Shouldn't the U.S. Mint replace Hamilton's face on the $10 bill with Ronald Reagan?

Question

Obviously, times have changed. The descision to place Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill was made in the context of: Ronald Reagan hadn't served as President yet.

Since then, Ronald Reagan has earned his place among the 3 greatest Presidents: Washington, Lincoln and now Reagan

Hamilton was cool and whatnot, but he was no Reagan.

Answer 1

I agree. Or maybe take Franklin off the $100, as he was never a Pres., and replace him with Regan

Answer 2

No, Hamilton shouldn't get replaced. He conventional the yank economic gadget and it is funds we are speaking approximately, so isn't it ideal to have the main necessary guy in American economic historic past on funds? additionally, it does no longer rely that Hamilton wasn't president or died youthful, those are stupid motives to characterize removing him. Hamilton grow to be extra important than lots of the presidents and asserting he died at 40 seven is like asserting Martin Luther King Jr wouldn't have a holiday because of the fact he died at age 39. the two adult males have been killed by way of a bullet. whilst Reagan may be deserving of an honor contained sooner or later, i do no longer think of Hamilton must be bumped off, nor everybody else this is at present on our paper forex.

Answer 3

No Hamilton is still a valid canidate for the $10 bill. We have hamilton to thank for early fiscal policies and a lot of good ideas like a Federal centralized bank has come from Hamilton as well as proposals for unified currency etc. Our currency is not about rewarding good president's but people of honor in American history such as Benjamin Franklin.

Answer 4

This answer is regarding your answer on my last question.

The cases I am talking about (over 50 plus God knows how many that you got away with) have had nothing to do with drug dealers or corruption. When a country doesn't dance to YOUR government's music, then you always have to be ******* into our business. One example is in 1954 when President Jacobo Albertz Guzman in Guatemala tried to nationalize the banana industry. Your government knew that this wasn't convenient for a lot of America's big companies so they intervened. The funny thing is that you idiots still want to call us "third world" countries and when we try to fix that you use military force to stop us. It is OUR industries, OUR countries, if you are not going to help, don't be nosy at all.

Answer 5

No. Hamilton wasn't a president but he was instrumental in the writing in the constitution. In that respect his contribution and achievements out weigh those of any single president. He helped lay the very foundation of the country. No offense but you haven't made a case for removing him.

Answer 6

No. Reagan was not that great a president, and if history disagrees with me, history can take its time rendering judgment as it did with Lincoln and Washington. We owe TR a place first and FDR too, on something larger than a dime. There's no hurry to put Reagan on anything ...

unless...

... there is a hurry if you are an ardent conservative who sees that movement conservatism's place in American politics is still a matter of debate and you want to use Reagan's redoubtable image to try to seal it in place. That's what this insistent garbage about putting Reagan on everything and having a Reagan monument in every county is about. You put someone on a monument or a bill partly to honor them but partly to claim that there is something about them that has become a common feature of American life, something that unifies us. I don't want that to happen to Reagan yet because some of his garbage is still being fought over. With Washington, it is part of our common political heritage that we won our independence from the British and created a constitutional republic. With Lincoln, it is part of our heritage that we have a union, we don't have slavery and a modest and common man can become president. We can argue about TR and FDR, but with Reagan?

I don't accept following as part of our common American heritage

1. that government is the problem not the solution
2. that Reagan ended all of world communism by standing tall when no one else had the guts, particularly Democrats
3. that deficits don't matter, that taxes are all bad, that the only determinant of economic results is the decline of taxes and regulation
4. that civil servants, environmentalists and union members should be mocked, derided and pushed to the sidelines of American public life.
5. that welfare recipients should simply be mocked
6. that the complex reality of the world is unimportant as long as the speech makes us feel tough.

On issue after issue, Reagan's so-called achievements turn out to be either illusory, concrete continuations of things other presidents did or psychological in nature. Psychology is important and all leaders rely on earlier accomplishments, but that doesn't make him great. Certainly he was no visionary. If you look at the great issues facing us today, the like of global warming, terrorism, health care costs and the like, he was either feckless or AWOL. He was tough on Communism ... same as everyone else for the previous 30 years. He claimed to be tough on government ... same as conservatives the New Deal, and he wasn't. 2nd biggest deficit spender ever. Other than bombing Qadafi, he brought nothing but confusion and stupidity to our Mid-East policy.

I'm sick of hearing about Reagan's happy economy from people who will never give Clinton credit for his. I'm sick of hearing about Reagan standing tall and lonesome against the Reds over Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles when he was sticking to strategy invented by Jimmy Carter and Denis Healey.

The truth is Democrats funded and fought the cold war just as much as Republicans, more so perhaps as they were in charge of the coffers for nearly the entire period. The main difference between the parties on the cold war is the Republicans' willingness to claim the Democrats were traitors. Reagan is the emblem of the central lie in that thesis, and until he becomes truly a matter of history and not a current bludgeon that the Coulters and Hannitys use to win votes, he doesn't belong on a banknote.

Answer 7

N O!!!!Put Ronald Reagan on the $100 dollar bill.

Answer 8

Despite admiirng Reagan I thnik we have honored Reagan in so many other ways. Alexander Hamilton was instrumental in creating our National currency and was the first Treasury secretary so it is fitting that he is honored on our currency.

Answer 9

We can have a picture of a bunch of illegals coming across the border on the back (of the bill) because of the reagan amnesty

Answer 10

Reagan was the 3rd worst president in the country. Preceeded by #1 worst, GWB and #2 Nixon. I don't believe in honoring the worst among us.