I will boycott the use of the dime if they replace FDR's face with the hideous face of Reagan... for someone to drive our economy into the ground like Reagan, well, it's just ironic and wrong for him to be featured on a piece of currency.

FDR has been on the dime since 1946, and I like it that way!

Just say NO! to Reagan

(Edited by weenysmack at 6:38 pm on Dec. 5, 2003)

Where are you finding this information?

the news...

you may read about it here

Is this a Republican or some kind of church-run site?

i read somewhere else that some people are trying to get reagan's face on the $10 bill. which i don't mind, really. i was a big reagan fan back in the day, and i'd rather there be a president on there instead of a treasurer.

-phil

wish i had a ten-dollar bill to complain about.

They should put it on the hundred since the only people that had money during his term were shoving blow up their booger-holes with them.

Funny, I've been under the impression that it was actually communist Russia's economy that he ran into the ground...

I'm not an expert on the subject by any means.. and I know very little about Reagan's effect on communist Russia... though, I think the demise of the Russian economy, and ultimately communism in the Soviet Union, was mostly due to the Gorbachev's poor planning ...but what I do know is that when Reagan was in office the deficit sky-rocketed to more than any time in history..

Reagan's economic theory is called supply-side spending. The idea is that if the rich people (presumably the employers) are given more money through tax cuts, they will spend it on hiring the less fortunate. This seems to me to be on the current Republican agenda, as well. It's wonderful in theory... but in reality it hasn't proven very effective... it was a big flop then, and from what I can tell doesn't seem to be very successful now either.

I guess most rich people tend to spend their extra money on ridiculous cars, vacations, and such instead of investing it in their businesses. Who would've thought?

(Edited by weenysmack at 3:20 am on Dec. 6, 2003)

I don't know.. it was just a short article I found about it. I didn't even read it to be honest.

From that article:

"FDR believed the federal government should spend your dimes. Ronald Reagan believed the people should spend their own dimes. I think it's clear that the dimes in your pocket should bear Ronald Reagan's image," co-sponsor Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., said, according to the Los Angeles Daily News.


I had no idea the presidents who were chosen to be on currency were picked because their economic theories were successful when they were in office. I guess no Bush will be on a coin/bill then.

As far as I've ever known, Reagan's (and, in general, the Republican Party's) economic theory is based on the idea that there has to be money in the system to make the system go... so less taxes, for everyone, means more money to be spent inside the economy. I know very, very little about macroeconomic theory, so I have no idea how it all pans out, though it has always made sense to me, despite the fact that these "tax cuts" benefit the rich more because they pay more taxes.

There is also some disputation to be made as to the cause of various recessions. Many would attribute the economic success of Clinton's first term to the delayed effects of that extra money being in the system from the Reagan years. Yes, these people are Republicans, but again, as someone with no knowledge of macroeconomic theory, I can believe that it takes time for changes to occur on a national economic scale. The opposite argument is just as appealing to me, I just thought I'd play devil's advocate.

And as a Libertarian, I've never been down with Roosevelt on currency, so I'm up for a change, though I don't particularly like the Reagan idea, and I don't think anyone still living should be on our money. My suggestion? We need fucking cultural figures on our currency. Other countries do it. The most important American in our history, as far as the world is concerned, is Martin Luther King Jr. He needs to be on currency, not another old white politician.

Other people that should be on currency? I'd vote for Twain, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Eugene Oneil, Clifford Odetts, Ansel Adams, Orson Welles, John Ford, Johnny Cash, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Louis Armstrong, or one of any number of painters from the United States that might be called important (I know no art history). Also Edison, Bell, and Samuel Morse. These are people from our country that have been important in a more lasting way and more internationally than most Presidents have.

Will

(Edited by Wiyum at 2:38 pm on Dec. 6, 2003)

If I want Reagan on my currency, I will take any dollar bill and just keep folding creases along the portrait on the center and any of them can be transformed into Reagan! The most difficult is Grant, I think. It's hard to transform a beard into solid wrinkles.

I completely agree with this. But the US Government would just say "That's why we have stamps...."

Australian currency is different sizes for each denomination of bill (like a $20 is bigger than a $5), so blind people know what they're spending. I think that's a great fucking idea.

Damn, you're good, Will.

Reagan will never make it onto a piece of U.S. currency. Too many people hate him.

Damn Henry Ford's up there with Reagan. The man got a medal from Hitler and Hitler had a picture of him hanging on his wall.

yes, the entire postal system be damned.

I knew Ford would be controversial, but comparisons to Hitler?

I must admit, I had no knowledge of any Ford/Nazi connections. That's crazy.

Will

Oh yes, Ford's anti-semitism is well-documented. Charles Lindbergh and Ford both received accolades from Hitler. Henry Ford got sued for his virulent anti-Semitism and was forced to make a public apology. I'm sure you can read transcripts of it online.

There's a book called "Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate." A new book on Ford by Douglas Brinkley just came out called "Wheels of the World." I'm sure it's mentioned in there.

Henry Ford did some absolutely crazy shit. He required employees that were ethnic minorities to attend "Ford schools" to learn things like how to use a fork and become "Americanized." I believe at the "graduation" ceremonies the employees would stand on top of a giant paper-mache melting pot.

He had a team of investigators go into his employees' homes to make sure they were living "morally." If not, they could be fired. He was also one of the most staunchly anti-union business leaders ever and his employees weren't officially unionized till a huge strike in 1941.

Sorry for the rant, but I think Ford is one of the most fascinating and strange people in American history and I wrote a 45 page paper on him last year. I guess I also have a thing for Midwestern labor history, a la Gary.

(Edited by etcetera at 1:25 pm on Dec. 6, 2003)

Wow. I had no idea. The things our education keeps from us can be troubling.

But I'm confused as to how we got onto Ford in the first place ( )... his name isnt on my list...

Anyone else on there need to be removed for reasons of hidden social horror? I know Edison was a greedy, ruthless businessman, but that wasn't enough in my mind to keep him out of the running.

Will

I was just going to point that out...

Nah, I think Ford's presence can be neutralized through your inclusion of a bona fide radical (Welles).

Sorry, I thought I saw both Henry and John Ford on the list.

Henry's name was there, he edited it out.

Hmm. If anyone on the list is a "bona fide radical" I'd say it would have to be Odetts. He was quite the (wait for it...) Lefty. Wow, I just sandwiched two terrible puns together.

Yeah, Henry was there. You convinced me to remove him.

Will

I cannot believe what I'm reading. FDR Bashing?? I gotta go real quick right now, so I'll keep it real short. THE MAN SAVED THIS COUNTRY FROM THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND WON WWII FOR US. DONE. PERIOD. END OF STORY. NO ARGUMENT. THE GREATEST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES!

agreed

Yeah, this is unnecessary and seems like a political statement the Senator's trying to make. FDR should and will remain.

Presidents do inherit the economies of the former. Just like Clinton inherited an okay economy that was starting to see some light, he made it better. He focused on the economy and people were willing to elect him again. Bush inherited the start of a declining economy. Then, our nation was hit with fear and scandals that caused people to shut themselves in and spend less. Companies laid people off or went out of business. The Facts are, everything is slowly getting better. The current administration doesn't have the freedom to only worry about the economy. Their are other pressing issues, one being our nation's security. Besides, I don't think they have it in them to give up as much as the Clinton admin did solely for a good economy. Look at the numbers that are out. unemployment number just went down. The economy is on an upstroke, even with the tax cuts for the "rich", (meaning middle class America?).

In case I'm being misinterpreted, my crack about never being down with FDR on the dime because I'm a libertarian (which I am) was a joke, meant to be as such. I certainly wouldn't campaign to have FDR removed, and I fully recognize his amazing importance to this country's history.

However, my beliefs about cultural figures appearing on currency, especially Martin Luther King Jr., are entirely earnest. I think Grant and Franklin would be the best places to start re-evaluating things, but the whole system could be revamped.

And putting Sacajawea on the golden dollar was, in my opinion, the lamest attempt at reconciling the US relations with Native Americans possible. I'm amazed that Lewis and Clark didn't also appear on the coin to make it apparent that it was still an ode to "early white acheivment."

Will

I've always found it vaguely funny that Dr King shouldn't actually have been a Doctor. In fact, technically, he should have been kicked out of his graduate program.

I absolutely agree cultural figures on currency would be a good/interesting idea.

I agree completely. and cultural figures on the currency is an excellent idea.

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 3:16 pm on Dec. 7, 2003)

The Gandhi half dollar? I'm down...

I wonder if he will be drooling in the image.

oops!

(Edited by SantaClaus at 5:48 pm on Dec. 7, 2003)

That's what stamps are for.

Though, I am just playing devil's advocate as well. I don't really care, except I think FDR should remain on the dime. Reagan, while somewhat worthy, is not as great as FDR. And, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

(edit: I should read further before I post what somebody else has already said.)

(Edited by richarddawson at 7:25 pm on Dec. 7, 2003)

rd--

good point about the stamps.

It occured to me that Ben Franklin was probably more of a cultural figure than anything else. He was more known for his inventions and his writings/almanac than anything else. He became a politician for no other reason than he was by far the most famous and one of the most respected men in America at the time and everyone just kind of expected him to lead the new country. I think its fitting that he's on the $100 bill. The guy was a fucking genius.

Not quite. WWII saved us from the Great Depression. Without the economic boom this country recieved from the war machine, we never would have left the Great Depression behind. FDR's federal spending spree did put people to work, but the conditions didn't improve economically until WWII. I really wouldn't consider him the greatest president in the history of the United States either, but that's a whole other argument.

By the way, what's all this bullshit about Reagan's economic years being poor? Do you know why when you turn on the news at night (recently) they've been saying that we are headed toward the strongest economy in twenty years? 2003-20=1983. Holy shit, that's REAGAN! Oh no, a CONSERVATIVE.

I know by using the c word, I've lost most of you, but I'm sick of the bashing and sick of the bullshit.

"Reaganomics" led this country to some extremely prosperous times. Supply-side economics gets government out of the way of growth and allows industry to drive the economy. Without goverment beauracracy in the way, this nations economy took off like a rocket. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected as a direct result of the inflation crippling this country. When Reagan was elected, inflation was hovering at about 13%, when he was done, it had tumble to 4% (that's good). Now I know Conservatives are legendary for being ALLEGEDLY "unfair" and "harsh", but Reagan's economic policy allowed workers to spread their dollar. With inflation down, prices dived and prosperity followed. Additionally, he brought unemployment down and got some very deserving Americans their jobs back. Of course, he was a conservative, so that doesn't mean shit to some people.

I'm sorry, my posts are usually short, but I just had to say something. Go ahead, bash me, take me apart, call me a gun-toting redneck, whatever.

And no, I don't think Reagan should be on any currency. FDR is indeed very deserving. Maybe we can bring back the two? Anybody? I mean what can you buy for a dollar? Anyway who brings up a 20 minute phone call loses a testicle. I mean it.

If you got this far, thanks.....

(Edited by herman at 10:43 am on Dec. 19, 2003)

You're welcome, you gun-toting redneck.

I think another rule of currency is you have to be dead to be on it, and Reagan's still alive.

Eat that, Queen Elizabeth II....

There's been no mention of Susan B. Anthony being on the silver dollar.

This is debatable. I don't buy into the whole Reagan's economic policies are responsible for our recent prosperity. It just seems far-fetched because I think the turn around for most administrative decisions is much more immediate.. I'm not really sure WHY I believe this.. but I do. I'm not saying it isn't possible... just that personally, I look at it as another way conservatives can twist reality to take credit for everything.

actually, the 2 dollar bill's still around. i've got a pristine one from the mid-ninties somebody gave to me. but you're right, it should be more mainstream. thomas jefferson, now there's a president!

And Democrats would NEVER try to do that, would they? I'm not trying to jump on you personally, or Democrats in particular, but this gang mentality in our country is just killing me. People of both parties wear such blinders when they talk about politics. It's like the murderer's mother, kicking and screaming that her son is innocent even in the face of indisputable evidence. It's like, people are just "on a side," and anyone who's not on "our" side is evil, capable of no good ever, and can just rot in hell. It's like the Jets and the Sharks, or the Bloods and the Crips, or Ohio State and Michigan. There will never be any real, positive change in this country as long as we have this RED vs. BLUE mentality.

It should be a special edition $100 with Reagan's image. The "White Back" is colored in a white and black scheme to hide traces of cocaine from the bill. On the back a picture of Iranian Contras smiling as they hoist their new weapons into the air. That would be a fitting tribute. The bills cost $101 though so that $1 for each bill could go to Alzheimer's research.

J

I never said that Democrats were innocent.

Really? I have a hard time believing that the economic effects of an administration can be fully felt in a country in anything resembling a short period of time. Would I place current prosperity with Reagan? Certainly not, I'm not suggesting that the lapse is 20 years. But 2 or 3 years is believable, and that places this current prosperity as a result of the early W. Tax Cut and other conservative policies.

Again, I find the arguments to the contrary interesting as well. And I think that a war overseas can change things too. All I'm saying, as I've said in a number of threads lately, is that economics seems to be too wild a system for anyone to prove anything for or against Reaganomics/supply-side/trickle-down economics.

Herman makes on of the better cases I've heard in recent months, however.

Will

good point. my point about the 20 year span since Reagan administration was that it was the last time we saw this kind of prosperity. Additionally, I think you're right about the two to three year span.

(Edited by herman at 8:45 pm on Dec. 20, 2003)