Ronald Reagan was a better President than Barack Obama

This round I will only defend my opening statements (from Pro’s 3rd round), as per the rules. C1-Economic Growth Pro does agree with me that a large part of the economic growth in the 80s’ was due to the acts of the Fed. However, he mentions how Reagan provided a defense to then Chairman Paul Volcker. Although that may be true, you can just as easily say Obama has done the same thing with Chairman Ben Bernanke and Chairman Janet Yellen. The GOP has launched attacks on the Fed in recent years, and one can argue Obama helped protect it as a Republican leader may have put more pressure on the Fed to raise the rates, which would be disastrous. (1, 2). Pro then shows that on balance domestic spending was lowered. However, that is irrelevant, as I’ve already demonstrated overall spending increased. Even if it is in the military, it still brings more spending into the economy, leading to naturally more employment, and therefore a stronger economy. Also, Pro never even explains why a cut in domestic spending would lead to economic growth. If anything, it would initially hurt it, as many government employees would be laid off. Pro the says that taxes were primarily decreased. However, all the evidence he provides is referring to the income tax rate, which ignores everything I said. Reposting it here: “Reagan did cut income taxes; however, he eliminated many tax breaks, introduced the largest peacetime tax increase (TEFRA), and increased taxes on Social Security, gasoline, capital gains, among other things. Overall, federal tax receipts under his presidency were 18.2% of GDP, barely any different than under the previous administration and were 24.7% of the national income by the end of his presidency (barley lower from the 25.1% it had been at).” As for the deficit, even if had been projected to eventually decline, Reagan saw the large spending increase, which greatly increased the deficit and the national debt, and it was overall unnecessary (more about that in the Foreign Policy contention). Pro later asserts that the high interest rate led to the rise in debt. This may have had some effect, but the deficit did stay high after the Fed dropped the rates and without the unnecessary massive military buildup, there is a lot less spending, and therefore less debt. (3) Finally, Pro asserts stock market growth doesn’t accurately reflect the economy. Pro’s quote seems to forget companies are what drive the economy, so if the stock market is going up, these companies are having success. International factors may be a factor, but one thing that cannot be denied is the US economy is doing better (look at data I’ve provided earlier in the debate). I’ve already discussed how Obama deserves credit for the economy. Not to mention, like I mentioned he protected the Fed from GOP attacks, especially when it was undergoing quantitative easing. QE directly led to stock market growth, but the GOP vigorously opposed this. (4, 5) For this reason, it is clear Obama deserves much credit for the rising stock market. C2-Healthcare Pro starts off saying 77% of businesses report an increase in healthcare costs, but I checked both of Pro’s sources for this contention and that stat was not presented in either of them, so I’m rejecting that number without further evidence. Pro asserts there are legal problems, but the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court, declared Obamacare to be legal, making any concerns irrelevant. (6) Finally, I won’t deny Obamacare has problems, but it is overall a net benefit. The CBO found that it will bring economic benefits such as reducing the deficit over time (less money in medicare & medicaid), lead to more small businesses (less people worrying about having a job that covers their health insurance), etc. (7) Plus, it would provide medical insurance to many Americans. Overall, Obamacare is a historical piece of legislation for the US and will provided/provided millions of Americans with health insurance. C3-Foreign Policy Pro goes more in depth in foreign policy last round, so I’ll have more to say in my rebuttal of that round, but I’ll point out again that the USSR only participated in Afghanistan. Weakening communism around the world would not have a direct impact in the collapse of the USSR. 1-http://www.cheatsheet.com...2-http://www.nytimes.com...3-https://en.wikipedia.org...4-http://www.investopedia.com...5-http://politicalcorrection.org...6-http://www.theguardian.com...7-http://articles.latimes.com...