Ronald Reagan was a better President than Barack Obama

My counter-arguments will concern both my opponent's counter-arguments as well as a defense of my arguments. Foreign affairs: I never suggested that the media keep silent, because that's an authoritarian regime. What I suggested was that it's being used by his opposition (not just Republicans) to undermine him in the eyes of the American people. As for Russia, as I said, there isn't much we can do. You've probably realized by now that Putin is insanely aggressive and ruthless in his domestic policy, almost Soviet-esque. Reagan was certainly more assertive in his dealings with the Russians, supplying and arming the Taliban and Mujaheddin groups to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. All that did was create hell for us in the current millennium, to fight the same terror that we created. The same relates to now. Obama can't be assertive without Putin responding in some fashion. It's a stalemate. Obama is hesitant about going into Iraq because the last time we went in, it was highly unpopular and it caused poor opinions for his predecessor. The Bush government spent some 60 billion on rebuilding and restructuring the country, including the army. It's failed miserably. The real problem, as Mr. Hunter explains, [1] is that the hatred between Sunnis and Shias doesn't let them cooperate on projects. It's an ethnic problem we can't solve. Sending in troops will just escalate the crisis. Just let it unfold. Reagan's Soviet relations program, which was more 'rollback' than 'containment', did appear to help to reduce Communism in some cases. (by the way, Bolivia and Brazil shouldn't be there). However, a closer look tells otherwise. In Nicaragua, Reagan illegally and secretly sold arms to Iran to fund the anti-communist rebels, who also had a history of human rights violations. [2] The communist government was largely peaceful, too. Several other countries ( i.e Ethiopia) collapsed out of their own accord or due to other internal factors. The USSR was one of these. It had a economy crumbling into the dust, and desperate measures were needed to solve it. What happened there, though often attributed to Reagan, was an internal Soviet decision that killed the country. No more. [5] And Grenada was a successful, socialist government before we came, and our pretense was a farce. But I'll move on. Economy- About Obama's negotiating skills: he is definitely less aggressive than Reagan was, but it's not so much his political skills as it is that he's facing the most acidic Congress in a long time. When you think about it, they'll harass him no matter what he does. If he moves his ideas forward, they automatically reject it because it's his. If he uses executive orders, they call him a dictator and try to sue him. How can anyone work in such opposition? Reagan's party controlled only 1 house, I know. But that was an era with more open compromise, where both parties could agree for the sake of the country. It's just a time gone by now, and it's a shame. As for your unemployment and supply-side measures, I also remind you of the by-products of the Reagan measures- increased wealth gap and massive deficits. The wealth gap has risen to large levels already, no need for more. And our debt is crippling. If Obama will also cut the rich, then it'll speed up those processes. Combining these factors with the Congress stagnation, and it can be seen that Obama will take a slower but less risky proposition to avoid even more catastrophic situations. Regulations are a double-edged sword. They take money out of the economy, but they help to prevent unscrupulous and potentially damaging practices. Ill-advised practices (mortgage-loan crisis) might have very well been averted with more regulations. A slower economy might also give a safer economy, with less chance for more crippling recessions. [3] Your median argument poses some problems. Firstly, it should be mentioned that the real minimum wage actually decreased significantly over Reagan's 8-year term, and he never bothered to raise it. Secondly, while many middle-class became rich, that doesn't count for much. It means that the upper-middle class ballooned with wealth. The bottom line is that most of the wealth began to flow to the rich, and with the lower-middle class becoming the working poor, the middle-class was then lowered to fit them in. Reagan benefited the rich, no one else. The "increases" for the poor are heavily disproportionate to what the rich got. (percentage-wise). [4] [6] For the above reasons, Reagan was not better than Obama. Sources: 1. http://www.lobelog.com... 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 3. http://www.investopedia.com... 4. http://www.salon.com... 5. http://www.historytoday.com... 6. http://www.nytimes.com...