I gotta know...

[Majin Gohan]

Well...since I am related to Arron Burr, why not take out Hamilton twice, .

But I don't really see why we don't have a 15 or 25 dollar bill, since so many things are priced 14.99 or 24.99 it would only make sense. I don't know enough about their policies to comment on them. All I know is that Reagan killed most of the communism in Europe.

Stephen

[Cloud]

Interesting. Not really? Look harder. Would you like to know? OK let's stop it now. most of the communism in Europe was killed?

[blueheaven]

I have to ask why can't I vote in this poll????

Under Reagan's watch AIDS got out of control and I lost a lot of dear friends - No disrespect intended but if I have to look at that man's face on any money I will have to use credit cards only. Sorry,but I detest the man.

I'm sorry you were so greatly affected by AIDS. I must say, though, why is this Reagan's fault? Noone blames previous administrations for outbreaks of Smallpox, Influenza, or Polio. So, why is AIDS somehow Reagan's fault? When it first appeared, noone knew just how it spread. Hell, I remember when people thought you could get it from a toilet seat. His Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, was always warning people about using safe sex and wearing condoms, and thousands still contracted it from unsafe sex.

The CDC can only come out with information as quickly as they can get it. He may not have been the most understanding person with regards to homosexuality(Reagan once said he believed the disease was some kind of divine retribution for gays), but his personal beliefs never swayed his dedication to fighting the disease. From 1981 to the end of his term, each year the allocation of funds for AIDS research grew at a rate of 70%-1600%. Reagan also asked the courts to look into AIDS patients as being protected under the Civil Rights act(anyone who has seen the film Philadelphia knows a bit of the story behind that). I'm not a Conservative or a Liberal. I don't abide either side's reasoning. However, it took me a few minutes to look up Ronald Reagan's bio on AIDS research, and now I have an informed opinion.

I had a friend who was killed while mishandling a pistol. Do I think handguns should be outlawed because of it? No. Do I blame the Clinton administration for their lax enforcement of gun laws? No. I know better than that. My friend died because his father owned a gun and did not teach his son to respect the power of that weapon and the proper way to use it.

Today, we have all the information about AIDS we need. Use protection, stay abstinent, get your blood tested. It's a lot like smoking. People have known for thirty years that cigarettes will kill you. My grandmother knew it, and she still smoked til the day she died. I don't blame the cigarette company, or the political parties who get kickbacks, I blame her. She knew the risks and made her choice.

I'm not trying to be harsh or say that your emotions are not valid. You have obviously suffered a great deal, and I am sorry. I've seen what AIDS can do first hand with a friend of a family member. But this is a touchy topic, and I had to look at this for myself. I think, with the benefit of hindsight, Reagan could have acted sooner. But, I don't think it would have made a great difference. He may have been slow on the draw, but he wasn't malicious in his intent.

Whew, that's all from me on this thread. Feel free to rip me to shreds now.

[Cloud]

I am terribly sorry to hear about your loss.

[Startyde]

He may not have been the most understanding person with regards to homosexuality(Reagan once said he believed the disease was some kind of divine retribution for gays), but his personal beliefs never swayed his dedication to fighting the disease.

Not to throw my political affiliation into the arena, but history pretty much proves there is no documented evidence of Reagan ever saying anything along the lines of aids being retribution for gays and sin, and more likely it was just liberal banter designed to deface a man on his deathbed. This was more or less brought up when the director and screenwriter for the recently made for TV biography on Reagan pretty much said they made up the lines they gave him saying such things.

[soda]

I don't discuss politics. You can't win. Everybody has their own opinion and it's a waste of time to try and convince them otherwise but I will ask if it was Reagan's fault that your friends got the disease in the first place?

[pastatdude]

He may not have been the most understanding person with regards to homosexuality(Reagan once said he believed the disease was some kind of divine retribution for gays), but his personal beliefs never swayed his dedication to fighting the disease.

Not to throw my political affiliation into the arena, but history pretty much proves there is no documented evidence of Reagan ever saying anything along the lines of aids being retribution for gays and sin, and more likely it was just liberal banter designed to deface a man on his deathbed. This was more or less brought up when the director and screenwriter for the recently made for TV biography on Reagan pretty much said they made up the lines they gave him saying such things.

Reagan didn't say it. Pat Buchanan did.

[Startyde]

I don't discuss politics. You can't win. Everybody has their own opinion and it's a waste of time to try and convince them otherwise...

True enough, but there is a big differnece between fact and fiction, something I think the media and masses don't quite care about more often than not...

[transmet]

It's been very interesting reading everyone's response, and, as soda says, there really is no way to discuss politics (or religion) without eventually going around in circles. As an economics major who then changed to a poli-sci major, I have to say that I am not pleased with what Reagan ultimately accomplished. His voodoo economics plan, while bankrupting the Soviet Union, is still having reprecussions on us to this day, and will continue on into the forseeable future (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). Even after his econ-wizards applied the new mathematics, via the recently some-what understood chaos/complexity theories, we still had that crash in '88. People who don't factor in raw materials should not be called economists.
Maybe we should put Reagan on a $30 bill and just call it the new $10 bill.

And so ends my diatribe.

[glorff]

No president can or should be judged on any single action or topic. They should be judged by history, well after their administration. I am sure that there will be a flurry of books in the near future recounting his administration, for good or ill.

The biggest thing that I remember while looking back is that he found a way to make us feel better about ourselves than we had in a very long time

I do not, however, believe that he should be placed on and legal tender for it

[soda]

glorff, those were all excellent points! I totally agree.

[hanaeleh]

I've always been told that you have to wait a minimum of 30 years to see the effects that a president's policy has had on the nation. So we're actually a little early.

Glorff brings up an interesting point, however. Exactly what requirements were met by those already on the aforestated legal tender? What criteria would one have to live up to in order to have a picture on the $20 bill?

[Keropi]

I just did a check on the US Treasury website. They no longer print denominations over $100 so that leaves out a lot of potential people they could replace if they decided to go through with it (like Chase and Wilson - who was Chase? ). The people currently on our paper currency:

George Washington on the $1 bill
Thomas Jefferson on the $2 bill
Abraham Lincoln on the $5 bill
Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill
Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill
Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill
Benjamin Franklin on the $100 bill

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are about the best overall presidents we had so we're not going to replace them. If they had to replace any of them why not replace Grant? I don't think there are too many Grant fans around these days.

Also his administration was one of the most corrupt presidential administrations we've ever had (although Grant himself was innocent). He was a great general, but a poor administrator and selector of personnel to fill positions in government. He wasn't like Washington (good general, good administrator and good politician)

Maybe the Civil War buffs would get upset if they decided to remove him.

Let's see. Who's on our current coinage?:

Abraham Lincoln on the one-cent coin
Thomas Jefferson on the five-cent coin
Franklin D. Roosevelt on the ten-cent coin
George Washington on the quarter-dollar coin
John F. Kennedy on the half-dollar coin
Sacajawea is on the one dollar coin (which just began to be produced in early 2000).

No good choices to remove there. A lot of people still like FDR and there are still a number of people that are alive to remember him. He was a father figure to them too. You can't remove Sacajawea because that would be politically incorrect. Maybe if the coin had been in production for ten or fifteen years, but they can't remove her yet.

[glorff]

All of this country's early currency (100+ years) had Lady Liberty and the American Eagle, both symbols of what we stand for as a country. I, personally prefer it that way and wish we would go back to the way it was.

[transmet]

All of this country's early currency (100+ years) had Lady Liberty and the American Eagle, both symbols of what we stand for as a country. I, personally prefer it that way and wish we would go back to the way it was.

I couldn't agree more.
I was always a sucker for the buffalo-head nickle too.