Ronald Reagan was a better President than Barack Obama

This has been a very interesting discussion. I've ended up learning a lot about economics, and the terms of both presidents, so I thank my opponent for that. Obama isn't really stuck. I think the misunderstanding is that when I first mentioned the media, what I was trying to say is that conservative outlets unfairly exaggerate Obama's mishaps. But liberal outlets often do the same, and this can go both ways. Therefore, I won't argue about that. Reagan didn't defeat the USSR, as I said before. The main causes of its collapse were its rigid, failing, and poorly managed economy, weakening leadership, enormous amounts of money and prestige lost in the Afghanistan War, intense and rising nationalism, and 'perestroika'. Nothing Reagan did accelerated this decline, ( Thatcher was wrong, modern historians now know the truth) but our massive military spending did raise the deficit. Russia today is much different- strong, popular leadership, a better economy, and few military commitments. As for your claim that it made the world a stable place, at the moment both Afghanistan and Pakistan are overrun with Taliban insurgents. We've spent an unsuccessful 13-year war on this to few real gains. The area is even worse off now. Reagan even helped to fund bin Laden's training camps. (Something to mention- the Taliban and al-Qaeda are completely different entities). [1] [2] Obama should have differed from Bush a little more, I agree. Although Reagan did not know the full extent of the activities in the Contra affair, we was fully aware of the arms sales to Israel. The point is that it was his cabinet and his aides, and he should have been fully aware of what was happening. He did take full responsibility, which is commendable, but since it was his administration that did it, he was fully responsible. As for "it's just something that happens", that's false. It's not just something that happens, it occurs because that group is adequately supported/funded by powerful allies, like the US with the Contras. For the Iraq question, ISIS wants as much land as possible. These are terrorists who want an Islamic empire- they won't stop until they get all their goals. And how can you say that Yugoslavia is better now? Balkanization resulted in the Bosnian genocide, the Kosovo wars, and the other Yugoslav wars. Clearly, breaking up countries on ethnic lines won't work. Not only that, but negotiating on such a level implies that we recognize their caliphate and its claim to N. Iraq. The lesser of two evils strategy is horrendous when you look at it. We shouldn't support either evil. That strategy would imply that supporting a wrongdoing is alright, so long as its better than the other. But that's another debate. I find your comparison to Nazi Germany ghastly- comparing a regime that had long ceased to carry out genocides to one that was killing tens of thousands every day. The Nazis would have never declined without war, while the USSR probably would've. The Reykjavik summit broke down with no results, so I'm not sure what you're saying. While the reforms were meant to save the USSR, they were the same reforms that destroyed it. It was a catastrophic mistake on Gorbachev's part, but he needed a radical solution to save the country. It failed. Reagan was very friendly towards South Africa in his first term. Your argument that he was concerned that it would break down into civil war is false. His "engagement" was a disguise to support them. It wasn't because he was racist, but because he viewed Mandela's party as pro-Communist. He even vetoed a proposition to place sanctions. He had no problem with keeping sanctions on Iran despite the fragility of its economy, and he certainly didn't see South Africa that way either. Reagan wasn't stupid, he knew perfectly well that no civil rights advances would be made. It was only after enormous pressure was applied by Congress and the UN that Reagan agreed to place sanctions. [3] Lastly, for Grenada, the UN passed a resolution 108 to 9 condemning the US invasion as a violation of international law. Just saying. Economic Policy: Most people don't know how they want the economy to be, because most people don't understand complex economics. I don't profess to understand either, but that's the reason we elect representatives- they're supposed to know what will help the country. As for Obamacare, most people don't understand it well enough to judge it properly. A test was done, where people were asked whether they approved of the individual proposals within Obamacare, and whether they knew it was in it. Astoundingly, most people thought positively of each individual aspect, but disliked Obamacare. It's because conservative representatives are against it, and say false things about it that people who don't know to go understand it for themselves will find it easier to just trust them. Obamacare has been largely shown to positively impact those who get it. Sometimes, people just don't know what they want with government. [4] The Fed didn't cause it, it was lack of regulation. Uncontrolled mortgage loans led to massive debts, which regulations could have probably prevented, as the Congressional report on it states [5] [6]. The federal government didn't cause it, although not enough was done to prevent it. Indeed, it was only massive government spending that saved the economy from a total free-fall. Government intervention was necessary there. Again to the taxes. Does it stimulate the economy? Yes, it does. But the cost is not worth it. It creates income inequality that leaves the poor in the dust, does little for the middle class, but makes the rich even richer. Most research shows that the middle-class is largely unaffected by these cuts. Corporate income inequality is staggering. The goal of economic policies is to help the poor and middle classes. Tax cuts only truly help the rich, who don't go out and invest so much as they make themselves richer. Of course, 90% taxes wouldn't work at all, but I should point out the Laffer curve is simplified. The ideal tax point is slightly above 50%. But that doesn't address income inequality. Minimum wage increases build middle classes. Every other successful, civilized country is doing it. An hour at McD's gets a Canadian $10, an Australian $15, and an American $7.50. People can't build an income to support their children with our current, small wages. Washington state raised the wage to the highest in the country. The result? Higher than average job growth, 21% INCREASE in restaurant jobs, and decreased poverty. A higher minimum wage will not only increase jobs, but it will reduce poverty, let people live better lives, and build a strong middle class. Reagan refused to raise it, and set the trend that way. For Obama to do it shows that he values a stronger middle class and greater disposable income, which would help the country a lot more. [7] Sources: 1. http://www.worldology.com... 2. http://www.longwarjournal.org... 3. http://www.salon.com... 4. http://obamacarefacts.com... 5. http://www.nytimes.com... 6. http://www.economist.com... 7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...