Should Reagan replace Grant on the $50 bill?
The Times' Richard Simon reports on an effort to place the likeness of Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill in place of Ulysses S. Grant's.
This is not the first attempt to fiscally honor the former president, who died in 2004.
Democrats objected to an earlier proposal to put Reagan on the dime in place of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. And Tennessee legislators didn't like a plan for Reagan to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.
You can find Simon's story here.
--Keith Thursby
Photo: President Reagan at the State of the Union address in 1982. Credit: Associated Press
No, Reagan should be on the $3 bill.
Posted by: julie | 03/02/2010 at 10:36 PM
I think it would be entirely appropriate for Reagan to replace Grant. Like Grant Reagan acchived the presidentcy due to his accomplishments in a field other than politics, like Grant Reagan was a genial soul who surrounded himself with a corrupt adminstration that ill served the citizenry.
Posted by: Jerry Kunkle | 03/03/2010 at 12:33 AM
This is totally absurd. Have we forgotten the Arms for Hostages fiasco? And during his tenure, the AIDS epidemic spread wildly and thousands of people died, because this man refused to deal with it. And, if I'm not mistaken, before Reagan, we never, ever had the homeless problem we have now, not that the homeless are a problem, letting people out of institutions with nowhere to go and no supervision, for what? To save money? Not to mention "trickle down economics" --- Having that face on any bank note of treasury is a travesty, and a spit in the face of America.
Posted by: Shelly Lieff | 03/03/2010 at 02:32 AM
HELL NO!! President Grant's pic is just fine! To replace him with reagan(small case intended) is idiotic!!!! Remember the Savings & Loan reagan debacle? The great communicator was the great idiot!! He wasn't even an average actor. Wait he was, in political office!
Posted by: Sam Fuentes | 03/03/2010 at 03:51 AM
Why don't we create a new currency bill for Reagan? Say a trillion dollar bill. Might come in handy in these times of extreme deficits. It can be made of the finest paper and perhaps a halo of gold around Reagan's head since certain people want to deify him.
Posted by: RWh | 03/03/2010 at 06:57 AM
No! Currency is about the only history lesson these damn kids can understand these days. And keep 'em off my lawn!
Posted by: Grandpa | 03/03/2010 at 07:14 AM
The only appropriate piece of paper for that man's face would be something that denotes huge massive debt handed down to your grandchildren.
Posted by: Sandy | 03/03/2010 at 09:48 AM
NO! 'Nuff said.
Posted by: REA | 03/03/2010 at 10:37 AM
NO!! Although I believe Ronald Reagan was a great president, U.S. Grant was put on the $50 because without his contributions, this union may very well not have survived. He is honored NOT because of his presidency which was lackluster at best but because of his service during the Civil War. Is George Washington on the $1 because of his presidency or because of his contributions as a General?
Posted by: CTPatriot | 03/03/2010 at 10:41 AM
Absolutely NOT!!!
Posted by: mc | 03/03/2010 at 12:03 PM
Sure....as long as it's Ronald Reagan JUNIOR!
Posted by: Marge H | 03/04/2010 at 08:46 AM
NO!
Posted by: asianb | 03/04/2010 at 07:02 PM
Why? Whose absurd idea was this? Talk about the cost to even change the plates for the bills, RR isn't even worth that. Isn't the idea to save money and not waste it? Hey Washington, Can you hear me? Trickle down what?
Posted by: D Chudacoff | 03/05/2010 at 10:14 AM