Ronald Reagan was a better President than Barack Obama

We are now in the refutations period. Reagan's growth vs. Obama's growthMy opponent argues that one of the main reasons the economy go so better was because of the Federal Reserve's policy and high government spending:"Many say the growth was due to supply side economics; however, I’m going to prove it was primarily due to the actions of the Federal Reserve and high government spending during the Reagan administrations. I will also show why growth under Obama is due to similar purposes, but why he is a more fiscally responsible president. "He shows Fed interest rates and explains how that led to a defeat of inflation. Finally, the Fed dropped rates after two years and the unemployment rate started to head down. There's a problem that my opponent misses, which is that this IS the monetary policy of Reaganomics, as I explained before, but will explain again:"Reaganomics consisted of four key elements to reverse the high-inflation, slow-growth economic record of the 1970s: (1) a restrictive monetary policy designed to stabilize the value of the dollar and end runaway inflation; (2) a 25 percent across-the-board tax cut enacted (The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) designed to spur savings, investment, work, and economic efficiency; (3) a promise to balance the budget through domestic spending restraint; and (4) an agenda to roll back government regulation. " [1]Since restrictive monetary policy is part of Reaganomics and that is what the Fed did, the credit must be given to Ronald Reagan. It is important to remember the unprecedented amount of defense Reagan gave politically to the Federal Reserve and Chairman Paul Volcker:"What Reagan provided was political protection. The Fed's previous failures to stifle inflation reflected its unwillingness to maintain tight-money policies long enough to purge inflationary psychology. Successive presidents preferred a different approach: the wage-price policies built on the pleasing (but unrealistic) premise that these could quell inflation without jeopardizing full employment. Reagan rejected this futile path. As the gruesome social costs of Volcker's policies mounted -- the monthly unemployment rate would ultimately rise to a post-World War II high of 10.8 percent -- Reagan's approval ratings plunged. In May of 1981, they were 68 percent; by January 1983, 35 percent. " [2]Reagan's policy required restraint in domestic spending. That was upheld. Annual percentage increase in billions for the government domestically only grew by 1 percent during the Reagan years. This is much lower than the domestic government growth of 3.5 percent during the Jimmy Carter years. [1]As a percentage of GDP, federal outlways were lower when Reagan left office from he entered it. In 1981, federal outlays were 22.2 percent of GDP and in 1989 they were 21.2 percent of GDP. We have now concluded that spending was limited during the Reagan years, but mainly on the domestic side as Reaganomics argues. Naturally defense spending increases during a time of war. [3]My opponent argues that Reagan lowered taxes, but that he also raised taxes as well. The Reagan years are known for the era of supply-side economics when taxes collapsed to help the economy. This is true because as a whole, economists recognize that taxes were much lower when Reagan left office from when he entered it. The whole point of supply-side economics is to lower tax rates while cutting deductions in order for a more transparent tax system. It's also important to keep in mind that Reagan's important 1981 tax bill was put into effect over years and far outweighs the 1986 increase:"Critics charge that the tax cuts caused higher deficits, but they misread the evidence. The Reagan tax cut, though approved in 1981, was phased in over several years. As a result, bracket creep (indexing was not implemented until 1985) and payroll tax increases completely swamped Reagan's 1.25 percent tax cut in 1981 and effectively canceled out the portion of the tax cut which went into effect in 1982. The economy received an unambiguous tax cut only as of January 1983. Thereafter, personal income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation). " [4]This was followed by Reagan's 1986 tax cut, which brought the top rate down from 50% to 28%. When he entered office the top rate as 70%. Finally it is important to remember that the deficit was expected to continue to decline when Reagan left office. The deficit, at $141 billion when Reagan left office, was on track to decline every year in CBO projections. In 1990 it would be $110 billion. What happened was that George H. W. Bush raised taxes and ruined the fiscal situation. [1]My opponent looks to stop market growth, but this is flawed. Stock market growth really doesn't accurately reflect the economy:"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. " [11]Additionally, companies in the stock market have greater corporate earnings than before. It also very critical to remember that companies worked internationally. My opponent has to prove that the stock market is doing well from Obama's policy and not by policies in the rest of the world. [11]Finally, the deficit was not Ronald Reagan's fault. Fiscal policy was pretty sound, the deficit problem goes to Volcker, although it was needed to get out of the recession. Economist J. W. Mason is working on such a paper:"One interesting thing I discovered working on it is that, despite what we all think we know, the increase in federal borrowing during the 1980s was mostly due to higher interest rate, not tax and spending decisions. Add to the Volcker rate hikes the deep recession of the early 1980s and the disinflation later in the decade, and you’ve explained the entire rise in the debt-GDP ratio under Reagan. What’s funny is that this is a straightforward matter of historical fact and yet nobody seems to be aware of it. " [5]HealthcareThis policy has been a disaster for the Obama administration and Obamacare isn't working. In a survey 77 percent of businesses have reported an increase in healthcare costs following Obamacare. It's a disaster for the health of the American economy. There are still many legal issues ahead:"Republican lawmakers have sued over delays in requiring employers to provide insurance. Some Indiana schools say it's unconstitutional to force them to provide coverage. Another suit says Congress violated a little-known section of the Constitution about which chamber must introduce tax bills first. Others challenge the requirement that insurance cover contraception. " [7] Moore reports the big problems with health care costs and that Obamacare really isn't working:"In 2013, as Obamacare’s policies were phasing in, nearly 5 million policyholders across 31 states and the District of Columbia were notified that their current coverage was being discontinued. This doesn’t include nearly 20 states that weren’t tracking these numbers so the total could have been several million more. In California alone, 1.1 million policies were canceled. In March, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that Obamacare will result in a total of 1 million fewer people enrolled in employment-based coverage in 2015, increasing to 8 million fewer enrolled in employment-based covered by 2018. That’s a lot of people who haven’t been able to keep the health insurance that they like. " [8]Now we must remember the big lie given by Obama that you can keep your healthcare plan. It has been proven false. Foreign PolicyKeep in mind that everything Reagan did during the Cold War was to support the fall of the Soviet Union. You are looking at foreign policy after the Soviet Union, which was thanks to Reagan's defeat of communism. A man cannot be ahead of his time. Foreign policy is primarily focused on gigantic, major opponents. Today that is ISIS, decades ago that was the USSR. What happens if Reagan doesn't fund these people? Then the Soviets win the Cold War and the fight against freedom in the western world. Before Reagan we lost:1. South Vietnam2. Cambodia3. Laos4. South Yemen5. Angola6. Mozambique7. Ethiopia8. Grenada9. NicaraguaThen when Reagan entered, we won in:1. Bolivia2. Honduras3. Argentina4. Grenada5. El Salvador6. Uruguay7. Brazil8. Guatemala9. The Philippines [10]That is thanks to his great foreign policy that defeated the Soviet Union. 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. Samuelson, Robert. "Volcker, Reagan & History. " RealClearPolitics. RealClear Holdings LLC, 12 Jan. 2015. Web. 28 June 2015.3. . http://www.census.gov...4. Mitchell, Daniel J. "The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates. " Heritage. org. The Heritage Foundation, 19 July 1996. Web. 18 Dec. 2014.5. Mason, J. W. "The Myth of Reagan's Debt. " J W Mason. N. p. , 06 June 2015. Web. 28 June 2015.6. "SHRM Survey Findings: Health Care Reform - 2015 Update. " SHRM. Society for Human Resource Management, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.7. Heath, Brad. "More Legal Challenges Ahead for Obamacare. " USA Today. Gannett, 25 June 2015. Web. 28 June 2015.8. Moore, Stephen. "The Fantasy That ObamaCare Is Working. " Heritage. org. The Heritage Foundation, 12 June 2015. Web. 28 June 2015.9. Jacobson, Louis. "Barack Obama Says That What He'd Said Was You Could Keep Your Plan 'if It Hasn't Changed since the Law Passed'" PolitiFact. Tampa Bay Times, 06 Nov. 2013. Web. 28 June 2015.10. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.11. Hyman, Sean. "Why Stocks Don't Reflect the Economy. " Newsmax. Newsmax Media, 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 28 June 2015.