Okay that was a low blow.  Reagan wasn't costing me 4o% of my paycheck in income tax like Clinton did.  But anyway, Reagan deserves somethings, stamps maybe?



If "Clinton" was getting you for 40%, you're doing far better than I, my man.  I didn't intend a low blow, I meant a fair crack at the budget deficits and the accumulated national debt under Reagan.  If you want to debate fiscal policy, email me personally, let's not start up with it here!

In all honesty, we shouldn't make any more changes in our money. I'm already ticked off by the bills we have now. ::)


I'm with you.

I'm with you.

How about leaving the bust portion blank so you can draw your own picture there, or paste pictures of you kids or something?
:D

That brings up a point almost everyone on paper money has a purpose for being their except Grant.  I mean he is ranked by far by almost every survey I have every seen the worst president ever and he was a terrible general.  Who made that decision, leave the founder of the first national U.S. bank on the $10 bill and ditch Grant.

That brings up a point almost everyone on paper money has a purpose for being their except Grant.  I mean he is ranked by far by almost every survey I have every seen the worst president ever and he was a terrible general.  Who made that decision, leave the founder of the first national U.S. bank on the $10 bill and ditch Grant.

Grant was pretty bad.  Corruption, problem with the bottle and so forth, but Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding were much worse!

Grant was pretty bad.  Corruption, problem with the bottle and so forth, but Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding were much worse!


You're right Warren Harding and Andrew Johnson were worse, BUT they are not on money.

How about leaving the bust portion blank so you can draw your own picture there, or paste pictures of you kids or something?
:D


LMAO! I love it! Can you imagine?

I don't think they should put change the $10 bill, yes, Reagan may have been a good president in alot of people's eyes, but I don't think his time in office warrants a change in currency.

Definitely no to Mt. Rushmore! Leave it alone.

Why not, have a Ten-Dollar bill, one series with Alexander Hamiltion, and another series with
Ronald Reagan

Why not, have a Ten-Dollar bill, one series with Alexander Hamiltion, and another series with
Ronald Reagan


Because that would cheapen both Hamilton and Reagan.

I still say reissue the $500 bill and put Reagan on that.

The $500 bill has been out of print since 1945, so it would not really be a "diss" to Wiliam McKinley who was the President on that bill.

It is silly that the largest bill in print is the $100.  It has been that way since 1971, I think.

I still say reissue the $500 bill and put Reagan on that.

The $500 bill has been out of print since 1945, so it would not really be a "diss" to Wiliam McKinley who was the President on that bill.

It is silly that the largest bill in print is the $100.  It has been that way since 1971, I think.
You must be a very wealthy man then, Lyric Boy, because I doubt the vast majority of people in this country would ever have a use for a $500 bill, let alone even see one.

(Actually I know why you want Reagan on a $500 bill: So you can hear all these rap stars say, "It's all about the Reagans! ;D)

I still say reissue the $500 bill and put Reagan on that.

The $500 bill has been out of print since 1945, so it would not really be a "diss" to Wiliam McKinley who was the President on that bill.

It is silly that the largest bill in print is the $100.  It has been that way since 1971, I think.


Very few people use $100s, fewer still would probably use the $500.  It'd be sort of a slight to Reagan to put him on a seldom-circulated bill.

Ok, here is my idea. We can put Reagan on the three dollar bill and replace Hamiliton (because he was an idiot anyway) on the ten with Mae West.  ;D ;D ;D



Now, before everyone jumps on me about this post-IT IS A JOKE!



Cat

Ok, here is my idea. We can put Reagan on the three dollar bill and replace Hamiliton (because he was an idiot anyway) on the ten with Mae West.  ;D ;D ;D



Now, before everyone jumps on me about this post-IT IS A JOKE!



Cat


Cat,

I already have Bill Clinton slotted for the $3.00 bill, to commemorate his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.  :P

LB

I still say reissue the $500 bill and put Reagan on that.

The $500 bill has been out of print since 1945, so it would not really be a "diss" to Wiliam McKinley who was the President on that bill.

It is silly that the largest bill in print is the $100.  It has been that way since 1971, I think.



put Reagan on a 2 dollar Bill. ;D


Howard

You must be a very wealthy man then, Lyric Boy, because I doubt the vast majority of people in this country would ever have a use for a $500 bill, let alone even see one.


A $500 bill in the year 2004 is worth about as much as a $100 bill was back in 1971.  (Maybe worth $140 in 1971, but you get the idea).

The reason they got rid of the $1000 bills was an ill-conceived idea that it would make it harder for drug dealers to move large quantities of money.  Like most "war on drug" laws, it stopped nothing.

I meant a fair crack at the budget deficits and the accumulated national debt under Reagan.


Well, myself I think the money is better spent on military and other projects that create jobs, then to give them away as entitlements.  Yes, he spent a lot of money, but I feel it was spent on the right thing.

For those that still think "trickle down" was a failure, look at California in 1991-1994.  California languished in recession long after most of the country recovered.  It was not until the 1994 Northridge Earthquake gave the state a huge influx of money and construction jobs that it was finally able to pull out.

And trust me, I was there at the time.  In December 1993 there was little work to be found.  3 months later there were hardly enough people to fill the jobs that had been made in construction, and all the money that came from it.

Well, myself I think the money is better spent on military and other projects that create jobs, then to give them away as entitlements.  Yes, he spent a lot of money, but I feel it was spent on the right thing.

For those that still think "trickle down" was a failure, look at California in 1991-1994.  California languished in recession long after most of the country recovered.  It was not until the 1994 Northridge Earthquake gave the state a huge influx of money and construction jobs that it was finally able to pull out.

And trust me, I was there at the time.  In December 1993 there was little work to be found.  3 months later there were hardly enough people to fill the jobs that had been made in construction, and all the money that came from it.


Well said.

So many people focus only on the the short-term deficit, but forget about what came as a result of what created that deficit in the first place...one of the largest economic booms in history.

Well said.

So many people focus only on the the short-term deficit, but forget about what came as a result of what created that deficit in the first place...one of the largest economic booms in history.

A boom for capital, that is Wall Street brokers, investment bankers, executives, and those who skim money in the form of dividends.  Wages and job security for labor declined steadily in the Reagan years.

No whats the point of changing American currency its just more money wasted on unnecessary changes.I would rather see JFK on the 10 dollar bill anyway.Reagan deserves a beautiful memorial though.

A boom for capital, that is Wall Street brokers, investment bankers, executives, and those who skim money in the form of dividends.  Wages and job security for labor declined steadily in the Reagan years.


Actually at my company (and in my industry), during the Reagan years, the Union contracts were amended (via negotiation) to have a no-layoff clause.

During those years job security increased for us.

I say NO!  Let the man rest in peace for a while.  He already has an aircraft carrier, an airport, and a Federal biulding named after him.  Let some time pass, and let history evaluate his presidancy, then decide.  All this hoopla over his legacy is very premature.

I say NO!  Let the man rest in peace for a while.  He already has an aircraft carrier, an airport, and a Federal biulding named after him.  Let some time pass, and let history evaluate his presidancy, then decide.  All this hoopla over his legacy is very premature.

Heh heh, The Man !
;)

I wonder what kind of ship they're gonna name after Clinton?  ???

I wonder what kind of ship they're gonna name after Clinton? 


The USS Lewinsky?  ;D ;D


Howard

I wonder what kind of ship they're gonna name after Clinton? 


The USS Lewinsky?  ;D ;D


Howard


The USS Lewinsky will be a whaling ship.

When it finds the target, the captain will declare "Thar she blows !"

Heh heh...   ;D  ;D

LB

The USS Lewinsky will be a whaling ship.

When it finds the target, the captain will declare "Thar she blows !"

Heh heh...   ;D  ;D

LB


LOL!! Good one. ;D

I wonder what kind of ship they're gonna name after Clinton? 


The USS Lewinsky?  ;D ;D


Howard
My uncle told me he once saw a T-shirt that was really funny. It had a picture of Monica Lewinsky with a milk mustache, with the caption "Not Milk."  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Don't forget I-88 in IL.  For those of you familiar with the express/tollways in the Chicago area, they are named Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bishop Ford (for whom, I'm not sure), Dan Ryan, Edens, Stevenson and now Reagan (88).

As I was just reading in the history of the notorious Chicago housing projects, Mayor Daley made quick use of the Dan Ryan to segregate the projects (such as Robert Taylor and Stateway) from the rest of the city.  Now those projects have all met the wrecking ball.

Quote from: Howard on June 13, 2004, 01:56:58 PM
I wonder what kind of ship they're gonna name after Clinton? 



One that's already "gone down"
Zingo!  I wish I had thought of that one!

The USS Lewinsky will be a whaling ship.

When it finds the target, the captain will declare "Thar she blows !"

Heh heh...   ;D  ;D

LB



LMAO!!!!  ;D ;D ;D



Cat

Don't forget I-88 in IL.  For those of you familiar with the express/tollways in the Chicago area, they are named Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bishop Ford (for whom, I'm not sure), Dan Ryan, Edens, Stevenson and now Reagan (88).


The Bishop Ford was, of course, named after Bishop Ford.  ;)

Also, I recommend that the Chicago Skyway be named after President Jimmy Carter, as it is well meaning yet completely ineffective.  :P

I say NO!  Let the man rest in peace for a while.  He already has an aircraft carrier, an airport, and a Federal biulding named after him.  Let some time pass, and let history evaluate his presidancy, then decide.  All this hoopla over his legacy is very premature.


JFK was put on the half-dollar in 1964, the year following his death.

Considering the amount of time that has passed since Reagan's presidency, putting him on some form of currency would certainly be less premature than the Kennedy decision.

I've got a solution that'll work for Reagan fans, the US Mint, and even those who didn't like Reagan. If they put Reagan on a half-dollar or dollar coin, then people will collect them, no one will spend them, and he'll be back off after a few years.  :P

JFK was put on the half-dollar in 1964, the year following his death.

Considering the amount of time that has passed since Reagan's presidency, putting him on some form of currency would certainly be less premature than the Kennedy decision.

I've got a solution that'll work for Reagan fans, the US Mint, and even those who didn't like Reagan. If they put Reagan on a half-dollar or dollar coin, then people will collect them, no one will spend them, and he'll be back off after a few years.  :P


Good point.  I still say no, but good point.

I disagree about the USS Monica Lewinsky though.  Not a whaling ship, but a submarine.  Then it would REALLY go down  ;)

Good point.  I still say no, but good point.

I disagree about the USS Monica Lewinsky though.  Not a whaling ship, but a submarine.  Then it would REALLY go down  ;)


But the USS Lewinsky could never be loaded with torpedoes.

That could be a problem.

http://www.coffeeshoptimes.com/mon.gif


We can put this face on his ship! ;D



Howard

Excellent one,LB! ;D


Howard

http://www.coffeeshoptimes.com/mon.gif


We can put this face on his ship! ;D



Howard

That's the face that sunk a thousand....ships.
:-\\

But the USS Lewinsky could never be loaded with torpedoes.

That could be a problem.



Could be loaded with cigars?


Cat

JFK was put on the half-dollar in 1964, the year following his death.

Considering the amount of time that has passed since Reagan's presidency, putting him on some form of currency would certainly be less premature than the Kennedy decision.

I've got a solution that'll work for Reagan fans, the US Mint, and even those who didn't like Reagan. If they put Reagan on a half-dollar or dollar coin, then people will collect them, no one will spend them, and he'll be back off after a few years.  :P


Why not a Two Headed Coin?

Tahe the 50-cent-piece and keep Kennedy on the front, and put Reagan on the "back".

That way nobody loses face.

Why not a Two Headed Coin?

Tahe the 50-cent-piece and keep Kennedy on the front, and put Reagan on the "back".

That way nobody loses face.





So when someone flips a coin at the beginning of a game the winner will be...  ;)

I guess in that case I can't say, "Heads I win, Tails you lose."  ;)



Cat

That's the face that sunk a thousand....ships.
:-\\
Gary Hart and Donna Rice aboard the "Monkey Business" might disagree, Howard ;)

Why not put Reagan on the 2 Dollar Bill? ???


Howard

But the USS Lewinsky could never be loaded with torpedoes.

That could be a problem.


Could be a guided missle sub, she has certainly launced a few of those lol  ;)

Now to get serious.

First, what's the big honor of being on money?

I propose that we completely redesign our currancy.  Get rid of all those fallible, dead white guys and honor symbols of our heratige.  Maybe the Statue of Liberty instead of Washington, Old Faithful on the 5, a vista of the Grand Canyon on the 10, the Mayflower on the 20, Old Ironsides (the USS Constitution) on the 50, and the headline of the Declaration of Independence on the 100.  Maybe we should all recognize that our leaders, past and present, are just falible people (mostly men) with feet of clay - not just Ronnie, but all of them.  They all did good and bad - the definition subject to interpretation - according to their light, and all were both successes and failures.  Why not focus on what is all positive and enduring?  Just a thought.

We used to honor Liberty (Lady Liberty, walking Liberty), but she got pushed off to make way for dead presidents and founders. ;)

We used to honor Liberty (Lady Liberty, walking Liberty), but she got pushed off to make way for dead presidents and founders. ;)


You are right, so are you agreeing with my idea (not necessarilly the images, just the idea)?  Your response is a bit vague.

Why not sell ad space on the currency?

Can you imagine how much money The Coca Cola Company would pay for the right to have their logo on the $1.00 bill for the next 20 years?

Food (maybe drink) for thought.  :P

LB

You are right, so are you agreeing with my idea (not necessarilly the images, just the idea)?  Your response is a bit vague.


Just being informative, not argumentative. I don't mind honoring presidents and influential people, nor do I mind putting more symbolic pictures. However, over the years, we've been pushing the symbols to the back of the coins (like the eagle on the back of the quarter, before we started using the state designs) and honoring individuals on the front.

Why not sell ad space on the currency?

Can you imagine how much money The Coca Cola Company would pay for the right to have their logo on the $1.00 bill for the next 20 years?

Food (maybe drink) for thought.   :

LB


Sorry, this is too commercial for me.

Just being informative, not argumentative. I don't mind honoring presidents and influential people, nor do I mind putting more symbolic pictures. However, over the years, we've been pushing the symbols to the back of the coins (like the eagle on the back of the quarter, before we started using the state designs) and honoring individuals on the front.


Yeah, but why not do away with all this more or less partisan adoration and just neutralize our curreccy?

But honoring Reagan - like honoring Kennedy - is not necessarily partisan. Members of both major parties feel that these men were great presidents. (Notice that John Kerry is more than willing to comment favorably on Reagan in his campaign; you've probably also heard of "Reagan Democrats.")

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20040615/lbs040615.gif



I thought of this thread when I saw this.  ;D




Cat

But honoring Reagan - like honoring Kennedy - is not necessarily partisan. Members of both major parties feel that these men were great presidents. (Notice that John Kerry is more than willing to comment favorably on Reagan in his campaign; you've probably also heard of "Reagan Democrats.")


These examples don't negate the partisan factor.  Honoring the dead of other parties is clearly a partisan tactic.  I guess I'm just against all the hero worship that is a big part of this. They all have feet of clay.

These examples don't negate the partisan factor.  Honoring the dead of other parties is clearly a partisan tactic.  I guess I'm just against all the hero worship that is a big part of this. They all have feet of clay.


< ahem > Bill Clinton apparently was made of wood.  < ahem >

;D :P

These examples don't negate the partisan factor.

Perhaps this example would:

http://www.wordiq.com/knowledge/upload/thumb/e/e3/300px-ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/U.S._presidential_election,_1984

In 1984, Reagan won in every state except Minnesota (Mondale also won in DC). The electoral votes were 525 for Reagan, 13 for Mondale.

How partisan could that be?

Okay, the secong pie chart on there shows the percentage of the popular vote: Reagan 58.8%, Mondale 40.5%. The fact is, Reagan's appeal certainly crossed party lines.

"Political commentators used the term Reagan Democrat to describe the defection of Democrats to voting for Reagan in the election."

Perhaps this example would:

http://www.wordiq.com/knowledge/upload/thumb/e/e3/300px-ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/U.S._presidential_election,_1984

In 1984, Reagan won in every state except Minnesota (Mondale also won in DC). The electoral votes were 525 for Reagan, 13 for Mondale.

How partisan could that be?

Okay, the secong pie chart on there shows the percentage of the popular vote: Reagan 58.8%, Mondale 40.5%. The fact is, Reagan's appeal certainly crossed party lines.

"Political commentators used the term Reagan Democrat to describe the defection of Democrats to voting for Reagan in the election."

I never liked the term "Reagan-Democrat," they're either "traitors" or "suckers."  No one ran a weaker campaign than Mondale, except Dukakis.  No candidate has ever been more seductive than Ronald Reagan.  The only guy who could have beaten Reagan in '84 was probably General Eisenhower!  The reason Dukakis didn't get pounded quite as badly as Mondale is that he was running against Daddy Bush, not Reagan.

The electoral college is deceptive, but 59% is still a landslide in a modern Presidential election.
What were we talking about again?

The electoral college is deceptive, but 59% is still a landslide in a modern Presidential election.
What were we talking about again?


Something like whether it's partisan to honor Reagan on some form of U.S. currency.

I may be in the minority, but my parents told me that Reagan was terrible.  Also a college DJ in Alaska agrees.  I know about this cuz he was pulled off and it was mentioned on the news.  Anyway, they shouldn't go on about it like they did with Princess Diana.

Besides, I think my parents would be furious if they find out that Reagan gets on the $10 bill, not to mention thousands if not millions of other people, so it would probably be a bad move on the govt's part, keeping one side of the country happy, while enfuriating the other side.

Someone mentioned stamps though, and I think that's the best idea I've read on here.  Noone forces you to buy a particular type of stamp, so if you're against Reagan, don't buy them.

Another thing someone mentioned, that it costs money to change money(which is almost ironic probably?)... so I say NO to that too.  Spend it on our public schools.

I may be in the minority, but my parents told me that Reagan was terrible.  Also a college DJ in Alaska agrees.  I know about this cuz he was pulled off and it was mentioned on the news.  Anyway, they shouldn't go on about it like they did with Princess Diana.



Hey, now I remember the Reagan Administration real good, and Reagan was all about FREEDOM, that's why we cannot tolerate college radio DJs in Alaska dumping on the man in this our moment of terrible grief for our beloved lost leader!
:-\\