On Balance, Ronald Reagan was a bad president.

Rebuttals"Economic Policy"My opponent attempts to show correlation. He spouts, Reagan was in office, and the economy did well. Therefore, Reagan had a good economic policy. This is a non-sequiter. To prove this point, my opponent will need to prove a cause-effect relationship between the Reagan Administration Economic Policy, and the brief prosperity experienced during his presidential term.Furthermore, the long term effects of Reagans economic policy, obviously have not been great. The GDP growth rate is shrinking (1) I. Rebutting ReaganomicsOne of the most influential aspects of Reaganomics, and modern economic policy, is the concept that putting low taxes on the wealthy increases eocnomic growth. This is simply false.(A) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to GDP growth.In '63, taxes from the rich were cut from nearly 90%, to about 35%. With trickle down economic theory, it's dipped as low as 28%. If this policy was an effective one, we would see an obvious general upward trend of our national GDP, with a correlation coefficient close to -1. Observe the following graph. (2) As you can see, there is no obvious trend. Yes the economy did boom initially, but almost immediately recessed. Under Clinton, taxes for the rich were raised, and the economy strengthened. When Bush Jr. stepped into office, and taxes for the rich were again slashed, the economy quickly recessed again (the 2008 recession). The correlation coefficient between Tax cuts and GDP is actually .3, meaning that it is slightly indicitave of a negative trend.(B) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.So it doesn't help the GDP, and even hurts the GDP. So if you still aren't convinced, examine the effect of top tax cuts and income. (2) "Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)!"(2)Reaganomics does not help boost our income or our GDP, and therefore is a harmful economic policy.(C) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.The same story is told for wage growth, when one observes historical evidence.(2) "Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase." (2)Tax cuts just don't help! It can be shown with evidence through our economy. We've had this system for 40 years, and now our economy has been recessed very powerfully. The recession started before Obama was in office, so you can't just shift the blame to him. Our economy failed under Reaganomics. How can you say that it isn't the cause of modern economic strife?(D) Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.Another point that many Reagan fans love to harp on: Jobs. Let's see how Reaganomics affects jobs.(2) "Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship." (2)"The Cold War"My opponent argues that Reagan caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, and ended the cold war. He states this by saying that Reagan competed with the soviets fiercely, but was not the original cause of the cold war? My opponent fails to point directly to how Reagans diplomatic actions actually brought about the end of the cold war.Furthermore, the collapse of the Soviet Union was largely due to internal causes, not Reagan(3). Factors such as decentralizing policy changes, Failing economy, perestroika, and the generally more democratic policies of Gorbachev that eventually led ot the downfall of the USSR. Gorbachev likely had more to do with the collapse of the USSR, than Reagan!Sources1. http://www.marketobservation.com...;2. http://www.faireconomy.org...;