Ronald Reagan was a better President than Barack Obama

Refutations Economic Policy Now it's time for the refutation period in which both debaters attack each other's arguments. "It did start up the economy, but it caused a extraordinary widening wealth gap between the poor and the rich, since the rich had more money and were empowered by it. The result is today, where massive lobbying and the wealthy's control of Wall Street have helped lead to inaction in Congress and the 2008 financial crisis." Keep in mind, that three presidents followed Reagan before the housing bubble in 2008. They could have made their own policies that contributed to the stock market crash. Even Jimmy Carter and further before Reagan could be blamed for the crash. The Fed isn't avoiding anything either, as it is also primarily at fault for deciding to cut interest rates before the stock market crash. Regulations on the financial sector of the economy actually increased from only US$190 million in 1960 to US$1.9 billion in 2000 and to more than US$2.3 billion in 2008. [1] Surely the rich would have preferred less regulation in the financial markets for more free flow of capital, but Reagan's best efforts. The fact is both George W. Bush and Obama have significantly increased economic regulations and this hurt the economy. Now for the wealth gap. Wealth gaps are natural in free market capitalist societies. There has to be poor people and rich people. It is just natural. Rather than looking at the wealth gap, let's look at both classes and see if they did well. The important thing is that they are getting income. What we find is that real median incomes grew by $4,000 from when Reagan started to when he left. Remember that under Carter it was declining by $1,500. This is a great upturn. However, what about specifically the poor? The poorest fifth of the population grew from $6,494 in 1980 to $6,994 in 1989 (in 1989 dollars). The poor did make money and with inflation reliably coming down as a result of Reagan keeping Paul Volcker in charge of the Fed, prices were lower meaning the poor could afford more goods and services. Many middle class did not become poor, but joined the rich. There were 5,000 who had income over $1,000,000 when Reagan started, but this number was 35,000 people when he left. Not to mention the tax burden transferred up to the rich from 35% to 46%. Charity contributions increased from $65 billion to $100 billion. People made money under Reagan. [3] Millions of Americans were now able to own what were once only for the rich: mobile phones, microwave ovens, and VCRs. Just like how Reagan's hero Calvin Coolidge gave people more money to buy cars, radios, and electric light. I will go more to the deficit later, but remember this is a time of war. Just like FDR in 1940, Woodrow Wilson in 1918, and Abraham Lincoln in 1861, Reagan had to raise military spending to win the war. Naturally you do whatever it takes to win. We aren't here to debate Clinton, but quickly I would like to say we can hardly call him a liberal demand-side Keynesian president. He signed into law NAFTA, giving free trade and no regulations in North America, he signed welfare reform a move greatly favored by Republicans, and while he did raise the income tax (which led to the Republican Revolution of 1994) he cut capital gains taxes (another moved favored by the GOP) in 1997. It should be noted that capital gains tax revenue skyrocketed afterword when it was cut from 28% to 21%. Many rich make money off capital gains, so while the income tax went up the capital gains tax went down, but we still got revenue which greatly contributed it the surplus in his last years as president. [4] There is something Obama could have done: take supply-side measures. The tax cuts in the stimulus are far too small to be called supply-side. There needed to be more. The result is that we are in a very weak recovery in comparison to the Reagan recovery. Remember what I showed about the unemployment figures. Because Obama had a smaller unemployment rate he would be doing much better in recovery than Reagan, but in fact he's just barely ahead by one decimal as of this month. This means the recovery is quite weak while Reagan's was quite strong. Keep in mind recessions have existed since the dawn of time and are sometimes the result of the market and sometimes the government. If we look at the 1927 economic recession, in which Henry Ford switched the model of cars he was producing causing less sales, we see a very minor recession that could have been worse had the government interfered. The 2001 recession received the response of the Bush tax cuts and it quickly ended. Reagan couldn't get what he wanted dine completely either. He and budget director David Stockman had planned $200 billion in budget cuts while the military budget skyrocketed, but Congress would not let I through. Reagan simply has better compromise skills than Obama which helps show his superiority. Foreign Policy Is right of for the media to talk about the wars in the Middle East? Off course it is. They are supposed to be the watch dogs on the federal government (although now this has turned into what party are you from). Obama has to do something and not nothing, he can't stay forever. What we see is a a lack of decisive action. As for Russia, some Republicans want military forces but others do not. While that occurs Obama's little economic sanctions aren't doing anything. One again we see a lack of decisive action. However, the worst has to be what is going in right now. We can debate forever if it was right for Obama to leave and Bush to go in, but if Bush didn't going into Iraq then he would likely be blamed if Saddam Hussein was still in power and had crushed the Arab Spring along with more rebels. Now we have ISIS tearing apart Iraq while Obama goes to fundraisers. Reagan went to fundraisers too, but the Cold War was a long one and not an immediate crisis. For Obama the rapid takeover of Iraq should be a crisis. Also, you wouldn't see Fox News crying about past embassy attacks before Benghazi because Bush is no longer presidents and they were far long ago compared to Benghazi which occurred just in 2012. [5] Now for Reagan. Yes, the Soviet Union as a totalitarian state was destined to decline, but that doesn't mean the Reagan administration knew such a thing nor does it mean it is wrong to accelerate the decline of a state that killed millions of people and harmed its entire population through some of the worst economic and political policies ever imagined. Nazi Germany was also destined to decline but was it wrong for the Allies to accelerate it's decline? I don't think so. Not to mention how he made the Soviet government look bad and it same time hold a defeatist attitude. It also isn't the USSR but the many communist governments the Soviet Union propped up in the 1970s. If there was any time that the USSR was winning it was the 1970s. Reagan turned that around starting with the invasion of Grenada. From 1974 to 1980, the communists won in: 1. South Vietnam 2. Cambodia 3. Laos 4. South Yemen 5. Angola 6. Mozambique 7. Ethiopia 8. Grenada 9. Nicaragua Then when Reagan entered, we won in: 1. Bolivia 2. Honduras 3. Argentina 4. Grenada 5. El Salvador 6. Uruguay 7. Brazil 8. Guatemala 9. The Philippines [3] The democracy in Latin American went from nothing to over 90% when Reagan left office. As for Afghanistan, it is wrong for a president to be considered ahead of his time. The position when Reagan left in 1989 was different than when George W. Bush entered in 2001. In many ways however, the USSR was far more dangerous than the terrorists. Also, like the 2008 financial crisis, there are plenty to blame. Osama bin Laden wanted to help Saudi Arabia by making a Muslim army against Iraq in 1991. The Saudis preferred an American coalition, which made Osama angry and moved him toward creating al Qaeda. One could also argue that George H.W. Bush should have gone after Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War, but did not. There's more than just Reagan here. What about Clinton's defense spending cuts? Sources 1. http://www.cato.org... 2. Niskanen, William A., and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record." Cato.org. Cato Institute, 22 Oct. 1996. Web. 3. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print. 4. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." Heritage.org. Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web. 5. Malcolm, Andrew. "Obama Goes Fundraising as ISIS Head Emerges to Preach Jihad, Killings Continue." Investors.com. Investors Business Daily, 8 July 2014. Web.