Reagan on the dime? It could happen.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-12-06 11:33am

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-12-06 01:21pm

if any President should be yanked off the face of currency, it should be Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. His only contribution to the republic (besides the battle of New Orleans as a Colonel) was 'lets go kill some Indians'.

Put Ronnie on the 20!

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-12-06 01:28pm

Put Bill Cosby on the twenteh

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-12-06 01:54pm

Speaking of which, when I looked up Presidents on bills and coins, I found a shitload of bills and a coin that really aren't in circulation. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HALF DOLLAR?!?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-12-06 02:19pm

Xenophobe3691 wrote:Speaking of which, when I looked up Presidents on bills and coins, I found a shitload of bills and a coin that really aren't in circulation. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HALF DOLLAR?!?

I guess people weren't using them because they weren't compatible with things like vending machines. That's probably why we had 3 different $1 coins that never came into use.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-12-06 02:32pm

Andrew J. wrote:Reagan was lucky that his strategy worked. He might have started World War III, and if the USSR hadn't been run by hard-liners like Andropov throughout the early to mid 80s the Russians wouldn't have spent as much, and there might not have been such a strong liberal backlash in the form of Gorbachev and perestroika.

No, it wasn't luck, and no it didn't have much chance of sparking WWIII. Reagan was smarter than his opponents ever gve him credit for. Simply building the military was very, very unlikely to have started WWIII, since the Russians, despite their mild paranoia regarding the West, were not complete madmen, and were not about to incinerate the planet out of mere suspicion. Our simply having a large military wasn't nearly enough to make them commence hostilities. It would have required our actually threatening to use it on them, and this we were not about to do.

And once again you are wrong. They didn't try to match our spending because they were run by the likes of Andropov. Andropov didn't become the Soviet premier until after Reagan took office. And in fact, he got the job largely because of Reagan. According to former KGB general Oleg Kalugin, "Reagan and his views disturbed the Soviet government so much they bordered on hysteria. There were cables about an imminent crisis. He was seen as a very serious threat". This was seen as a new American challenge which demanded a vigorous response. Andropov was selected because he was seen as their own "tough guy" who would be a strong enough leader to face Reagan.

Reagan correctly read the Soviets. It wasn't just Andropov; it was their entire leadership. He knew they would feel compelled to maintain parity, so they would try to match our massive defense spending. The difference was, our economy could bear the strain of so much spending. Theirs couldn't.

Andrew J. wrote:Another risk of the "make them spend too much on defense" strategy is that you eventually wind up with a poor, desperate nation with a gigantic military. Again, Reagan was lucky that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan turned into such a failure, otherwise the USSR's government might have been less hesitant in using their military.

That wasn't luck either. He had intelligence briefings on the matter that informed him the war was not popular at home, and the Afghans were determined to resist strongly. It had all the ingredients of a Vietnam-like conflict, and Reagan and his administration knew this in advance.

And again you overestimate the threat. Bounded on one side by NATO and its nukes, and on the other by China and its nukes, the Soviets were not about to launch a full scale war, even when their economy begain spiralling around the drain. Even the most intransigent Soviet hard liners retained enough of a grip on sanity to realize that no one, including them, would win if the nukes started to fly, and they all too likely would if the Soviets tried to launch a full scale invasion of their neighbors.

Andrew J. wrote:Indeed, Reagan was a gambler, and it paid off, but the containment policies of Truman, Eisenhower, et al were much more...what's the word I'm looking for...oh right, conservative.

And your point is what? Clever sneering wordplay won't change the fact that Reagan was right, and his strategy worked. Learn to live with it.

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2003-12-07 03:11am

Iceberg wrote:Sorry, Reaganites:

The law prohibits portraits of living persons from appearing on Government Securities.

Dear sir, consider the absurdity of your claim: The Congress cannot put Ronald W. Reagan on a dime because the Congress has prohibited living persons from appearing on Government Securities? What the Congress has done, the Congress can undo; "the law forbids it" is a feeble objection indeed to an proposed act of the legislature. It is so flimsy as to be overcome by nothing more significant than a footnote in the text of the bill.

Col. Crackpot wrote:if any President should be yanked off the face of currency, it should be Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. His only contribution to the republic (besides the battle of New Orleans as a Colonel) was 'lets go kill some Indians'. Put Ronnie on the 20!

A far more potent reason for removing MG Jackson from the $20 bill derives directly from MG Jackson himself: As President of the United States, he was a fierce opponent of paper money and directly contributed to the end of the Second Bank of the United States, in many ways the predecessor of the Federal Reserve System. MG Jackson himself probably would have been appalled at the thought of appearing on paper money.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-12-07 04:59am

Iceberg wrote: USNS Bob Hope (T-AKR 300)

They actually named a US Navy ship after.... Bob Hope??

What's next, the USS ZZ Top??

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-12-07 07:06am

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote: I guess people weren't using them because they weren't compatible with things like vending machines. That's probably why we had 3 different $1 coins that never came into use.

The post office keeps trying though. If you ever use a stamp machine in a post office don't be surprised if you get dollar coins as change instead of bills. That's the only place in the last 10 years where I've picked up Susan B. Anthony dollars.

I've still barely seen the golden dollar coins but then I usually buy my stamps through the ATM at my bank.

I always get a kick out of the complaints about coins from vending companies. It's understandable that they wouldn't want to shell out for new machines so new coins could be compatable but they always make it sound like it's too difficult for machines to differentiate certain coins or to deal with really odd shaped ones. I find that funny because the vending machines in Hong Kong worked fine and the used to have a lot more styles and shapes of coins that the US does.

IIRC Australia has some interesting coins as well. Not so much goofy shaped but don't automatically assume that because it's small that it won't be worth much. A bunch of kids were scamming people from my ship for their "spare change" because the boneheads from the US didn't realize what some of the coins were worth. The $2 coin is similar in size to the US dime (ten cents).

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-12-07 10:29am

Iceberg wrote: I blame the guy who named the USS Arleigh Burke after a then-living person.

You have something wrong with 31-knot burke?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-12-07 10:41am

MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote: I blame the guy who named the USS Arleigh Burke after a then-living person.
You have something wrong with 31-knot burke?

No, I have something wrong with naming a ship after a living person. Burke didn't die until 1996 - his namesake was commissioned in 1991.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-12-07 02:50pm

Nancy Reagan fights against image of husband on coin

08.12.2003 5.20 am

Former United States first lady Nancy Reagan has come out against a Republican bid to mint an image of her husband Ronald Reagan's head on US coins.

She urged a politician from the former President's Republican party to abandon his proposal to put Reagan's likeness on the 10c, or dime, to replace that of Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

"I do not support this proposal and I am certain Ronnie would not," she said.

Reagan is now ravaged by Alzheimer's disease.

Right here

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-12-07 02:51pm

"When our country chooses to honour a great president such as Franklin Roosevelt by placing his likeness on our currency, it would be wrong to remove him and replace him with another." - Nancy Reagan

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-07 02:53pm

Well, that's it than. No reason for him to be on the dime.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-12-07 07:40pm

Regardless of whether or not Reagan was a great president, he should not replace FDR on the dime or anything else.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-12-08 05:00am

Iceberg wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote: I blame the guy who named the USS Arleigh Burke after a then-living person.
You have something wrong with 31-knot burke?
No, I have something wrong with naming a ship after a living person. Burke didn't die until 1996 - his namesake was commissioned in 1991.

The act was not entirely unprecedented; One of the U.S. Navy's earliest frigates, the USS John Adams, was so named while the man was still alive, as was the USS James Madison. Both ships fought in America's earliest sea wars.

Frankly, I wish the Navy would return to its former traditions of ship nomenclature.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-12-08 05:21am

Patrick Degan wrote: Frankly, I wish the Navy would return to its former traditions of ship nomenclature.

They haven't fucked the Destroyers up at all. Arleigh Burke, Cole, Winston
Churchill, The Sullivans...etc all good names

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-12-08 08:43am

We need to get back to the tradition of naming carriers for famous fighting ships of the past: Enterprise, Independence, Ranger, Boxer and Wasp, for example.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-12-08 10:55am

Patrick Degan wrote:Frankly, I wish the Navy would return to its former traditions of ship nomenclature.

Alas, Patrick: fish don't vote

However, the rumour mill is that CVNX will revert to the traditional naming scheme.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-12-08 11:45am

Rumor mill also said that LHD 8 was going to be named USS Trent Lott, instead of the eventual name, USS Makin Island.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-12-08 11:57am

Iceberg wrote:Rumor mill also said that LHD 8 was going to be named USS Trent Lott, instead of the eventual name, USS Makin Island.

Yes yes, I know we should take the Rumor Mill (even the special rumour mill over on that other board) with many large chunks of NaCl, but we'll see.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-12-08 12:49pm

On the news the day this thread started it was pointed out that FDR is on the dime because he was involved with The March of Dimes which was set up to fight polio which is the disease he had as a kid.

What's odd is that the pundit that pointed this out still seemed to think that Reagan ending up on the dime would happen.

Why not just take Washington off of the Quarter or Lincoln off of the Penny since they each also have paper bills that they are on?

Incidently why is Grant on the $50? I would think this would be one of the more common denominations that would be the most open for getting a new face. I mean, Teddy Roosevelt is on Mt. Rushmore and he doesn't have a coin or bill.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2003-12-08 12:53pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
Iceberg wrote: USNS Bob Hope (T-AKR 300)
They actually named a US Navy ship after.... Bob Hope??

What's next, the USS ZZ Top??

Bob Hope has done USO shows for 50 years. Hardly worthy of a ship, but it's still an accomplishment of a sort.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-12-08 04:19pm

Iceberg wrote:We need to get back to the tradition of naming carriers for famous fighting ships of the past: Enterprise, Independence, Ranger, Boxer and Wasp, for example.

Wasp has been taken for a Marine Gator Amphib, essentially a carrier
in all but name

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-12-08 06:50pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote:We need to get back to the tradition of naming carriers for famous fighting ships of the past: Enterprise, Independence, Ranger, Boxer and Wasp, for example.
Wasp has been taken for a Marine Gator Amphib, essentially a carrier
in all but name

I believe the names Boxer and Ranger are also adorning LHAs of the Tarawa and Wasp classes, and of course the Enterprise is still in active service.