DescentBB

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:57 pm**

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/ec ... tm?cnn=yes

Reagan the new face of the $10 bill?
Conservatives will push for image of 40th president to grace $10 bill, $20 bill or dime.
June 8, 2004: 1:07 PM EDT

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.

On Tuesday Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) confirmed that he is considering sponsoring legislation in the Senate to have Reagan's image replace that of Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first treasury secretary, on the $10 bill.

Meanwhile, an effort is underway in the House of Representatives, led by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (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.

Democrats in Congress may not be ready to embrace the idea, though none has publicly declared opposition after Reagan's death Saturday.

A change would require majority votes in both houses of Congress.

In the Republican-dominated House, passage of a bill seems achievable, according to Washington sources. In the Senate, however, cloture rules would allow the Democratic minority to block any legislation.

Proponents of Reaganized money, however, are proposing an alternative to paper: coins. Unlike decisions about notes, coins can be changed at the discretion of the Treasury Secretary.

Over at the Treasury Department, however, lips are tightly pursed on the notion of honoring the 40th president on money.

"It's premature to get into any discussions about it, including discussions of process or timing," said Ann Womack Colton, a Treasury spokeswoman.

But GOP activist Norquist has said he has already had discussions with Snow and senior White House staff about the idea, and found no opposition.

If Reagan is not put on the $10, an alternate proposal is to have half the nation's dimes carry Reagan's face, with the other half continuing to honor Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The idea of removing Roosevelt from the dime altogether in favor of Reagan had enough opposition, even from Nancy Reagan, to be dropped, USA Today reported.

But the Gipper's fans think giving equal time to Reagan and FDR strikes an appropriate compromise.

One person opposed to removing Hamilton from the $10 bill is Ron Chernow, author of an acclaimed biography of the revolutionary war hero and founding father.

He told USA Today that he believed even Reagan would have objected to the snub of Hamilton.

"Hamilton was the prophet of the capitalist system that Ronald Reagan so admired," he was quoted as saying.

This is getting rediculous...he was a good man, but they shouldn't give Hamilton the boot just to get his face on a ten dollar bill. His own bill, I could understand somewhat, but leave the $10 alone!

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:08 pm**

I really dont see what the big deal is ether way. Its just paper that represents a value. If they want Regan on it go ahead.

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:21 pm**

Let's take this further! From now on, let's change our money every 4 years when a new President comes into office. The $1 will have the current president, the $5 will have the previous term's president, the $10 will have the one before, and so on. Or just remint all money to have whoever the current president is.

Man, why bother changing the money around? Possibly if they were going to do a whole redesign anyway (such as going to color bills or something), but come on.... We already know what all the bills (and coins) are supposed to be like, don't change stuff on us now.

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:42 pm**

While I respect Ronald Reagan and admire his presidency, I don't think that we should go changing money that has kept the same personage for over seventy years.

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:36 pm**

Can we put his face on the Charmin instead?

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:25 pm**

Perhaps we could put Palzon's face on the toilet seat

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:29 pm**

Leave Hamilton alone he may not have been President but he was one of the original gangstas who stole this place from the King for us. He deserves a little repect!

If you want to honor Reagan by putting his face on some currency, put his face on the government checks used for income tax returns and rebates...he'd probably like that more than bumping a founding father off the ten spot.
Oh, and while your at it, put Al Gore's face in a 'lock box'

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2004 8:14 pm**

One of the original ganstas, very first pimp of da department of bling bling, wrote some phat raps in de federalist papers, had a stylin' hairdo, got a cap popped in his azz during a duel with Notorius Burr G ... Hamilton was just ahead of his time. Gotta give him his props. Yo.

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2004 8:55 pm**

That was disturbingly funny

.

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:16 pm**

roflmao

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:18 pm**

i'm glad i didn't skim cuz i was under the assumption from the topic that you were gay MD

who cares really? like i really care that they released quarters with state specific shizzle on them? or that they keep reinventing the bills to prevent counterfeiters (sp? i know, bite me). it's money and it all spends the same in RL or electronically.

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:45 pm**

Top Gun wrote:While I respect Ronald Reagan and admire his presidency, I don't think that we should go changing money that has kept the same personage for over seventy years.

I would tend to agree with Top Gun, unless a sensible arguement were presented to the contrary. Things like that are a part of America's past (when "past" is too close to "founding", it's really a bad idea). I agree with Will that something new should be done for him, not the replacing of anything.

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 5:03 am**

Some say Clinton's face should be put on the three dollar bill.

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 6:42 am**

Don't care. I can sit on his face just the same.

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:27 am**

Take FDR off huh? Take Jefferson off? Whow, a lot of good ideas coming from the right these days

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:35 am**

hmmm...weird spelling i did to get wow...anyways...on something more constructive. is this an actual effort, or is it something just to try and pseudo honor a president the GOP really liked? To me it's ludicrous as I cannot believe anyone actually thinking of taking a founding father off this country to put an actor on money. FDR took the country through the great depression and then started the march of dimes foundation against polio. Makes sense to me. Thoughts?

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:50 am**

well make a 15 or 25$ bill

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 10:12 am**

Zuruck wrote:...I cannot believe anyone actually thinking of taking a founding father off this country to put an actor on money.....

"Thoughts?"
My thought is you seem to be ignorant (or chose to act ignorant) of the fact that Reagan was not just an actor but actually he was President for 8 years.
Hamilton was never President so the idea isn't nearly as "ludicrous" as you make it.

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:30 am**

would you do it Will? Why not any of the other presidents? Does Clinton get the quarter because he had surpluses? Absolutely not. I wouldn't want Clinton on any coin.

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:40 am**

I already said why we shouldn't do it! I just wanted to point out that your slanted argument is lame

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:04 pm**

Of course it's slanted...I don't see Democrats trying to put any Carter on the 1 dollar bill.

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:19 pm**

Yet, I don't recall anyone complaining when Kennedy was put on the half dollar. Ben Franklin got the boot in that decision.

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:59 pm**

Kennedy was killed in office.

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:31 pm**

Birdseye wrote:Kennedy was killed in office.

Technically, and I don't mean to be nitpicky here, Kennedy wasn't in his office when he was killed. Therefore...

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:03 pm**

Kennedy was killed in office.

True, and Franklin's on the $100. Maybe we should put Reagan on the quarter, since George is also on the dollar. Or Garfield, or McKinley ... since they were also killed in office, if that works out to be part of the criteria. I think Millard Fillmore is definitely out of the running.

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2004 5:12 pm**

Let's make a $6 bill so I can pay for Xbox rentals at Blockbuster in a single bill.

Posted: **Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:50 am**

President Reagan would not have wanted his picture on the $10 bill. Nancy Reagan doesn't want it, and she is best qualified to speak for what "Ronny" would have wanted.

This was a dopey idea.

Hamilton was the first US Treasury Secretary. He set up our federal economic system, cutting the thing from whole cloth, practically. He was probably the most brilliant of our founding fathers: Washington's right hand man and one of the youngest of all the early American movers and shakers. He would have become president eventually, but got himself into a duel he had no business engaging, got shot, and died.

Hamilton and Burr dueled at the Bladensburg dueling grounds, in Maryland. Bladensburg, Bethesda, and Georgetown, all on the Maryland side of the river, were the three oldest/largest settlements in that area. (Washington DC was itself cut from whole cloth by L'Enfant, but at that time it was largely still just a hole in the swamp). Hamilton wasted his shot on purpose because, as a Christian gentleman, he simply could not take a life in cold blood. So one wonders why he even showed up. Well, it was a matter of honor. Just goes to show that there was plenty of macho bullsh!t back then, too. Burr may or may not have realized Hamilton missed on purpose. That's never been entirely resolved. But he shot Hamilton.

That Hamilton deserves to be on the ten dollar bill even without having survived to become president one day is hardly debateable. Right wingers who want to put Reagan on the ten dollar bill are out of step with what Reagan's own views would be. Fortunately, once Nancy spoke up about this, the buzz on it died down.

Maybe in twenty or fifty years, they'll put Reagan on the quarter. (Does Washington really need TWO units of currency to bear his image?) Or maybe they'll put him on the fifty, and give General Grant a rest. One can argue that Grant is not on the money due to the results of his presidency, but his generalship. Likewise Ike on the dollar coin. Those are also candidates for "we've honored them well, but now let's have them step aside so we can honor others." Or maybe at 100 years from the time of the Kennedy half dollar, we can say we've grieved enough for him and put Reagan there. Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Hamilton should stay right where they are, on the 1 5 2 and 10 bills, for as long as we still endure as a nation.

- Sirian

Posted: **Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:25 am**

index_html wrote:Yet, I don't recall anyone complaining when Kennedy was put on the half dollar. Ben Franklin got the boot in that decision.

But it's not like half-dollars are that common anymore. Benjamn Franklin is on the $100 bill, which is supposedly the largest denomination made now. McKinley used to be on the $500 bill, Cleveland was on the $1,000 bill. The more common bills have the more famous Presidents on them.

Posted: **Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:45 am**

I think they should start printing the 2 dollar bills so Presidents can make cameo apperances. You know, kinda like using a different actor of each Batman movie.

each year or so, put a new President on the note. By law, the artwork on all our currency is supposed to change something like every 20 years or somesuch.

DescentBB

Reagan on the $10 bill?!

Reagan on the $10 bill?!