Reagan on money?

[Nym90]

These are the three leading proposals at the moment.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm?cnn=yes

[Nym90]

I don't know about the whole half and half idea for coins. Seems like it would make things more confusing...if you have two different types of frontal designs on dimes or quarters in circulation at once, I can see people getting confused easily. Especially old people who have been used to the current faces for a long time.

Once the current state quarters end, I'd like to see them do the same thing with Presidents as with states; put 5 different Presidents on the back of the Quarter each year, in chronological order, all the way through the Presidents, perhaps excluding those who are already on a coin. Leave Washington on the front so that it's easier to identify the quarter.

I oppose any of these three ideas...the third option is too confusing, and as for the first two, I feel that Hamilton and Jackson are more worthy of being on money than Reagan. I also agree that we should wait 5-10 years to do anything, attempts to put Reagan on money immediately are trying to take advantage of a natural temporary jump in support for any such idea.

And before anyone mentions it, yes, I would have opposed putting Kennedy on the quarter immediately after he was assassinated, too.

[Nym90]

I believe that Anthony and Sacagawea were both significant enough to deserve to be on money.

And the fact that there were women on those coins who YOU don't care about (plenty of others do, I assure you) had nothing to do with their failure to go over with the public, that's complete nonsense.

I expected better of you, Supersoulty.

[Nym90]

I believe that Anthony and Sacagawea were both significant enough to deserve to be on money.

And the fact that there were women on those coins who YOU don't care about (plenty of others do, I assure you) had nothing to do with their failure to go over with the public, that's complete nonsense.

I expected better of you, Supersoulty.

I'm merely stating an obvious fact.  Most of the American public don't care about these women.  If they put someone else, like maybe Eleanore Roosevelt on there, then maybe it would have generated more interest.  Or maybe a man like Dr. King.  I'm telling you, from the perspective of the average person.  that wasn't the only reason that they flopped so badly, but that was a big reason.


P.S. It is a fact that, even in the 70's, the Eisenhower was far more successful than the Susan B. Anthony.  Even though the Eisenhower was much larger and far less convienient to carry.

Well, you said that no one cared, and I suppose I shouldn't have taken it literally, but I still dispute that most people don't care about them. I think that Anthony in particular is well remembered for her role in the suffrage movement. If not for Sacagawea, Lewis and Clark's mission would have been far less successful.

If it is true that a lot of people don't care, then that's through their lack of understanding of history.

They were both highly significant in US history, let's put it that way. Maybe having them on money will cause people to take the time to learn more about them; if people don't care about them it's because of their ignorance of history, and there's no reason to try to perpetuate that by taking them off of money.

Who goes on money should be based on significance of the person in question as well, not just the public's opinion.