Ronald Reagan was a better President than Barack Obama

It's time for the final round, in which final rebuttals and argument defenses are finished along with conclusions. I hope my opponent had a wonderul Fourth of July.Economic GrowthMy opponent argues that Obama has provided political protection for Fed Chairmans Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen in a similar way to the political protection Reagan provided Chairman Paul Volcker and a time when Fed policy of lowering inflation while raising unemployment was unpopular, but his sources do not prove this. His first source also describes Bernanke before a hearing in the Republican House. Obama isn't mentioned. It is more a criticism of Fed policy than anything else too. It isn't about slashing the power of the central bank. The second source from The New York Times is just as similar, with Yellen before a Republican committee on monetary policy, but it also never mentions Obama. In my sources, I cited quotes and gave specifics on how Reagan defend the Fed from defeat. My opponent has done no such thing during this debate.My opponent has demonstrated that nominal spending increased, which isn't saying much when put into perspective. If spending was so good for the economy, then why didn't Carter's domestic spending growth of 3.5% annually not work better than Reagan's only 1% growth annually? Total federal outlays as a percentage of GDP went down from 22.2% to 21.2%. My opponent has also failed to explain specifically, with any major source, how Reagan's slowed domestic and large military spending helped the economy. He needs to specify and it takes more than the GDP equation to prove that Reagan's spending desicively helped the economy. He also needs to prove why the nominal number is more important then the actual GDP number. Like I said before, Carter spent more, but the situation got worse. [1,2]I, on the other hand, have corresponded the tax cuts with when they were in full effect to when the boom of economic growth occured:"Specifically, here’s how the phase-in occurred: Supposedly there was a 5% cut in income tax rates on October 1, 1981, 10% on July 1, 1982 and 10% on July 1, 1983." [3]Laffer shows when they went into full effect on figure 2, real GDP boomed. Obama should take a page from Reagan's book because it has been proven to work:"If policymakers were able to increase aggregate supply, then the Fed would be under no pressure to offset the effects with tighter monetary policy. That’s because supply-side tax cuts actually tend to lower the inflation rates and raise growth. A good example is a cut in the employer-side of the payroll tax, which would encourage hiring but would not boost wages or prices. Indeed, the cost of labor from the firm’s perspective would decline, whereas workers would see no change in take-home pay. Some economists believe that cuts in taxes on investment income might also boost aggregate supply." [8]My opponent likes to say Reagan raised a lot of taxes, but remember that I am looking at Reagan's specific supply-side tax cuts and there economic results. The income tax declined ferociously, from a top rate of 70% to 28%. That should not be in doubt. My opponent says Reagan raised taxes, but does not explain how much or how they corresponded with economic growth. My opponent has also forgot that the corporate tax rate went down as well, which went from 46% to 40% in 1987 to 34% in 1988. These are more examples of supply-side tax cuts. [4]My opponent has hidden the true Reagan tax record on the capital gains rate. Capital gains taxes did not go up when Reagan was president, but remained the same from when he started to when he left except for his first five years when they were lower. In 1981, Reagan's ERTA cut the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%. It was raised again in the 1986 tax bill back to 28%. Taxes, as a whole for capital gains, did not go up during the Reagan years, but mostly stayed the same except for a period when they were lower. [5]My opponent goes after the debt because of Reagan's spending, but does not explain how Reagan's spending is more responsible than Fed policy for the high deficits. My opponent says Fed interest rates "may" have been responsible and to me this means like he's conceding. He needs to explains how much or how little it is responsible. I'm arguing the Fed policy was primarily responsible, but was necessary to deal with the inflation problem. At this my point, my opponent is getting desperate and is resorting to Wikipedia as well. One interesting point about my opponent's graph is that in the next five years deficits are set to go back up. This did not happen under Reagan. In th five years after his presidency deficits were set to go back down. In 1990, the projected deficit was to be $141 billion. In 1995, it was set to be $110 billion.[1]During the Reagan years, median household income increased every year. It has not done so under Obama, this alone shows that Reagan was better than Obama on the economy. Keep real GDP growth and the fact that he will never create as many in jobs in mind too. [6]Finally, my opponent says that other factor "may" be a factor. This is a concession. He does not say how much. All I can say that QE means a lot less from what it did in previous decades because of globalization. Multinational corporations don't just need the United States. Here is more explanation for globalization causing high profits as well as other factors:"1. We're buying companies, not economies. So if companies manage their debt, cash, resources, etc. better than the overall economy, then stocks can go up while the economy does not. It's similar to why I can prosper in a bad economy, because I run my personal finances differently than the overall macro economy. The same can be done with a company and with large companies collectively too. So the fiscal debt and its drag on the economy can be very different than a corporation’s debt level. 2. Corporate earnings are stronger now than in times past, even though the U.S. economy is still weak. In other words, the overall earnings of companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 are greater this time around as the S&P 500 index nears its previous tops from 2000 and 2007. We know that because of the price-earnings (P/E) ratios at the previous market peaks. In 2000, the S&P 500 peaked at a P/E of 29, while in 2007, it peaked at a P/E of 26. Today, the P/E, while at the same level as before, is at a P/E of 17.5. Big difference. So that means that there's a lot more in earnings this time around as these companies have hit these levels. Therefore, stocks could go higher than in the past due to the state of corporate earnings even though the economy is still somewhat weak. 3. The final reason why what's going on in the U.S. economy isn't reflective of what is or will happen in stocks is that most of the companies (if not all of them) in the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average, etc. have very significant international operations that are affected by those economies as well as our economy." [7]HealthcareMy opponent has lied by saying he couldn't find the report about businesses and reported healthcare costs. If you go to page 12 you will the statistic where 77% of businesses reported an increase in healthcare costs.Judicial concerns are still relevant because they can affect the legislation, even if they don't kill it.My opponent has admitted that Obamacare has problems. These problems easily outweigh the benefits for the economy. "Not only is Obamacare costing hardworking American families hours and jobs, but thousands continue to receive healthcare cancellation notices. So far, at least 5 million Americans have lost their current healthcare plans because their insurance no longer meets the new standards set under Obamacare. With the continued rocky rollout of Obamacare, this year will see millions of individuals with small-group market plans, mostly provided by small businesses; lose coverage due to dramatic increases in healthcare premiums." [8]Foreign PolicyMy opponent basically ditched this by saying he will go more in depth next round, but that does make me suspicious. My opponent only used under 5,000 characters on a round with a limit of 10,000 characters. He could have put in a lot more on foreign policy that he didn't, which makes me suspicious that he might be holding off foreign policy so I don't have to respond.ConclusionNothing Ronald Reagan did during his presidency was wrong. Almost everything Obama has done has been a disaster. I feel that I should be awarded best convincing argument because I was specific and prove how Reagan was better at public policy than Obama was. At the same time, I should be awarded conduct for my opponent's lying, lack of use for one round, misuse of sources, and resorting to Wikipedia. Finally, I respectfully cited my sources and used highly respected economists.Sources1. Niskanen, William, and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record." (n.d.): n. pag. Cato.org. Cato Institute, 22 Oct. 1996. Web.2. http://www.census.gov...3. Laffer, Arthur. "Revisiting the Reagan Tax Cuts." The Laffer Center. The Pacific Research Center, 2015. Web. 01 July 2015.4. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...5. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...6. https://research.stlouisfed.org...7. Hyman, Sean. "Why Stocks Don't Reflect the Economy." Newsmax. Newsmax Media, 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 28 June 2015.8. Sumner, Scott. "Why the Fiscal Multiplier Is Roughly Zero." Mercatus on Policy (2013): 1-4. The Mercatus Center. George Mason University, Sept. 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.9. http://dailycaller.com...10. "SHRM Survey Findings: Health Care Reform - 2015 Update." SHRM. Society for Human Resource Management, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.