Ronald Reagan was a Better President than FDR

Gold StandardWhen the dollar devalued, its value was lowered against gold and other currencies. Luckily we went back on it, but it had a lasting effect because we did not rise back to that high point before the Depression. My opponent has said that the gold standard caused the Great Depression, this is incorrect. What we now know as the Great Depression started as a recession, similar to the recession in 1919. In both cases we were on a gold standard and the Fed mismanaged it. What turned the recession of the early 1930s into the Depression was a series of additional policy errors that intensified the severity and duration of the downturn. As Mr. Cain wrote:"By 1928, the Fed was so 'embarrased' by a stock market on fire that it began a five-year program where it would starve the economy of money. Then, in 1929, the stock market crashed the day after some final hurdles were cleared in Congress that made passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs likely....The economy, along with the stock market, started to go into free fall...The Fed raised interest rates, stood by while banks failed by thousands, and hoarded its gold." [1]By 1933 we had a Great Depression, not caused by the gold standard, but by Fed mismanagement and the tariffs. We had the gold standard in the 1919-1920 recession, but there was no big Depression. This is because were remained under our commitment to gold and along with lower tax rates and more free market policies, we had a quick recovery. In the 1930s, we wavered from the gold standard and increased regulations and spending leading to a much longer recession that did not end until after the late 1940s. [1] As we can see here, we go during FDR's presidency from deflation to inflation, but that declines to deflation again, proving his policies did not work. We then go to hyperinflation during WW2, that only ends until after the war. This because the Depression did not end until after WW2. Looking at the value of the dollar: A dollar today will only buy what 6 cents did during the 1930s. This proves the more problems we have with devaluation makes our currency weaker and less valuable around world. This causes raised prices. Minimum WageIts simple to understand why minimum wage hurt people during the Great Depression. He then gives the bogus excuse that I brought no evidence, but I indeed did. Should I repreat it? Here:"Minimum-wage laws proved a stumbling block to efforts by blacks to secure jobs. These laws prevented employers from undercutting unions by offering lower wages to nonunion members. Since blacks faced exclusion from many of the powerful unions, they were in effect frozen out." [2] When the NIRA was passed under FDR, wages were forced to dramatically increase, production did not improve at all. Higher wages restricted output and reduced productive capacity. As Mr. Cole and Mr. Ohanian note:"We have calculated that manufacturing wages were as much as 25% above the level that would have prevailed without the New Deal. And while the artificially high wages created by the NIRA benefited the few that were fortunate to have a job in those industries, they significantly depressed production and employment, as the growth in wage costs far exceeded productivity growth." [3]As we can see, minimum wage hurt the Great Depression, it did not improve it. Work hours were much higher than they were before FDR took office. In 1930 to 1932, total work hours per adult were 18% below their level in 1929. They were 23% lower on average during the New Deal. [3]GDPGDP was a roller coaster during the Great Depression. As my real GDP picture shows (because I can't post it, look in the comments section), it goes up, but then down again in. Then WW2 comes and it goes up again. However, after WW2 real GDP goes down again. This is all over the place. Obviously FDR's policies did not work and the Depression did not end until WW2. Remember, military production output is not real wealth, wars destroy wealth rather than creating it. Iran-Contra and BeirutPresident Reagan is not responsible for Iran-Contra and he is not responsible for Beirut. Remember we are in the CW (Cold War) and as Armchair General noted, the support of rebels everywhere against pro-USSR governments greately contributed in ending then and defeating the USSR. Remember, we are discussing policies and since the president never made an effective policy of supporting the Contras, this does not matter. [5]As for Beirut, my opponent cites that the president made a bad decision to put troops in a theater where people would obviously try to kill them without a clear goal, but remember the goal was a UN goal so Con should blame the UN, not the US and remember the UN's ultimate goal is to promote world peace so that maybe its reason to want troops to be sent to Beirut. The president cannot look at every single base. So that is why the commission found senior military officials at fault, not Reagan. Con is in no stance to refute a military committee. Court-PackingThe Supreme Court's job is to make sure laws passed by Congress and the president are legal or not, so if the Supreme Court rules a law as unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional. It does not matter if seven of the nine judges were Republican appointees because their job is not follow a party, but follow the Constitution. As Mr. Higgs noted:"Striking down the NRA, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote that 'extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power.' Congress 'cannot delegate legislative power to the President to exercise an unfettered discretion to make whatever laws he thinks may be needed.'" [6]However, FDR defied the check and balance system, in an unprecented move of power that made him look like a dictator. He kept many of his laws in places even after the decision. The Supreme Court is the law and breaking the law is one of the darkest things possible. So FDR tried to pack it with judges favoring him rather than the Constitution, a very despicable act. [3,6]Moral LeadershipI'd rather take a president who does not put morre funding into AIDs rater than a president who locks up innocent Japanese people and does not support antilynching legislation. One executive order is nothing compared to dirty acts FDR committed. [2] As for AIDS, there were a lot more important issues. The USSR and the recession in the 1980s. Would you rather have AIDS or be blown to bits by a nuclear bomb? Reagan probably simply did not have the money to spend on AIDS because it needed to be spent elsewhere.WW2I don't think Germany defeat would be delayed, the Soviet steamroller was on the move and it was not stopping. The UK probably would have kicked the Germans out of Africa and then do an Italian campaign and a D-Day of its own so it would eventually reach Germany as well leaving the CW border almost exactly the same it was. Again, Germany could not simply sustain its territory.ConclusionI have proven the New Deal failed and FDR was a terrible president in economic policy. Con dropped arguments on the stock market and FDR's special interest in the NIRA. Con also completely dropped economic criticism on Reagan for the entire debate, proving Reagan was better. In foreign policy, I have proved Reagan's policies ended the Cold War and the Americans were not needed in WW2. FDR is morally worse for locking up innocent Japanese people and not suppport antilynching legislation. His policies also left a lot of blacks out of the workforce.Sources1. Cain, Herman and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9 An Army of Davids. 2012.2. Folsom, Burton, Jr. "New Deal or Raw Deal?" The Mises Review XIV.4 (2008)3. Cole, Harold L., and Lee E. Ohanian. "How Government Prolonged the Depression." The Wall Street Journal (2009): Web. 2 Feb. 2009. <http://online.wsj.com...;.4. Morelock, Jerry D. "Ronald Reagan's Cold War." Armchair General IX.5 (2012): 18-19.5. Higgs, Robert. "How FDR Made the Depression Worse." The Free Market XIII.2 (1995)