Ronald Reagan was a better President than FDR

On the sources, I have used several respect indepedent sources in addition to what my opponent considered right-wing biased sources. The Cole-Ohanian study on the Great Depression for example is a respect source. In addition, I even used an Obama favored sources from MSN. Me and my opponent have both used Wikipedia sources as well. If anything, I declare that my sources have been more diverse and that I have used more than my opponent has easily handing a sources victory towards myself. Ronald ReaganI. Economic PolicyThe country was not coming out of recession when Reagan took office in 1981. The unemployment rate started at 7.5% and the recession hit just as he entered office. It increased to nearly 11% by the end of 1982. Reagan had proposed tax and spending cuts in 1981, but they did not go into complete effect until the unemployment rate had already peaked. When they did come into effect the unemployment rate fell to a low of 5.4% (http://www.debate.org...). It fell by half, but that is not the other point. Real GDP and government revenue did increase after Reagan's 1981 cuts because of simple economic laws like the Laffer curve. In addition, his policies did help the people and increased consumer spending. Finally, if you look at Ford and Carter you can easily see their policies were not working because of taxing and spending. Under Nixon/Ford, domestic spending was at 8.5% and under Carter it was 3.5%. Under Reagan spending growth reached a low of 1%. The two previous administrations before Reagan did little with taxation. Reagan's tax cuts were severely needed to save the American economy and it worked too. If deregulation was occuring as fast as it should have under Carter then we would have seen a recovery, but instead we get lower economic growth going from 3% under Nixon/Ford to 2.5% under Carter. It exceeded at 3.2% under Reagan. Keep in mind that by the time Reagan's presidency was over, the deficit was declining and the CBO projected it would contine too decline. [1]Today, Reagan's economic policy has had strong lasting effects. Tax rates, for example, have never been raised over 50% since him because he proved it creates a negative effect.II. Cold WarThe Cold War was no different than fighting World War 2 and the American Civil War. Was it wrong for Lincoln to increase the deficit and borrow more money in order to win the Civil War? Was it wrong for FDR to do the same in World War 2? Was it wrong for Woodrow Wilson to do so in World War 1? It is widely agreed that what finally ended the Russian monarchy and brought and the Soviets eventually to power was World War 1. Notice that the first Russian Revolution by the people was after Tsar Nicholas II's failed attempt to take more territory in Asia against Japan. It is clear here that military defeats and war are the main causes for empires too fall, not economic and social backwardness. My opponent has neither refuted the example of the Romans or the Ottoman Empire. [2]My point that no matter what Carter's doctrine was, that it still failed, still holds. My opponent has only noted Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, which is not when looking at the whole picture of the Cold War.SDI was part of this military spending that was needed to win the Cold War. Economics and social life had nothing to do with the USSR's demise. It was all Ronald Reagan. SDI worked because the Soviets thought it would work. I never argued that SDI was possible or not and my opponent's simply does not understand Reagan's genius when he came up with the plan. The sole purpose was to scare the Soviet Union and put them into submission. I proved through quotes by Soviet leaders that they did take the bait and thought the threat was real.The Soviet leaders are not the only people who thought that SDI was the key too their defeat. Let's look at someone in the middle who saw both sides. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was an important figure in the Cold War who worked with both Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. She said:"There was one vital factor that ended the Cold War. It was Ronald Reagan's decision to go ahead with the Strategic Defense Initiative." [3]The key to ending the Cold War was SDI wether my opponent agrees or not. Almost every world leader agrees from the times. In a conferece at Princeton University in 1993, Soviet Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh agreed that SDI was the main factor in the defeat of the Soviet Union. He was among several Soviet leaders at the conference who agreed. [4]As we can see, D'Souza has strong backing from indepedent and Soviet sources. As he later states:"Finally Gorbachev realized he had no choice: continue a no-win arms race, which would utterly cripple the Soviet economy, or give up the struggle with global hegemony and establish peaceful relations with the West." [5]Gorbachev made the right choice to embrace the West and give up the Cold War. Reagan was the victor.III. Iran-ContraReagan never signed an executive order to take such action, FDR did. Those who sold the weapons it illegally did it in secret, meaning they tried to hide it from Reagan. Obviously he would not know because they were intent on making sure Reagan never found out, so he is not to blame.IV. Savings and LoanI address your argument by saying that President George H.W. Bush changed the tax rates during his presidency and Reagan's effect were thus eliminated. All you have to do is read Bush's 1990 budget. [6]Franklin RooseveltI. New DealProtests over food and civil unrest does not mean in anyway the US economy was in danger. Revolutions, like I stated before, are only caused by war. Many nations can have their economies and governments last under harsh economic times and keep in mind that FDR expanded the government, regulations, and taxes severely which dramatically changed the free market economy and hurt private investment. According to the Cole-Ohanian study, had the government done little the Great Depression would have ended far earlier. Lee Ohanian states this further in the video. I don't think my opponent understood what I did with the poll. I added the 27% and the 22% together because they either agreed that the New Deal prolonged the Depression or agreed but with some differences. Adding them makes it 49% opposed to the idea that the New Deal did work. A 51-49 lead is not a clear consensus and like I said is just a simple poll. I provided as of now a video, unemployment chart, and a study proving that the New Deal had a negative effect. Keep in mind that the Great Depression did not end until 1948, because both the New Deal and World War 2 failed to end it. The country plunged back into recession when the war ended. II. Banking SecurityBanking security was not the largest Wall Street gain in history. By president, FDR had 163.74% in Dow Jones growth. Most of this growth was from the fake wealth World War 2 created. Both Bill Clinton and Calvin Coolidge easily beat FDR. Uncertaintity caused personal savings to skyrocket during World War 2 because of an unsure American public. Less money was out there. It only declined after the war and remained stagnant during the Great Depression. This is hardly confidence in the FDIC. [8]III. Social SecuritySocial Security has no harms? It forces people to pay into a system that is going bankrupt quickly. Instead, they could be putting savings into things like stocks and bonds that give them even more money. The American people are most not satisfied with Social Security and don't think it will be a benefit, as proven by a Gallup poll. Most thik it is a problem or will be a problem in the future. [9]IV. He did so much!In another recent Gallup poll, Reagan was ranked the best president, better than FDR. Important historic legislation by Reagan includes example like compensation for the Japanese-Americans of internment and the MLK commemoration holiday. V. Court PackingThe court packing had huge effects in preventing future legislation because the American people responded strongly in the 1938 midterms. Conservative Democrats and Republicans blocked future New Deal legislation, ending furture public policy.VI. World War 2Anyone with a simple understanding of Hitler know how bad a commander he was. In the second round my opponent claimed that World War 2 was so important by disgustingly parading around the death numbers in what should be a conduct point in my favor. As read here: "Hitler's truly critical decisions concerned strategy, that is, the war's timing, targets and goals. His was the only voice that counted at that level, and it was his strategy that led inevitably to Germany's eventual defeat." [11]Now the Cold War was a real conflict that actually needed American muscle. Hitler would have lost to the USSR and the UK inevitably. The anti-semite FDR did little for Jews. Only some 200,000 were really saved, but much more could have. FDR did little to confront Hitler on the subject and left many Jews without the ability to escape. As said here:"With rare exceptions, Washington did not formally challenge Hitler’s Jewish policies during the 1930s, even though many Americans were stunned to witness his regime’s brutality of speech and action. As Nazism first took hold, the president remained silent." [12]He actually did very little to help the Jews even while he knew early on what was happening. [13]ConclusionI have proven that Reagan was to one to change history and end the major recession that took place. The Cold War was all won by him and that there were no other factors. My opponent has provided no critical evidence in proving any of his points on the New Deal. Germany would have lost World War 2 no matter what. Ronald Reagan was clearly a better and more important president than Franklin Roosevelt was.Sources will be found in the comment due to lack of characters.http://www.youtube.com...