive. I trend more toward the first, but supposing that the two were placed as opposite ends of a scale, I think I'd fall somewhere towards the middle.