Skip to comments.Proposal would put Ronald Reagan's face on the $50 bill
Posted on 03/03/2010 7:17:30 AM PST by Palter
Rep. Patrick McHenry's bill to replace Ulysses S. Grant's image with the 40th president's generates controversy.
Ronald Reagan is honored by, among other things, an airport, a freeway, an aircraft carrier and -- ironically for a critic of big government -- one of the biggest federal buildings in Washington.
Now, some of the late president's admirers are launching a new effort to add another honor: printing his likeness on a $50 bill in place of Ulysses S. Grant's.
In polls of presidential scholars, Reagan consistently outranks Grant, said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), who introduced legislation to make the change.
But at least one Democrat who serves on the House Financial Services Committee, where the proposal has been sent, isn't ready to jettison Grant for "someone whose policies are still controversial."
"Our currency ought to be something that unites us," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks).
Grant admirers, who credit him for leading the Union Army to victory during the Civil War, were none too pleased either.
"I'm very upset," said Keya Morgan, a New York-based Grant scholar who has a Web page on the 18th president. "I have all the respect in the world for Reagan, but what he accomplished is not anywhere as important as what Ulysses S. Grant accomplished."
An earlier proposal to put Reagan on the dime in place of President Franklin D. Roosevelt drew objections from Democrats, for whom Roosevelt is as much of a hero as Reagan is for Republicans. An effort to put Reagan on the $20 bill in place of Andrew Jackson drew opposition from Tennessee lawmakers.
A 2005 move to put Reagan on the $50 bill never made it out of the House Financial Services Committee, even though Republicans controlled the chamber at the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
“Our currency ought to be something that unites us,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks).”
Nothing says unity like Grant...
Heck, I’d vote to add him to Mt. Rushmore, but this is probably more likely.
And it’s about time!
Watch the libs make it illegal to hold anything larger than a $20.00.
Hint: $1,000 bills used to be common...
I have the perfect solution. Create a $75.00 bill. Everybody’s happy! Good Bye!
The Libs are going nuts about this, and it reveals WHY they hate Reagan and Republicans so much.
His stance on gays and Aids.
I really wish the average Democrat Voter would LISTEN to what the people they support actually say.
Might as well put Obama’s picture on it. After inflation and devaluation of the dollar as a result of his profligate spending and the Fed’s printing money, a fifty will be worth about a penny...
“His stance on gays and Aids.”
Hey...how about a $3 bill with Barney Frank?
The Left insists that Reagan is responsible all of the deaths from AIDS. That he didn’t do enough (spending).
Decades later there still is no cure.
And the gay bathhouses are still open and the homosexual community still shuns using condoms or engaging in sex only in monogamous relationships.
They can put Obama on the $3.00 bill.
Nah, how about a $1000 bill to reflect inflation?
Controversial only to marxists, and other assorted anti-Americans. Ronald Reagan spent the last half of his life successfully introducing these dirtbags to the ash-bin of history.
Marxists like democrat Brad Sherman have NOT had the last word.
The Repubs should compromise. They should tell the Dems that if they vote to have Reagan on the 50, that they will in turn vote to have Bill Clinton on the $3 bill.
Being the proud Southerner & Confederate supporter that I am, I would love to see Reagan replace Grant on the $50 bill. But Reagan was NOT a strong critic of big government. He may have talked the talk, but he certainly didn’t walk the walk. Far from it!
Grant was a lousy President who ran a corrupt Administration.
Personally, I’d like to Polk’s face on some currency.
But then, Reagan was a great President also.
Either one would be good.
Or even Teddy Roosevelt.
lol. I was gonna say a 25 dollar bill.
Would be even better on the $100 bill. This way all those "Learjet liberals" and lefties get to see and handle it more.
you mean the 57 dollar bill. :)
Amen to that - he never deserved to be on the $50 in the first place. I'd replace him in an instant.
“Our currency ought to be something that unites us,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks).
Do you get the feeling that Rep. Brad Sherman might just drive over and piss on his grave if he thought he could get away with it?
The rock left is unstable for anymore faces.
The way things are going, perhaps he should be put on a $5,000 bill.
But he was a great general and shared Lincoln's magnanimity to the south once the war was over. He just lacked the moral stature and political leadership skills to follow through.
Grant was a war criminal.
I am really surprised that Obama has not already done that. He has attached his name to many programs that have never included the president's name, such as the Obama Mortgage Relief Plan, the Obama Mortgage Plan, the Obama Mom's Back to School Plan, Obama’s Mortgage Modification Plan. After all, as president Obama does have a special stash of money that he can dole out to people.
Not the $50, the $20. Jackson’s banking policies and Indian deportations are both a blot on American history. He shouldn’t be honored with a place on our money.
Actually, I’d rather see Reagan on the $ 20.00 bill.
It is much more commonly used than the $ 50 bill, and we can get rid of that horrid picture of Andrew Jackson, who looks like he escaped from an insane asylum.
I also want to see the Dems heads explode.
The victor over Communism will be opposed by the new Communist Party.
IMHO RR should be on the $1,000 bill.
Look to the future. The $1,000 bill of the future will be the $100 bill of today. The $1,000 bill is a more dignified place for a such a superb President.
We will work on Rushmore later.
His likeness should grace every dollar coin minted from now until eternity.
Then why do we have FDR on the dimes? His policies remain controversial!
I love Reagan and believe him one of the great and important figures of our history, but replacing Grant?! Grant is already unappreciated and it really ticks me off a Republican and any conservatives would support disrespecting Grant, who has that measly honor and is forgotten otherwise, and want to push this. Grant is a phenomenal man and gave so much at one of the most important times in this nation’s history. I could see replacing FDR, but what is wrong with people in this? Taking it too far.
I don’t think Reagan himself would even go for the idea.
The fifty works for me. I use fifties all the time
The fifty is the new twenty
Heck, I am going nuts over this and I’m an admirer of Reagan, but I am also an avid admirer of Grant and I find this proposterous to just throw Grant off the one honor he actually gets and is forgotten otherwise! This makes me angry.
Grant was more than a President, ZULU. And that is the point because his his Civil War service is the sacrifice he gave to this Union and putting an end to it. His problem with the presidency is that he put his trust in bad people who used him and did bad things that stained his presidency. He was a remarkable man. So knock off the trash talk because he is deserving of more honors and this is all he is given.
Say Amen to the man who saw that the great Civil War came to an end. I am so furious at posters like you who seek to belittle such an important figure who gave so damn much to this country.