Would you like to see President Reagan on the $50 bill?

A Republican congressman has proposed putting Ronald Reagan’s face on the $50 bill, replacing the image of Ulysses S. Grant. Today’s Question: Would you like to see President Reagan on the $50 bill?

  • Rob

    Absolutely not. Doing so at this point of political polarization with Reagan’s legacy still not fully decided by history would be a bad idea. Plus one of my best friends is a distant descendent of U.S. Grant.

  • Ron

    Would consider it ONLY if Franklin Delano Roosevelt replaces Lincoln on the five dollar bill.

    But seriously, no. Nothing to honor with Reagan or his policies. Let’s just put those years behind us and try to move forward.

  • ginny

    no.

  • Deb

    A resounding NO.

    President Reagan, in my book, is one of the worst Presidents that this country has had. His policies and politics harmed this country. Many of his actions still have negative ramifications today.

  • Don

    No on the $50, but Yes to a $200 bill. This is because the $200 bill is now worth what the $50 bill was when he was in power.

    Make sure to have his big grin, and a wink in the portait.

  • Paul Roark

    I can’t imagine a worse choice for honoring someone this way. Reagan was one of the most divisive president we have ever had. I would rather see Bonzo the chimp on the $50 bill.

  • Zach

    Given that Money is the one true love of Conservatives, it’s not a surprise that they would would want to see their patron saint on a high denomination bill. But we traditionally reserve such honors for the best of our leaders, and Rockin’ Ronnie clearly does not fall into that category. Pick your reason – massive deregulation that lead directly to the financial disaster we’re dealing with today, selling weapons to terrorists to raise money to pay for the release of U.S. hostages, doubling the national debt – any of these is enough to put him in the running for Worst President Ever.

    This is nothing more than a sad, clumsy attempt to makeover his embarrassing legacy in order for Conservatives to perpetuate his failed ideas and policies.

  • Mary

    Absolutely NOT! He’s the genius who got us into much of this partisan mess say nothing about letting the foxes into the chicken coop, i.e. Wall Street and mega corporations controlling the treasury and most of government. No way!

  • John in Saint Paul

    No. He was an awful president.

  • Gary F

    How about the Secular Savior, Barack Obama! He got a Peace Prize for doing nothing! Because of BHO, our kids will be shoving $50 bills in gumball machines!

  • Steven

    No — Ronald Reagan was absolutely one of the worst presidents in the history of a nation that has had many terrible presidents — even a moral defective like Nixon starts to look better when compared to the likes of Jackson, Tyler, Buchanan, Harding and the younger Bush.

    I wouldn’t mind though if they put Reagan on a $50 food stamp, complete with vapid, gloating grin.

  • Steven

    First of all, I think we need to replace Ulysses S. Grant on the $50. He was a great general and hero of the Civil War, but his presidency was marked by corruption. Historians are agreed that he was definitely NOT one of our better presidents. I have mixed feelings about Reagan and his legacy. I’m glad he won the Cold War and rolled back excessive regulation in the early 80s, but deregulation was taken way too far in the years since. In all he was indesputably less bad than Grant. The question then is whether we should replace Grant’s portrait with Reagan’s or someone else’s.

  • Rosemary Schwedes

    Leave Grant on the $50 bill.

    ~ Ulysses Grant was a great general and a fine president. As a general, he drank too much because he missed his wife and because he didn’t like the slaughter caused by the sesech any more than anybody else. As president, he sent troops into the south to protect blacks, the last time such an effort was made until the Eisenhower administration.

    ~ He wrote a gracious and generous memoir while he was dying of cancer. After his death, his wife received the largest advance on a book in the history of the country up to that time.

    ~ And he loved horses. There’s a story about his seeing a cavalry soldier abusing his horse with a whip. Grant grabbed the whip from the soldier and told him that if he ever caught the soldier doing that again, he would have him court martialed. A great man, for sure.

    ~ Reagan sold out our country and its values with Iran-Contra. He should have been impeached. He gave us the financial deregulation that brought us to the mess we’re in today.

  • Deborah

    Absolutely NOT! Because of Reagan we turned from a supplier nation to a consumer nation. Started replacing high paying jobs for service jobs with off-shoring, and the Republicans that followed continued with the same policies which are most beneficial to big business versus the US. Worst possible choice ever!

  • JBlilie

    Absolutely not. Put his face on the bail-out checks to AIG and Goldman Sachs! This Reagan hagiography is disgusting neo-con boot licking.

    Reagan was the president that set out to break the unions and reserve wealth for the weatlhy. And he was very effective at it.

    Everyone needs to carefully study the US Census statistics for income by quintile for households in the US. Plot these data (current dollars) and see how the lower 80% of the US population has done since Reagan! Especially in comparison to the top 5%!

    From the 1950s until the early 1980s, everyone shared in the economy’s growth. Before Reagan, CEOs made something like 40X what the lowest-paid worker in their company made. Now it’s more like 400X. Are the CEOs 10X more productive than they were in 1980? Not. The workers are many times more productive than they were in 1980; but do they share in that production? No.

    Since Reagan, all the growth of the economy has gone to the top 20% of the US and the vast majority of that has gone to the top 5%. Real income of everyone else has been flat since Reagan.

    The real question is: Why do people keep voting against their own economic, healthcare, and other interests? Maybe it’s going to take a train wreck in heathcare set set off the next revolution. We’re well along the way to that wreck.

  • Sarah

    NO! Are we honoring him for deregulation that allowed corporations to run rampant & off-shore jobs? Are we honoring him for increasing the national debt? Are we honoring him for arming the Taliban? Until this nation has paid for all his mistakes, don’t put him on a bill!

  • Greta

    No! If anywhere, Reagan’s picture should be on a new $500 or $1000 bill and that way they can be left to “trickle down”!

  • Luke Van Santen

    Goodness gracious, NO!!!

  • Greg

    No. President Reagan did not respect the rule of law (Iran-Contra), was fiscally irresponsible (raised national debt), and was insensitive to the needs of the majority of working Americans. His image would be a terrible symbol for the future of the United States.

  • Mary

    Good Grief why would we want to do that? Not only is it inappropriate but would cost millions if not billions to make a totally unnecessary change.

    I vote NO

  • Robert

    NO. He started the destruction of the middle class in America, which is, of course the prosperity engine. Perhaps he wanted us to be more like Mexico – with 5% very wealthy and 95% dirt poor. Perhaps to remind him of Death Valley Days.

    He didn’t just live in the past, but he lived in the scripts he acted out.

  • bsimon

    No.

  • Dale

    No,

    He should be on a $6.00 bill, and the words “In God we Trust” should be replaced with “As president, I was silent for 6 years while tens of thousands of Americans died of AIDS.”

  • barbara geiser

    Absolutely not. Reagan’s philosophy and policies harmed our country and fostered the destructive partisanship we have today. He should not be honored on our currency, at Mount Rushmore or in any other way.

  • Ron

    Perhaps better to put his image on a credit card, since during his years the U.S. government grew substantially and the national debt increased dramatically, setting the stage for continued (and much larger) national debt increased under Bush I and Bush II (note that the national debt decreased dramatically between the Bushes).

    And, with policies put into place in regards to the economy, deregulation, military, health and science, banking and more directly led to the huge consumer debt in this country.

    We are all still paying for Reagan and our children will as well.

  • James

    YES

  • steve kemp

    Absolutly not, Reagan’s policies continue to harm this county as well as the rest of the world.

  • Paul Martin

    Absolutely not. Reagan’s presidency and ideology started the movement that got us into the economic mess we are in, as well as fostering an irrational distrust of government, a distrust that allowed the congress to blast a $1.8 trillion hole in the budget through the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, while worthwhile governmental endeavors such as health insurance reform now come under laser-sharp scrutiny to ensure that not one penny is added to the deficit–the same deficit that is at its current level thanks in part to Reagan’s unprecedented deficits in the 80″s.

  • Beth

    Why waste the resources on frivilous waste of money, time, talent, and trees on imagery? We have more important legislative needs to accomplish than reprinting more money! I want legislators to spend all their time finding CONSENSUS and working on pressing CURRENT issues. This sounds like a reelection gimick to divide the already divided populous.

  • Peter

    Is this a serious proposal? In a country that is currently so politically divided, would be wise to put such a divisive figure on our currency? I don’t think so.

  • Adam Hominem

    I’d much rather see his face on the three dollar bill. It would be far more appropriate, considering what a huckster and peddler of lies he was.

  • Zhac

    Pardon me but, HELL NO.

  • Pete Schneider

    Swapping Grant with Reagan would be the equivalent of swapping Shemp with Curley Joe in reforming the Three Stooges…Two bumbling and corrupt presidents that did nothing but run our country into the ground!

  • Scott

    NO

    This is a political issue, not one based on a generally accepted historical viewpoint.

  • Ninjarita

    I understand that Reagan served his terms as president, but the general economic situation of that period would best be represented by a silver dollar. There was just too much polarization in the spread of rich & poor, it was the most difficult time for my parents. I really don’t want to be reminded of that time.

  • Paul Grengs

    Absolutely not! Reagan started us on the path that led to the mess we’re in today. Concentration of wealth to the few, reduced wealth to the lower and middle classes.

  • John Sanborn

    Good lord no!! The right wing revisionists are working hard to cast Reagan as a President on par with Washington and Lincoln for the future history books. While there may be some things to his credit, he is largely responsible for escalating the decline of the Republican party into the disaster that it’s become.

  • Guy

    No. Grant was a great general who brought to end a bloody civil war. Ronald Reagan and Grant’s presidencies were both plagued by errors of judgement. Neither were great president.

  • Joe

    I would say no.He started the demise of unions who helped establish the standards of working conditions and decent wages. Started the shrinking of the middle class. Widely given credit for the ending of the cold war while I think that is definately debatable. I can’t think of any real accomplishment of his worthy of being placed on a bill.

  • Cathie

    No,

    It is bad enough that we now have to call National Airport, “Reagan National” . (I call it DCA)

    We have all this crumbling infrastructure, and deregulated mayhem to remember him by.

  • Ryan

    Sure.

    To all the haters:

    -end of the cold war largely due to his work

    -decreased inflation during his term, versus a truly bad President’s term- Carter

    -low unemployment: rate in 1989 at the end of his presidency about 5%

    -approval rating in the 60% range at the end of his second term

    If our current president could lay claim to anything close to these stats at the end of his 4 or 8 years, he may be deserving of that Peace Prize.

  • Scott

    It doesn’t sound like a good idea for a party that would like be seen as representing everyday Americans to put Reagan on a $50 bill. If Republicans would like to appeal to average “Joes” they should consider putting Reagan on a smaller denomination. Put him on the quarter. Everyone has at least one of those.

  • Todd

    I would support this move wholeheartedly on one simple condition. Each Congress person would then get one of these Reaganized $50 bills as the entirety of their re-election budget. Maybe forcing them to photocopy their own election fliers down at Kinko’s would help them GET BACK IN TOUCH WITH REALITY!

  • Mary Alice

    No way. Washington DC’s airport bears his name — and that’s more than enough.

  • Grant

    The $50 dollar bill has long been my favorite denomination. $20 bills are overused, dog-eared and less and less useful.

    If they succeed in putting “the great communicator” (amazing) on the bill, I will make every effort to never use them again — to avoid seeing his image.

    Please, people, fight any effort to honor one of the top five most disastrous administrations in our country’s history.

    That goes for Mount Rushmore, as well.

  • Tammy

    Absolutely NOT!

  • Sue

    For me, Reagan represents much of what disillusions and disappoints me about our nation. [For examples, read some of these posts.] I don’t often see $50 bills, but I would find it demoralizing to be reminded any more than I already am of those things. Grant was not the best choice, but there is no good reason to change now. But isn’t it interesting that a Republican doesn’t view paying homage to Reagan in this manner as a ill-timed misuse of our tax dollars?

  • Mitch

    Couldn’t we just put him on the Wheaties box in stead?

  • Gordy Hoke

    Reagan presided over the most devastating inflation of my lifetime, so it would be fitting to put his picture on a $1,000 bill.

  • WinonaKath

    Absolutely not. Many of Reagan’s policies were disasters, and we’re still feeling the effects of many of them. Our currency is part of our history – I actually don’t see the point in replacing any of the current presidents pictured on coins or paper currency with more recent politicians.

  • Dave

    For those who remember those years ….NO !!! If you,ve already forgotten the lawlessness ….why not ?

  • P. Nielsen

    Absolutely not. The problems we are facing now began under that administration, and no way should a former actor be featured on our paper money. Maybe Monopoly bills, but not the real ones.

  • Julie

    OMFG ~ seriously? I thought Reagan was the worst possible president ever in my lifetime . . . until GWB.

  • Sandra Weston

    It was a disgrace to this country that the man was ever elected President. It was a slap in the face of airport traffic controllers to name an airport after him. The only reasonable connection of Reagan to money is the way he ran up our national debt, not really a good reason to put his face on a piece of currency.

  • Paul

    No, no, no. Responding to Cathy’s remark about “Reagan National Airport”, I agree. How ironic that the facility now bearing his name was built under the PWA (precursor of the WPA), an FDR “big government” stimulus program. Talk about papering over history!

  • Steve in Saint Paul

    No, no, no!

    His economic policies were a disaster, which makes his appearance on US currency a strange sort of joke.

    His defiance of Congressional mandates on funding right wing groups was a serious challenge to the Constitution.

    I would accept a new $50 bill with Reagan on it if the art showed him sleeping through a cabinet meeting.

  • Phyllis

    Absolutely not….I cannot imagine anyone actually suggesting this. OK, why not Chester Arthur or Howard Taft?

  • Scott

    Is this the same guy who recommended Bush for the Nobel Peace prize? I think I would rather see “Bonzo”.

  • Tom

    Are you kidding?

    I voted for him, but I don’t want to see him on my money.

    There’s got to be a Monopoly game out there he can haunt!

  • Kevin

    Most definitely not. U.S Grant is a significant figure in our history and I think that it is important to maintain his place on our currency for those contributions during a difficult time in our nation’s history.

  • Stephen Parker

    Having just suffered the fruits of Reaganomics to put his name on the $50 bill would be a really bad joke. At least Grant built a railroad.

  • Kurt

    Lincoln and Grant kept the Union from breaking. Reagan broke the unions. Not the same thing! Reagan’s administration was the most corrupt since Harding. If it wasn’t for the most recent Bush Regime,Reagan’s would have been the most corrupt of all time!

  • Karen

    Absolutely not! Reagan was one of the worst presidents in modern day history.

  • bob h

    Specifically, I’m opposed to having Mr. “Government is the Problem” featured on our currency.

    In general, I’m tired of having our money’s visual identity based on dead white guys. Let’s do a money makeover that utilizes more inclusive images — and we could spiff up the colors while we’re at it.

  • larry ronning

    No way….

  • Jerry

    No. He unilaterally cut funds to states, driving up state taxes.

  • Vicki Brady

    I would have to say no. I do not remember President Reagan with fondness though I must admit he did accomplish some positive things. However I believe his pandering to the far right, focus on “rugged individualism”, love of deregulation and focus on ending the Cold War above all other issues, ie education, infrastructure, social justice, have lead to many of the issues we have today. For the moment having the Reagan National Airport is acknowlegement enough. Only time will tell the actual impact of his legacy so leave President Grant where he is.

  • Carol

    Absolutely not!

    I’m heartened to see so many educated responses!

  • Judy Screaton

    Definitely NOT!

    Ronald Reagan initiated many of the anti-government policies which continue to haunt us today! He was vehemently anti-union, supported tax cuts for the rich, and supported bad economic policies.

    It is time to de-Reaganize our lives. He doesn’t deserve the honors that his devotees have heaped upon him!

  • Paul

    No. Don’t have a problem with replacing Grant tho.

  • David

    How many ways can NO be said. The guy gave America the largest tax increase (except for the very weathy) with the Tax act of 1986. Put his picture on every 1040 tax form to remind every one how he did a “gotcha” on America.

  • Jan M. Sebby

    No. If Reagonomics were to be appropriately recognized on our nation’s currency, President Reagan’s face would decorate the three dollar bill!

  • Andrew Singer

    No. Unlike Grant, Reagan avoided military service so he could make (terrible) movies and propaganda films. He spied on and turned in fellow actors to the House Unamerican Activities Committee during the McCarthy era, advertised cigarettes and right wing propaganda, nausea-gassed and beat protesters at UC Berkeley in the 1960s and was responsible for the Contra war in Nicaragua to which he illegally funneled hundreds of millions of dollars and helped to kill over 15,000 civilians including American citizen Ben Linder. He supported brutal dictatorships in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras who killed thousands of their own citizens including priests and nuns, some of them Americans. He traded arms for hostages with Iran and later used arms sales to Iran to fund his Contra war in Nicaragua, illegally, in contravention of Congress’s Boland Amendment. During the Contra war, huge amounts of cocaine was allowed to come back into the US on aircraft that supplied arms to the Contras, which helped give rise to the 1990s crack cocaine epidemic in the US. He stole Jimmy Carter’s debate notes and painted Carter, who had at least a decade of military service, as a “wimp.” And his administration racked up the largest deficits of any administration until George W Bush. Reagan is not the worst president in history but he doesn’t deserve to be on US currency.

  • Tolly

    No way! You don’t honor a man who said “government is the problem, not the solution to problems” and practiced bigger government! Reagan should be remembered as the President who practiced “trickle-down economics” that split the people to a few filthy rich and lots of dirt poor people. He practiced rugged individualism for those who can and destitution for those who struggle in this world. He introduced nothing that helped the middle class. And he busted the budget time and again. I don’t want to see his face anywhere, let alone the currency of this countr. Absolutely NOT!

  • Maggie Nelson

    Absolutely not!! That would be a slap in the face to all union workers.

  • Joe

    No Way.

  • Amy

    I just love all our politicians who tout government as the problem. Why not honor display their hypocrisy by placing them on a bill? Michelle Bachmann would love it!

  • http://riverside Robert

    The numbskull who ushered in “dumb is good” in public service?? Master Dan Quayle and George W following. He said he fought in WW2, but only played soldier in movies. He said trees cause poliution. Hired Greenspan!! Changed public college education across the country from minor costs to the student to huge debts, upon graduation. He has ruined much of our country. Hell no! Tell people whose house is next to burn down that Government (firefighters) is the problem, not the solution.

  • Desdamona Racheli

    Sure! A great new place for graffiti!

  • Eric

    It’s an absurd notion. Reagan was and remains a critically important figure in American, indeed world, politics and social / economic policy. This is true regardless of how one feels about his legacy. Nonetheless, the presence of the specific faces currently on our bills is a part of American tradition. At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, this tradition is sacred. In addition, if somehow this idea gains traction it will cause even more rancor between conservatives and liberals. If it somehow idiotically came to pass, then $50 bills should also be produced with the Dem’s favorite poster child, whoever that might be. You see the dumb path this all goes down.

  • denny

    NO. We need at least 50 years to get perspective on what kind of a president he was. To act how would just be a political reaction to some politican trying to make a name for themselve. Grant should not be replaced.

  • Peg

    No Way! Why would we want to honor a person in this way, when as others have already stated, he raised the debt level and by threefold! while in office and borrowed money to give a tax break to the wealthy? Does this sound like the GWB years or what? Maybe the two of them could be on some play money somewhere, but don’t destroy part of our history by removing Grant. This just seems like some “tea party” move as they strive to get back to more reagonomic style govenment. Again, No Way!

  • Jud

    No way. Thanks to Reagan we now have no manufacturing plants to speak of. The rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes, so on and so on.

  • Gwen Myers

    No – a terrible idea! He was among the first to tell us we could have it all and we didn’t need to pay for it. People believed him, as he tripled the nat’l debt – just like they believe Pawlenty, while our schools decline, our roads deteriorate and our most vulnerable take most of the hits in his smoke and mirrors budget-balencing exercises.

  • Joe

    There is a reason that it is U.S. Grant’s statue that stands as a silent sentinel in front of the U.S. Capitol. If if had not been for Grant, that Capitol might be standing in a different country, the Confederate States of America. Whether you loved or hated Ronald Reagan, it is a disservice to American history to diminish the importance of Grant’s contributions to the survival of our nation.

  • Neil

    I would say no.

    By the looks of most of the previous posts he is still a divisive figure and too much in the memory of people who experienced his policies, for good or bad. I agree with comments that suggest it should be a person who can be analyzed historically rather than judged for personal reasons.

    But if the goal is to find a middle ground, a more historic figure yet still memorable to some, I would nominate Harry Truman. He came to prominence for his fiscal heroics in exposing fraud and waste in government spending. Honoring his efforts in this manner seems appropriate.

    And I also have no problem envisioning him on a currency note, the thought of using Regan seems a little whimsical.

  • Tom

    Of course “No.” Not only is this an absurd notion, it flies negatively in the face of our history and the values that Ronald Reagan held dear. The is a strange anti-Republican and yet pro-republican proposal. I trust that people of logic, historical analysis and ethical values will ignore this idea and see it solely as a poor use of our congressional time.

  • Tom

    Yes, because: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

    He had fortitude…. unlike current leaders.

  • David James

    It would be more appropriate to put Ronald Reagan’s face onTreasury bills in recognition of the contribution his policies have made to the National Deficit.

  • Nancy Jo

    Not now. Such things should be done after those who lived through his presidency have passed. To do it now would be seen as politics.

    If his policies stand the test of time, consider him in 50 years.

  • Shannon

    No. Reagon made our debt and unemployment soar. Because of him HIV/AIDs was not addressed sooner and many more people died. He took us into stupid wars and Iran Contra. He fired all the air traffic controllers. Isn’t it already ironic enough to have an airport named after him? Please no.

  • Pete

    No. Grant should stand.

  • doug

    NO. Reagan is partly responsible for the paranoia against reasonable taxation and lack of support for us to jointly make government work.

    Grant was very important to keep our country together.

  • Jill

    No thanks. Our kids need to be taught the truth in schools, including Iran-contra and all the other scandals that plagued his presidency, as well as the fact that he was the first of our several presidents to be primarily a figurehead leader, whose policies and decisions were controlled by others behind the scenes who were never voted into office. Reagan’s puppet presidency was due to the rapid progression of his Alzheimer’s disease and a distaste for being involved in the full spectrum of policies that the executive branch has to command, while GWBush’s administration…well…we know that Dick and Donald were really in charge. Would our kids really believe we need to honor Reagan for his misdeeds?

  • Catherine

    NO, The man responible for the mess in CA, and then the entire country. The rich got richer, that’s for sure, wih all that deregulation. He said -government get out of the way- well just look how greed took over.

    We the people are the government. The government is not the enemy but he sure talked like it was. He was the worst!

  • Randee

    Positively NO. Grant is a hero of the Civil War, and if it were not for him, there may have been a different outcome. He is an American symbol of the fight against slavery.

  • Linda

    No, republicans also wanted him on Mt Rushmore. I do not see what sets Mr. Reagan above many other presidents. I think he seemed to be quite average.

  • Theresa

    ABSOLUTELY NOT! This man kicked the mentally ill out of hospitals, and with nowhere else to go, they lived on the streets. What kind of “man” could do this? He was heartless.

  • Liz

    No way, why would you put the man who caused one of the biggest deficits while president on any bill? I don’t get the idolizing of this pres. My impression is that he did more harm than good and took credit for events in history that would have happened even without him–’Tear down this Wall’–the USSR was finished before he showed up!

  • http://www.idealpolicy.com Rose

    ABSOLUTELY NOT!

    Regan was a popular president but in my opinion, his leadership style was based on building or sustaining his personal image. His was opportunistic from a personal point of view, not to benefit the country or his constituents as a whole.

    I’m not sure what the criteria should be to have an image on US currency and probably past figures would not pass that critical test; however current (meaning within the last 70 years) presidents and dignitaries clearly have be governed by lobbyists and not by the strategic long term well being of the country. Obama take note.

  • http://tspain53.gather.com/ Thomas

    Oooh, I second the suggestion by Don at 7:06 AM.

  • Chad

    At least it would be a funny joke. We couldn’t find a more qualified guy for the spot?

    N.O.

  • dan

    Why should Grant be replaced? Has he not been a good steward of the fifty?

    For those who are in favor of placing Reagan’s portrait on a banknote, why not introduce a $200 bill? That way no one needs to get bumped from their current post. And after all, under Regean’s spending policies, we began to significantly devalue our currency and today, a $200 banknote today would have the same buying power as the $50 bill had a generation ago.

    Just a thought….

  • Sue de Nim

    No. FDR deserves that honor.

  • Philip

    Yes – Ronald Regan was a true President. He was instrumental in bringing about the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and he was a true leader.

    To those remarking on how great a president U.S. Grant was, please remember he did not do so well as a president. A great general, yes, but not a politician.

  • Doug

    No, maybe on a new 3 dollar bill.

    That’s what a fifty was worth after he was done.

    Let’s look at the record>

    Fired all the air traffic controllers

    Killed the New Deal measures

    The cut and run policy in Lebanon.

    Increased the homeless population by turning out mentally ill.

    Sleeping during cabinet meets.

    This is leadership?

  • Chris

    hell no

  • Will Thomas

    No way. In addition to Reagan’s many other failings, which other posts have listed quite well, he had a terrible environmental record. The full picture is of a man with a few broad ideas, who set about implementing them mindless of the very real damage he was causing.

  • Donald Davison

    Of course not. How absurd!

  • Hal Dragseth

    Reagan was a better actor than president and his acting wasn’t great.

  • Rebecca

    NO!

  • Darla

    O M G ! Ofcourse not. He was hard enough to take for 8 years!

  • Michelle

    Absolutey Not!!! He was a terrible 8 year president and I’d like to have an opportunity to forget him! Wouldn’t this change cost money? Money worth saving. Grant is fine, leave well enough alone.

    Thank you.

  • Barbara S.

    NO!

  • Karen McCauley

    No.

  • Bob

    Reagan on the fifty? No way. He caused a recession that had life-long effects on people that were in school or graduating during his presidency. I don’t think that my life has ever recovered from that fool. It costs dearly when someone gets out of school to no job, similar to the GWB situation that we are in now. Stay in school if you can. No hiring out here on the horizon. Don’t want your life ruined by the current recession.

  • Doug

    NOT REAGAN. If we were to update the $50 I would suggest Eisenhower–great general and decent president. T Roosevelt, again a military man and decent president as well as intellectual. James Madison, primary contributor to the Constitution. Reagan wasn’t a good enough president and didn’t do much else.

  • Eric

    Oh, please, no!

  • Mary

    Well the trickle down finally worked. Unfortunately what trickled down wasn’t pleasent. We now live on 1/2 of what we lived on last year with no health care to speak of. So honoring the one who started this mess by putting him on any currancy is just plain dumb. So NO!

  • Khatti

    I’m mildy opposed to this idea. More importantly, I wonder why this congressman thought this was a great idea?

    It is not much of a secret that half the country thought Reagan was the messiah and the other half thought he was the anti-christ. Any politician who isn’t aware of this is either remarkably tone-deaf, or is deliberately creating animosity–possibly because there is so little of it right now.

    If this congressman wants to see dissention and animosity, perhaps he should work on tools to bring animosity to a very public conclusion, rather than creating reasons for it. Rather than propose a bill to put Ronald Reagan on the fifty dollar bill, perhaps he should propose a bill to re-legalize dueling. That way this particular congressman would have the satisfaction of watching political disputes reach a permenent conclusion–for the parties involved.

  • Nance Lee

    Nope, for all the reasons stated so eloquently above. Though to be honest it has been so long since I’ve seen a $50 bill, ET’s face could be on it for all I know!

  • Lee Peterson

    NO! Put his face on an IOU, that would be appropriate.

  • Bernice

    Overwhelmingly against the change. Thanks, everyone, especially Andrew Singer (12:27pm), who discussed Reagan’s sorry record of misdeeds in Latin America.

    I would add only that those of us now watching the drug-running violence in Mexico’s border towns should remember that the drug trade was started by Reagan’s illegal and immoral use of the CIA and the military to run drugs out of Colombia to make money to purchase weapons to give to Iran. Mexico has him to thank for what it is going through now. (But also the American gun runners who smuggle thousands of weapons into Mexico each year for the drug runners to use in their wars)

    Absolutely NO honors for this guy.

  • Jamie

    Absolutely not! He is second only to Dubya on the list of worst presidents. We suffer to this day because of his policies and actions.

    “Mr Gorbachev, take down this wall” was not what took down the wall. That wall was well on the way to being taken down by the time Reagan said that, and he didn’t have anything to do with it coming down.

  • stu klipper

    Absolutley not!

    The hagiography the Republican party has created arounf the Myth of Ronald Reagan is one of the greatest triumphs of American fiction.

    Not too surprising. He started out as an actor and never ceased being one. He sold the world a bill of goods and the party diehards bought it hook, line, and sinker and magnified and ‘augmented’ to a preposterous degree.

    He was the Wizard of Oz as President. Come to think of it, I’d rather see the Wizard on a $50 bill — he was ultimately more honest about whatall he was about, and in turn more honestly American.

  • Mary Ann Wark

    Absolutely no. It is bad enough flying into Reagan Airport!

  • EAL

    I find most comments tragic. Upon ascending to the Presidency, there was double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, the military in disarray and the U.S. laughable in international politics. For those who opposed President Reagan, please review the videos of Senator Kennedy and Senator Gore attacking President Reagan on his rigid policy on the former Soviet Union where the former President Gorbachoiv has stated, President Reagan’s position laid the foundation for the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block countries. By the way, besides being an actor, Reagan headed a union and was the Governor of the most populated state in the nation. Those who do not recognize his accomplishments are shallow in their perspectives.

  • John

    MPR, thanks for asking this question, but judging by the 128 mostly vitriolic and revisionistic responses, it seems to have functioned to rally only certain listeners. Too bad. Most of these comments expressed here are out of touch with the overwhelming contemporary admiration, affection, and historical interpretation of President Reagan. Are these voters unaware of the fact that he was remarkably deemed 10th greatest president by a poll of 60 of mostly left leaning top presidential scholars the last year?

    Reagan reset America’s vision and, as facts show, resulted in the most incredible resurgence of the American economy, stature, and confidence in recent history. His personal optimism and communication skills restored America’s esteem for our own democratic values and his determination to bring peace through strength and its result can hardly be denied.

    New scholarship–see Reagan’s Secret War (Andersons), the Rebellion of Ronald Reagan (Mann), Crusader (Kengor)–clearly demonstrates even through contrasting perspectives that he was not just the script-reading, dumb actor-leader we were so led to believe he was. But rather, Reagan was a completely purposeful, crtical thinking leader, very much in charge of his own course, remarkably still rooted in his Midwestern Dixon, Illinois values and Eureka College education.

    Oppressive aetheistic Communism is a failed system for many reasons. Its supression of religious and individual liberties was and is as wrong as it gets. Worst of all, its leaders placed so little value on human life that more than 100 million people died under its hand. Reagan stood up and made the case against this terrible system as well as any American or world leader in 20th Century history.

    Reagan reminded Americans we are a nation built on principles of freedom while affirming those universal ideals. I challenge anyone to listen to his speech at Moscow State University to the Soviet students in 1988 and see the greatness of his, and our own, American philosophy.

    No, Reagan does not need his face on the 50 to be great. And putting it there won’t change history. Only dishonest and ignorant revisionism can do that.

    But yes, I would like to see it there and in as many places as possible so long as it leads people to examine his principles.

  • Francisco Gaytan

    Absolutly NOT. He killed thousand of people in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala in his 8 horrible years of bad politics for Central America, we still are sufering from his extreme right views. NO THANKS. I prefer Cesar Chavez or Pancho Villa on it.

  • Gary Thaden

    No. Grant was a great President. He was the greatest general the north side had during the Civil War. Lincoln promoted him to be his top general. In addition, he was a strong advocate for African Americans and Native Americans. During his presidency, he pushed for passage of the 15th Amendment which gave African Americans the vote and for the Ku Klux Klan Act that allowed the arrest and prosecution of that hate-mongering group. He was a great president and we should not allow partisan politics to denigrate Grant and promote Reagan.

  • scott

    No

  • Ross

    Um, NO. If you think Reagan was a hero, you need to see Michael Moore’s “Capitalism: A Love Story,” and rethink a few things.

    Reagan was as much a puppet of Wall Street as W.Bush was, and didn’t fully understand the dastardly deeds he was doing. He was as buffaloed as the average voter was. This makes him human, but not a saint. Reagan did more to hurt his “fellow Americans,” than help.

    BTW The economic crisis in the late 70′s was artificially induced by Wall Street insiders in order to push for political change.

    If you don’t believe it can happen, look at the current Google vs. China challenge, and think again. I support Google leaving China until China gets a clue.

    I do not support Wall Street running America, as they continue to do.

  • Erica Johnson

    I would like to see Theodore Rosevelt on a bill first, but would have no problem with Reagan on a bill either.

  • Greg Burneske

    Yes. I would very much like to see this. It is well deserved. Reagan was a great president.

    John (the one who posted March 19, 2010 at 7:24 AM) captures it well.

    I am always surprised when MPR posts a question like this. They have to know their base will go nearly unanimously against this question. So, what’s the point?

  • sharleen

    100% NO

  • Stuart Knappmiller

    Are you kidding?

  • jr

    It would work just fine to put Reagan’s mug on a fifty dollar bill,with some stipulations.

    It would have to be a fake one, and it would have to be just for laughs. Otherwise,I would consider it phoney,even if it’s real currency.