Ronald Reagan was a Better President than Barack Obama

Thank you for starting this debate and posting your contentions so punctually and lucidly.I would like to begin with my rebuttals for the affirmation's contentions. The burden of the proof is equal in this debate. I also reject the limit to Reagan's first four years and two months. Let's talk about all of Reagan and all of Obama.I. ECONOMIC POLICYMy opponent said that Reagan was a strong supporter of supply-side economics, however, supply-side ecnomics has proven a failure after three decades [1]. Reagan's ideas of supply-side economics were inferior to the economics presented by Clinton and Obama's tax increases on the rich. [1] Here is a quote from [1]"When put to the test in the real world, supply-side policies did not deliver as promised. In fact, by every important measure, our nation’s economic performance after the tax increases of 1993 significantly outpaced that of the periods following the tax cuts of the early 1980s and the early 2000s."Supply-side economics is a failure.My opponent shows a chart of the unemployment rate during Reagan's presidency, however you can see on the chart yourself that in his first term he raised the unemployment by three percent! Sure, he lowered it again, but many jobs were lost from 82 to 84, regardless of whether they were created later.My opponent said that those figures are quite favorable for the start of a recovery and cited a source, however I would like to note that his source merely gave him the chart and not the opinion on the "recovery".My opponent cited federal revenue statistics, however I would like to note that Obama picked up the presidency in a quite literal economic free-fall. You can't judge a captain if he can't immediately sail a ship out of a sinking ocean. The state of the economy before Obama took office was much worse than when Reagan took office. It would be impossible to expect Obama to somehow cure our country from death in his first four years.My opponent also cited Reagan's tax cuts, but as I have stated before, his tax cuts were actually very detrimental to our nation. Reagonomics is a failure.My opponent says that Apple started under Reagan, so Reagan is responsible for Apple. This is selective and falacious. Apple seems to be doing pretty fine under Barack Obama too... I would also like to mention that my opponent has not cited any of Reagan's "policies" that magically created Apple.It is fallacious thinking to believe that Reagan's actions led to any of his economic feats because 1, my opponent has not cited any, and 2, he didn't. We are not debating administrations. I want to, and I'm sure the voters want to know what Reagan did to help the economy.II. Cold WarMy opponent said that Reagan stopped the Cold War. This is so false. First of all, the cold war didn't end during his presidency. Second of all, it is a myth that he stopped the war [2]. I would like to quote [2]."Among Mr. Reagan’s most devoted followers, an entire mythology has developed. Theirs is what might be called the triumphal schoolof interpretation: the president spoke, the Soviets quaked, the wall came down."I encourage the affirmation to read this article. It points out that Gorbachev was the real force that took down the Soviet Union.Also, here are two bad things Reagan did. Really bad. 1. The Iran ContraThis video tells you more than you will ever need to know about the Iran Contra.http://www.youtube.com...2. Air Traffic ControlThe first thing Reagan did when he got into office is destroy the Air Traffic Control Union, weakening Union power ever since and wrecking the Air Traffic Profession. On Barack Obama,I. Economics.The chart he shows for Barack Obama shows the exact same thing for Reagan. The unemployment rate raised, and then lowered again. We are at a moot point. He also says that the unemployment rate drop is 1% less than Reagan's, however, we are not looking at drops. We have to look at the hard facts, and even by looking at your charts we can see the unemployment rate was lower under Obama's presidency.My opponent said that the debt went up more under Obama than under Reagan. First of all, his source [7] does not say that "he practically has made it impossible to pay back in our times." The source merely has the statistics. Second of all, it is proven that spending more in recessions is good for our economy. Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman has written a book called, End this depression now! about how government spending needs to be increased in order to solve our economic troubles. This may seem counter intuitive, but read an article about it. It's quite interesting. Spending more strengthens the economy. Once again, this man won a Nobel Prize for economics.II. Foreign PolicyMy opponent mentions the Benghazi attacks, however these attacks occured not because of Obama (that is totally speculative), but because we are at war there. It is ludicrous to believe that we can go and aid a country by destroying its dictatorship and aiding rebel forces, while not losing four men. Yes, four men died in a war. Is this Obama's fault? No.My opponent's argument about Syria lacks evidence and is poorly constructed. Tell me consequences, and I will refute them.My opponent also calls the Egyptian revolution a waste of money, however they are still working to create a fair government. Also, what are we going to do, support Hasni Mubarak? For years, we didn't give any money to Egypt and a dictator arose. At least the fact that there is no dictator in Egypt is a sign that good things are happening.Sources[1] http://www.americanprogress.org...[2] http://www.nytimes.com...