Putting Ronald Reagan On Our Fifty Dollar Bills
March 4, 2010
There is a proposal in the House of Representatives to take Ullysses S. Grant off the fifty-dollar bill and replace it with Ronald Reagan. As one might expect in this hate filled, angry and demented society of ours, some have a problem with that and for various reasons. I read on the Daily Kos where somebody stated that putting Reagan on a fifty was no different than Slobodan Milosevic. Such intelligent thought. I suppose that the same person who wrote this doesn’t take issue with the twenty-dollar bill having Andrew Jackson’s picture on it. Andrew Jackson was a staunch democrat and was well noted from defeating the British in the Battle of New Orleans. But as democratic tradition had it in those days, Jackson was a firm supporter of slavery and was responsible for the destruction and migration of all Indian tribes east of the Mississippi. He demand that all Indians be moved west and put on reservations. Slobodan who?
As much as I admired Ronald Reagan and consider him to be one of our finest presidents, I would not advocate having his face put on any paper money denomination. If we feel it necessary to change up the faces, then I might suggest we head in the opposite direction from putting more recent dignitaries on bills to those of past history.
Being that history really isn’t taught any longer in our schools, this might be an opportunity to place some of our other founding fathers – Jefferson, Madison, Adams, etc.. We do have pictures of men who were not presidents – Hamilton ($10.00) and Franklin ($100.00).
Or maybe we could remove all pictures and begin a series of placing the Bill of Rights beginning with the First Amendment.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
It’s never happened before, but Reagan should be standing directly beside Clinton to comemorate a fiddi-spot.
Reagan for tearing down the Wall, and Clinton for giving them all jobs.
At least they give him credit for that, ar…But for all the Presidents I knew, I loved Reagan the most…His personality would even make his enemies smile….And he typified the “moral conservative”, even though he was divorced and a movie star! See if you can find one of those today! Maybe a few….not many.
It would be interesting to see what’s on the back. There would be too much bickering over it anyways. I with tom’s idea and it would take the focus off the person.
I was thinking on the back we could put a very large picture of Saul Alinsky or perhaps Bill Ayers!
Just to “balance” it off, or please the liberals…
Hey! I’m an equal opportunity offender!
But then there will be an argument over which side becomes the front and which the back.
Ayers will be showing his ass, so we’ll know the backside when we see it….unfortunately…
Are you sure Jes, how can we tell the difference betwixt Ayers lips and his butt cheeks since neither of them have teeth..
He was the greatest actor of all but not US President material. Reagan knew the Russian system was collasping and ran to the wall with B.S. Is this the best Republicans can do while unemployement is rising, people losing their homes and poor and eldery Americans can’t afford Health Care?
It may be but what do the Dems have? Happy Days are here again! Only 36,000 lost their jobs. Everyone of them dodinks in Washington need to go bye-bye.
Jimmy Stewart was the best..
[...] Putting Ronald Reagan On Our Fifty Dollar Bills : Black Bear Blog [...]
In my opinoin the only two presidents less deserving of this honor are George W. Bush and James Buchanan. It was Reagan’s economic policies that led to the deregulation of banks that in part caused the economic collapse of September 2008. It would be a cruel irony to have the man that is in part responsible for a bad economy on any form of our money. Secondly Reagan did not bring down the wall. The Soviet Union was going to fail within five years of when the wall was brought down which happened 2 years after Reagan gave his speech. The USSR had screwed it’s economy by fighting a war it couldn’t win in Afghanistan and not investing in it’s people (sound familiar?) Reagan was also responsible for getting us involved in a meaningless military conflict in Grenada, which is usually forgotten when he is mentioned. Many people also talk about how good life was in America during Reagan’s presidency, that may be correct if you were White during the 1980′s. Reagan did absolutely nothing to help anyone who was impoverished especially minorities. For some reason people have a very twisted view of Reagan as if he was the greatest President of all time, he was not, not by a longshot and history has proven that. I’m sure some of
In my opinoin the only two presidents less deserving of this honor are George W. Bush and James Buchanan. It was Reagan’s economic policies that led to the deregulation of banks that in part caused the economic collapse of September 2008. It would be a cruel irony to have the man that is in part responsible for a bad economy on any form of our money. Secondly Reagan did not bring down the wall. The Soviet Union was going to fail within five years of when the wall was brought down which happened 2 years after Reagan gave his speech. The USSR had screwed it’s economy by fighting a war it couldn’t win in Afghanistan and not investing in it’s people (sound familiar?) Reagan was also responsible for getting us involved in a meaningless military conflict in Grenada, which is usually forgotten when he is mentioned. Many people also talk about how good life was in America during Reagan’s presidency, that may be correct if you were White during the 1980′s. Reagan did absolutely nothing to help anyone who was impoverished especially minorities. For some reason people have a very twisted view of Reagan as if he was the greatest President of all time, he was not, not by a longshot and history has proven that. I’m sure some of you reading this will also talk about his landslide victory over Walter Mondale and his defeat of Jimmy Carter. These are both very simple to explain, Carter was a lame duck president and Mondale was a horrible campaigner. Does that mean Reagan was better? No it doesn’t, it just means he was a much better campaigner. I can think of only one President who truly deserves this honor that has not been featured on any of our country’s money-Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton the compromiser. didn’t he get a blow-job in the oval office? Or, am I mistaken? Didn’t he give away nukes to korea or something like that? He also was mentored by Jesuit Priest and Communist Richard McSorely over Georgetown way. One of the first things i read about little slick willie was he and the mrs. were familiar with the black panthers. Could that been have true? He’s in the elitest clubs of washington deceit, as we speak; that’s true.
Chad, if you’re black, I can understand your concern for “minorities”. But Bill Clinton did nothing for the blacks, or minorities, compared to Kennedy. Even ML King was nothing but a figurehead compared to him…But you”re way off in not knowing how Reagan brought about the downfall of not only the Berlin wall, but the stronghold of the USSR as well….maybe you should read more history than some “minority” interpretations…
I’m old enough to have been around when it was happening, and watched it firsthand…..so you want to tell me what I saw?
No I’m not a minority, and yes Clinton did do a lot, he reformed welfare and helped promote programs to help minorities. The point is that before we put Reagan on any money we should put someone a little bit better on our money. I understand that you think you saw that as the majority of the country did. The fact is that as time went by we learned more about what really happend and REagan really had very little influence on the Soviet Union.
Clinton was in the White House when welfare got reformed. He fought it tooth and nail until he finally have in. And now he gets credit for it?
You mean you learned what you were taught…I learned what I lived. And suffice to say, you are entitled to you “opinion”, as worthless as it is, for the age old opinions of mass “welfare” are socialist opinions worth nothing but more linage in the communist manifesto. Try preaching on the liberal agendas, they will listen and nod their heads like dashboard doggies….
I don’t buy your opinion, I lived here, I was part of that history. Where were you? In your mother’s womb?
If your “ideals” are socialist, where does that leave your opinion? Sniveling on the same swing as all the other socialists……
Hell, those insurance script notes don’t hardly buy nothing no more so who cares? Put em both on it.. Or put Bill with Obama on the food stamps..Because once they totally break the Middle Class of America then no one will be around to feed the poor folk because every body is gonna be poor..
The New Clinton Chronicles
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8438833120507357139#