The Reagan Thread

[Superman4ever]

Hmm...Ronald Reagan is secretly responsible for every military decision made by dictators halfway across the world? Who knew?

What are you smoking? Secretly? Iran-Contra was a secret?

And "peace through strength" is like claiming abstinence by going anal, either way you're screwed.

 

[Matt]

When it comes down to it, I don't believe Reagan was half as sinister as people act, but I also don't think he was nearly as good either. He was just incredibly lucky. The Soviet Union would've collapsed regardless of who was president, because they were bankrupt. The economy would've been strong regardless of who was president because it goes in cycles and Reaganomics had little to do with it. Reagan didn't do all that much. He just got lucky.

 

[SentinelMind]

What are you smoking? Secretly? Iran-Contra was a secret?

And "peace through strength" is like claiming abstinence by going anal, either way you're screwed.

M..ok. Well, it was successful strategy, Reagan was the only President during the Cold War not to get entangled in an actual war with communists. His strategy of oustpending the Soviet, building up military, containing communist influences and creating alliances within the Western Hemisphere, plus reaching his hand out personally to meet with Soviet reformers like Gorbachev contributed to the downturn of the Soviet Union. Now, that doesn't undermine the significance of what Harry Truman did in creating the containment policy...but I do think Reagan knew how to fight the communists on an entirely different level that his predecessors. Before Reagan stepped into office, Soviet Union's military was in better position than America's, which is ridiculous,...and Reagan helped close the gap.

 

[The Senator]

The Soviets never would have fought us militarily, because we would nuke them off the face of the Earth had they tried. So it doesn't really matter how strong their military was, what matters is the fact that they were crumbling economically.

Thomas Friedman, a centrist economist, believes that the Soviets would have fallen even if Reagan hadn't outspent them. When you look at their constant attempts at industrialization, and the negative impacts each phase of their industrialization had on their economy (because no one would trade with them, they wound up spending more on manufactured goods than they took in), the USSR would have crumbled either way. Perhaps Reagan moved up the date they would have collapsed by forcing them to spend more militarily, but there was no way the Soviet Union would have stayed in tact through the end of the century if you solely look at their industrial sector.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/rep-patrick-mchenry-wants-ronald-reagan-on-50-bill/19381942

Is this a good idea?

 

[StorminNorman]

Yes.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So Reagan would be the only 20th century president on cash.

 

[Franklin Richards]

What did he do again?

 

[Franklin Richards]

Double Edit.


And to the above post... No. JFK is on coins.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Double Edit.


And to the above post... No. JFK is on coins.

So is FDR.

I'm referring to cash as in dollars.

 

[Addendum]

So? Coins are legal tender

 

[Franklin Richards]

This is the anniversary of his Iran-Contra speech.


Funny.

 

[Schlosser85]

Reagan is quite possibly the most overrated President in US history and made no secret out of basically thinking poor people were scum.

 

[BatMatt]

Reagan is quite possibly the most overrated President in US history and made no secret out of basically thinking poor people were scum.

Which makes it kind of funny that he is being suggested for the 2nd largest bill in value.

I don't think Reagan should be on any currency, but then again, neither should President Grant

 

[Gilpesh]

Seconded. It's a horrible idea.

 

[Kelly]

I'm indifferent....whoever's picture is on it, it spends the same.

 

[Hobgoblin]

People need to get over Reagan. Keep him off currency.

 

[Carcharodon]

I don't think Reagan should be on any currency, but then again, neither should President Grant

Very true...

 

[Carcharodon]

Yes.

Is it weird that I imagined you moaning this?

 

[Marx]

Reagan on money? No.

 

[Raiden]

Terrible idea.

 

[Downhere]

Maybe they should just scrap the 50 dollar bill altogether and make a Schrute Buck...

 

[Matt]

FDR needs to be on a bill before Reagan is even considered.

 

[DACrowe]

Let's see we have to deal with healthcare, unacceptably high unemployment, a fragile economy, a broken financial regulatory system, climate change, a soaring deficit, a belligerent and possibly soon-to-be nuclear Iran and two wars...

And this is a top Republican priority?

Grant as a president does not deserve to be on a bill. But then again, as a general he led the Union Army to victory in a war that decided the fate of America. So maybe he does in that regard...

Either way, here is a list of presidents more deserving to be on the $50 bill than Reagan:


-FDR
-Teddy Roosevelt
-Thomas Jefferson
-Harry Truman
-John Adams
-Dwight Eisenhower

and in a controversial bid of someone who shouldn't be on a bill, but deserves it more than Reagan...

JFK.

If we et bills for all those guys and they're still handing them out, sure Reagan can have one too.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I say get rid of Hamilton, Grant, and Franklin and replace them with FDR, Reagan, and Theodore Roosevelt.

Then redo the coins to get rid of the Presidents to commemorate other great Americans like Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony (not in a crappy dollar coin), Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton.

Also, get rid of the penny.