Ronald Reagan was a Better President than Barack Obama

Unless, my opponent can prove that the the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation are wrong, then they are fair studies. Ronald ReaganI. Economic PolicyMy opponent basically answered my argument for himself. In the writing conducted by Mr. Bartlett, he gives statistics showing that tax cuts increase revenue nevertheless. The population always grows, so that should be counted and inflation changes over time. In fact, according to the budget itself, the increase in 25% revenue was quite postitive compared to the lack of growth under the Bush-Clinton tax hikes, which only saw 19% revenue growth. So in comparision, revenue grew much faster. My opponent is arguing against economic common sense, the Laffer curve, that tax cuts don't raise revenue. [1,2]In addition, many middle class and poor people became very wealthy during the Reagan years and were able to pay at higher rate. When Reagan entered office, 5,000 people listed their income over $1 million. When Reagan left office it was 35,000 people. The number of billionaires rose from a few under Reagan to over 50 when he left. Those earning more than $50,000 rose over 5 points during the 1980s. [3]II. Foreign Policy"A great leader wouldn"t have 14 members of his administration indicted after illegally selling arms to Iran. This shows a lack of moral compass on Reagan and his administration, which does not make him a better president than Obama, who has had no real scandals outside the conservative echo chamber."Incorrect. Obama has had one of the most corrupt and dangerous administrations in American history. I'd hardly consider fair and balanced news sites like CNN, Fox News, and the IRS conservative echo chambers. These include the Benghazi scandal, the Fast and Furious scandal, and the IRS scandal. [4,5,6]The Iran-Contra Affair found Reagan not in trouble and was only one scandal. My opponent then tries to change the topic by comparing the Cold War to the American Revolutionary War. This is a debate comparing two presidents. This is not a historical debate, but to quickly say why it is important to world history consider this:One was a mere revolution involving muskets and colonists vs. the other being a large global war involving the entire world and nuclear weapons that could end all life on this planet.Barack ObamaI. Economic PolicySimple to see why the 1982 recession was worse than the 2008 one. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1982 comparing to 10% in 2008. In addition, inflation was a much worse issue in the 1982 recession than it was in the 2008 recession. These issues combined created major problems for the government at the time, so it is no as bad as the recession Obama is dealing with. [7]"Obama"s stimulus package was formed on the concept of keynesian economics and was comprised of targeted tax-cuts and direct government spending. It was proven to work. You are wrong. It has been proven, you can"t ignore facts. The fact that you think supply-side tax-cuts would have solved the problems we faced in 2008 shows your lack of knowledge about economics. Why would we approach two different problems with the same solution? Reagan dealt with high inflation, a problem we did not deal with this time around."There are many other historical examples I could provide where tax cuts have worked without the issue of inflation. You cannot provide any source saying that it is a fact that the stimulus package worked. I have showing the unemployment figures. In fact, combining tax cuts with spending is a contradictory economic policy and has never been proven to work because no president has done it in the past."The auto-bailout was not a weak response to the recession. It was successful beyond anyone"s expectations. How is saving possibly million of jobs a weak response?"We have a very slow unemployment rate and GDP growth rate. In addition, there have been times government has held great influence over companies, as in Britain in the 1970s, and it is has been proven to lead to national decline. [8]"Google Finance was not wrong, it was your logic and findings that were inaccurate. I compared the increase of the Dow Jones to the day. It would be inaccurate to compare how much it increased under 8 years of Reagan, and only 5 years of Obama. Sorry that our source was confusing because you had to do the math yourself."To the contrary, it is fair because you want to see where Obama lies ahead in comparision to other presidents and exceed expecations. Right now that cannot happen. I have no problem comparing Obama to Warren G. Harding, who served just three years in office, too. II. Foreign Policy"All I was trying to say about the death of Osama Bin Laden is that you cannot just push it aside. It was a huge accomplishment."No kidding, but not enough. One accomplishment does not define a good president who is certainely not better than Reagan."So, again, it is Obama"s fault that four Americans died, but not Reagan"s that 241 were killed? Reagan ordered the marines into the war-zone itself, then after 241 of them were killed, he pulled them out and accomplished nothing. How is that a leader? And we still haven"t mentioned all the American personnel who died at embassy bombings under Reagan"s tenure."Reagan and French President Mitterand responded by launching bombings. This was a strong response to what happened. Keep in mind that Lebanon was a war zone and Lybia was not and there is where the problem lies. The embassy was under the State Department's control and the 241 marines were men who were there to fight. There is a difference. Would you blame Obama for the death of a soldier in Afghanistan? No because that falls to what he was doing and what officers were leading him. [9]"Another one of Obama"s responsible moves as a leader can be seen as he withdraws our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. The wars were bungled by his predecessor, and he inherited a mess. By the time he will leave office, he will have responsibly withdrawn from two unnecessary wars and brought home thousands of soldiers to their loved ones."He left with leaving Iraq the way it is. A stupid mistake. There are different ethinic groups there that should have been divided up into several countries. We saw the same trouble with Yugoslavia. Rather than giving people fairly what they deserved, Obama kept the borders the way they were drawn up 100 years ago by European empires who only wanted to benefit themselves.ConclusionI have proven Reagan was a better president than Obama. He dealt with a worse recession yet saw a better recovery and defeat America's most important enemy. I have refuted the arguments against him and have proven Obama has been an incompetent president.Sources1. Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1997. 2. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.3. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.4. Staff, CNN Wire. "Sources: 15 Days after Benghazi Attack, FBI Still Investigating from Afar." CNN.com. Cable News Network, 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.5. Lott, Maxim. "Senator Calls ATF on Allegations Agency Is Allowing Guns Into Mexico." Foxnews.com. Fox News Network, 2 Feb. 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.6. United States. Department of the Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review. N.p., 14 May 2013. Web.7. http://www.debate.org...8. http://data.worldbank.org...9. http://www.pbs.org...