On Balance, Ronald Reagan was a bad president.

RebuttalsEconomic PolicyIf Reagan had bad economic policy, then why did the economy do so well during his term? His presidency had the biggest expansion of the economy of any U.S. president.My opponent shows me that the GDP rate has decreased over time. However, he has not shown how this is Reagan's fault. Different policies have been implemented along with different presidents since Reagan, confirming the fact that the decreased GDP could be because of any of the presidents we've had, most likely the most recent ones.Also, Pro's links from Round 3 are invalid. Both of them lead to "Page Not Found". This tells me my opponent doesn't have any valid sources to back up his last argument. However, I will still rebut his arguments.ReaganomicsMy opponent only points out the how tax rates affected the economy. He does not present any of Reagan's other policies during his term. Since I can only rebut in this round, I will address the tax rate argument Pro has put up.(A) Top Tax Rate vs GDP Growth RateFirst off, allow me to point out that the GDP growth rate rolls up and down over time. The graph shows that the GDP growth rate peaks about every four years, regardless of the president (with Bush and Clinton as an exception). Also, as a result of the major tax cut during Reagan's term, the GDP peaked at its highest in 30 years, and did not hit a low until after Reagan left office. My opponent also attempts to put the 2008 global recession as George W. Bush's fault, when really the recession occurred as an international housing bust.[1](B) Top Tax Rate Income Growth RateSame thing here. As Reagan implemented tax cuts, the income growth grew. I believe the point my opponent is trying to make is that the long-term effect of tax cuts had a poor effect on the economy. However, these poor effects occurred after Reagan's term, when his economic policies were no longer being implemented. There are many factors that go into economy other than tax cuts. Since my opponent is only focused on tax cuts and its long term effect, without any valid sources to back up his charts, I have hardly any reason to take his arguments seriously.(C) Top Tax Rate vs. Hourly Wage Growth RateAs far as I'm concerned, hourly wage growth rate grew and peaked at the end of Reagan's term. He supported and called for higher salaries for employees[2].(D) Top Tax Rate vs Unemployment"Productivity declines as the tax rate increases, as people choose to work less. The higher the tax rate, the more time people spend evading taxes and the less time they spend on more productive activity. So the lower the tax rate, the higher the value of all the goods and services produced."[3]Allow me to provide a better unemployment rate chart from a more reliable source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics[4]. As we see here, unemployment peaked in 1983, near the beginning of Reagan's term, and sunk to a low in 1989, at the end of his term. Now I ask you, did tax cuts work or not?How Tax Cuts Helped the EconomyBecause of Reagan's tax cuts:"-20 million new jobs were created-Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988-Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%-Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%-Real gross national product rose 26%-The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988"[5]"Government tax revenue does not necessarily increase as the tax rate increases. The government will earn more tax income at 1% rate than at 0%, but they will not earn more at 100% than they will at 10%, due to the disincentives high tax rates cause. Thus there is a peak tax rate where government revenue is highest. The relationship between income tax rates and government revenue can be graphed on something called a Laffer Curve."[3]As I said earlier, higher taxes are not the solution. Who wants to pay more taxes? Certainly not the employed. There are many examples throughout U.S. history that show the correlating effect between tax cuts and the economy[6], but since this debate is about Reagan, I'll move to talking about him.The Cold WarMy opponent states that I have not provided a link between Reagan and the collapse of the Soviet Union. As I recall, I said that "He gave financial assistance to anti-communist rebels in Afghanistan, Central America, and other regions. This forced the Soviets to spend 40% of their budget on the military, leaving their economy really weak." Is this not a direct cause? Also, Reagan proposed nuclear disarmament treaties with Gorbachev, putting the Soviets out of their threatening state against the U.S., resulting in the end of the Cold War. Sources1. http://www.netadvisor.org...2. Ronald Reagan: A Very Brief History by Mark Black3. http://economics.about.com...4. http://data.bls.gov...5. http://www.reaganfoundation.org...6. http://online.wsj.com...