The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
theliberal1219
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Ronald Reagan was a Better President than Barack Obama

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,922 times Debate No: 39897
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

Debate

I am arguing that President Ronald Wilson Reagan was a better president than the current president, Barack Hussein Obama. My opponent must argue that President Obama has been a better president than President Reagan was.

Rules

Round 1 for acceptance only.
No trolling and no semantics.
theliberal1219

Con

I will let my defender start with the opening argument.

Please explain your arguments on why Reagan was a better president.

Please include things such as foreign policy, the debt, etc.
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

Ronald Reagan

I. Economic Policy

Reagan entered office with one of the most ambitious plans since FDR's New Deal. His supply-side economics brought the recession from its peak in 1982 to growing recover two years later. The best example of this is unemployment. The unemployment rate peaked at 10.8% in November 1982. At that same time, Reagan's huge tax cuts went into effect. To properly compare this to Obama, we must look at Reagan's fifth year in office in September. The unemployment rate for September 1985 was 7.1%. In total, unemployment dropped by 3.7%. That is huge progress. [1]

However that is not just it, federal revenue had been declining at 2.8% per year and after President Reagan's tax cuts it grew at 2.7% per year. In addition, real GDP growth was averaging at 0.9% before the tax cuts and 4.8% after. [2]

Finally, Mr. Cain and Mr. Lowrie write that:

"During this period, promising technology companies such as Apple Computer and Microsoft launched initial public offerings of stock, while others such as Cisco Systems and Compaq (later acquired by Hewlett-Packard) received expansion capital and later went public." [2]

This is because of a capital gains tax cut signed by President Reagan. It allowed the creation of companies like Apples. Think about it, you might have an apple in your house. How would it feel if Ronald Reagan had never become president. His policies that brought the creation of Apple and other companies would have never happened and thus these companies would have trouble growing.

Reagan's succesful policies eventually were nicknamed Reaganomics. When the Heritage Foundation looks are Reagan's record, it finds that:

"No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending." [3]

Mr. Sperry notes that Preisdent Reagan's economic boom lasted for 92 months without a recession. This period was from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime. The growth from the President Reagan's boom lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War 2. [3]

II. Cold War

Now let's move on to one of the president's greatest achievements: defeating the USSR, the greatest threat to our country ever. There were three factors that brought down the Evil Empire:

1. Military Strategy - When President Reagan entered office, military morale was low and so was the pay. President Carter had cut a lot of programs in the military. Under the Reagan Administration, military spending skyrocketed in the crusade against communism. This included the famous SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) programs and several over and covert missions to aid anti-communists guerrilla forces in Central America, South America, Africa, and Afghanistan.

2. Economic Strategy - Yes, Reaganomics helped win the Cold War. The recovering economy helped President Reagan's military buildup. The free market capitalist United States was too much for the USSR which had an its inefficient command-directed communist economic system.

3. Political Strategy - Politics played a role to in defeating the reds. With a strong ally in British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Reagan launched a global political form of blitzkrieg on the USSR and other communist political leaders. The reds had seriously underestimated the American president and saw him as a "warmonger".

Together, these strategies defeated the USSR and by January 1989 when President Reagan left office the USSR was in great trouble. In 1991, the USSR would collapse. Soviet Head of State Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of perestroika (re-structuring) and glasnost (openness) proved too little, too late. Gorbachev told the History Channel in 2002, "I don't know what would have happened had [Reagan] not been there." [4,5]

Barack Obama

I. Sluggish Recovery

In comparision to Reagan's recovery, Obama has had one of the slowest economic recoveries in history. Obama responded to the 2008-2009 recession with a demand-side stimulus package to get more Americans to buy products. This economic plan was a disaster.

Unemployment under Obama peaked at 10.0% in October 2009 and has gone down to 7.2% as of September 2013. That is reduction of 2.8%, a far weaker recovery than the one seen under Reagan.
BO's record in real GDP sucks too and then we have the national debt. Under President Reagan, the debt went from $1 trillion to $2.6 trillion, but under BO it goes from $12 trillion to well around $16.5 trillion by now. He practically has made it impossible to pay back in our times. [7]

II. Foreign Policy

Despite the death of Osama Bin Laden and other leading terrorists, mistake over mistake over mistake have been made many times. Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." Instead of verifying, BO seems to just trust. Let's look at the record.

Libya - The BO administration and the State Department put faith in a bunch of local militias to protect our embassy rather than the Marines. The result? Four Americans dead, including an ambassador, when our embassy and a CIA post were attacked. [8]

Syria - The BO administration put Saudi Arabia and the Qataris in charge of supplying the rebels against the Assad regime, but rather these two nations don't want pro-democracy forces in charge of Syria. Instead they supply radical Muslim factions that hate the US. [8]

Egypt - The BO administration trusted Muslim radicals to build a fair democratic government. Instead, they plugged in sharia law and we did nothing. Billions in wasteful US aid has continued without being interrupted. [8]

Pakistan - The BO administration has failed again here when they continue to pay billions to a regime that supports the killing of US troops and shields terrorists. BO and his allies pretend that they are our friends while they cash the checks for their military. [8]

Trust is for your wife, not diplomacy.

Conclusion

I have proven that Ronald Reagan is a better president economically and in foreign policy to BO. Team Reagan!

Sources

1. http://portalseven.com...
2. Cain, Herman and Rich Lowrie. 9-9-9 An Army of Davids. 2012.
3. Sperry, Peter B. "The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 1 June 2004. Web.
4. Gaffney, Dennis and Peter Gaffney. The Seven Day-Scholar: The Presidents. 2012.
5. Morelock, Jerry D. "Ronald Reagan's Cold War." Armchair General IX.5 (2012): 18-19.
6. http://portalseven.com... Hussein Obama
7. http://www.skymachines.com...
8. Peters, Ralph. "Trust Isn't a Strategy." Armchair General X.2 (2013): 8.

theliberal1219

Con

I. Economic Policy

"His supply-side economics brought the recession from its peak in 1982 to growing recover two years later." Crediting Reagan's 1981 tax-cuts for bringing the economy out of stagflation is false. In fact, most credit is given to Paul Volcker, the Federal Reserve Chief under Carter and Reagan. Volcker is well known for ending high-levels of inflation during this time, which helped pull the country out of its crisis. [1]

Let"s talk about the economic collapse in 2008, right before Obama took office. This crisis happened because of excessive deregulation in the financial industry. Reagan was a big supporter of the idea that deregulating the economy is always the best solution, and he often enforced it. This idea that he, and the people who think like him, had been forceful with is the cause for the economic downfall. If we are comparing a mere "Which president is better" comparison, this would surely be a prime example of why Reagan was not a "better" president. [2]

Let"s talk about the deficit and the debt. Obama inherited an annual deficit of 1.4 trillion dollars. As of this year, the deficit has been cut in half in relation to GDP, which is an incredible decrease in a five year time frame. [3] To make it clear, Obama is not responsible for a large portion of the debt that accumulated under him for a couple of reasons. I"ll list some of them below.
1. Unpaid for wars
-George Bush paid for wars that he didn"t have the money for. He also made tax-cuts that we couldn"t afford, which comes exactly from the "Reagan playbook" of fiscal irresponsibility. It was Dick Cheney who said, "Reagan proved that deficits don"t matter." [4] In general, the government has to bring in the same amount of money as it spends. The deficit does matter, and the Bush Administration took this idea that it is irrelevant, and ran with it.
2. Unpaid Tax-Cuts
-Reagan cut taxes in the beginning of his first term as president. He then later had to raise taxes to pay for the deficit increase that cutting them cost him. Even still, he didn"t raise them enough to cover the output gap. Politically, it didn"t hurt Reagan to increase the deficit. He won his second term, and he continued to push budget-busting policies. He influenced his predecessors to do the same, and their lack of fiscal responsibility lead up to the 2008 financial crisis. [5]

You refer to Obama"s recovery as being one of the slowest economic recoveries in history. However, you need to remember that when Obama took office the US economy was losing 750,000 jobs a month, numerous major banks were on the verge of collapse, and another depression seemed possible. The economy shrunk more than 8% preceding his first quarter as President. When Reagan took office, he did not have nearly as much financial crisis to take on as Obama did. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges.

Barack Obama

"Obama responded to the 2008-2009 recession with a demand-side stimulus package ... was a disaster." According to top economist Mark Zandi and the Congressional Budget Office, we would have millions of fewer jobs, and the unemployment rate would have been higher if the stimulus package was not passed. What would have been a disaster, as you say, is if the stimulus package wasn"t passed in the first place. [6]

The auto-rescue plan Obama put into place in 2009, was seen as a recipe for disaster. At the time, it was thought that it would be the final nail in the coffin for the American Auto Industry. The outcome was quite the contrary. It helped put GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy and come out on the other side, and they both are now very profitable. Had they been liquidated, Ford would have gone under as well, because the suppliers would have dried out. There would have been a ripple effect across the entire economy. If it were not for the Obama administration and his auto-rescue plan, the entire American Auto Industry would have folded. [7]

"...The longest period of sustained growth during peacetime..."This is false. It is actually Bill Clinton who has the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime of a 120 month expansion from 1991-2000. [8]

Let"s take a look at the stock market. According to Google Finance, when Reagan was exactly where Obama is now in his presidency, the Dow Jones increased 48.4%. Under Obama it has increased 90.4% It has increased almost twice as much under Obama, which is an extremely impressive growth. [9]

II. Foreign Policy

"Despite the death of Osama Bin Laden and other leading terrorists, mistake over mistake over mistake have been made many times." You can"t just dismiss the killing of America"s greatest enemy in the 21st century. This is not irrelevant. All victories against other leading terrorists cannot be dismissed either. Ordering the killing of Osama Bin Laden was one of the most important accomplishments Obama has had in his presidency thus far. And if you want to talk about making mistakes, you should remember that Reagan armed and backed the Mujahideen to help defeat the soviets at the time, and they were the start of the terrorist movement we see today. [10]

"Four Americans dead, including an ambassador, when our embassy and a CIA post were attacked." Reagan sent 1,800 Marines to lebanon to keep the peace in 1983. 241 of them were killed while deployed. According to your logic then, it is Reagan"s fault that 241 American Marines were killed and were not properly protected. People die. Just because it happens while one president is in office, does not mean it is automatically their fault. There are multiple more examples of Americans being killed in US Embassies throughout the world under Reagan. To make this about Obama, is ridiculous. [11]

Sources
1. "Paul Volcker." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 11 June 2013. .
2. Koprowski, Gene J. . "Krugman: Reagan Deregulation Caused 2008 Crisis." Moneynews. N.p., 17 Dec. 2009.
.
3. "Congressional Budget Office Summary Report for Fiscal Year 2013." Congressional Budget Office Summary Report for Fiscal Year 2013. N.p., 8 Nov. 2013. .
4. "Dick Cheney on Budget & Economy." On the Issues. N.p., 11 Jan. 2004. .
5. Sahadi, Jeanne. "Taxes: What people forget about Reagan." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 8 Sept. 2010. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. .
6. Yin, Sara. "Mark Zandi: Boehner Was Wrong, Stimulus 'Did Exactly What It Was Intended To' (VIDEO)."The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 25 Aug. 2010.
.
7. Whitman, Bernard. "52 Reasons to Vote for Obama: #9, Saved the U.S. Auto Industry." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 5 Nov. 2012. .
8. "USA. The longest economic expansion in American history hasended.." USA. The longest economic expansion in American history hasended.. N.p., n.d. .
9. "Dow Jones Industrial Average 2 Minute: INDEXDJX:.DJI historical prices - Google Finance." Dow Jones Industrial Average 2 Minute: INDEXDJX:.DJI historical prices - Google Finance. N.p., n.d. .
10. "Mujahideen." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Feb. 2013. .
11. "Terrorist Attacks on Americans 1979-1988." PBS. PBS, n.d. .
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

Ronald Reagan

I. Economic Policy

"Crediting Reagan's 1981 tax-cuts for bringing the economy out of stagflation is false. In fact, most credit is given to Paul Volcker, the Federal Reserve Chief under Carter and Reagan. Volcker is well known for ending high-levels of inflation during this time, which helped pull the country out of its crisis."

This is false because the reason the 1981-82 recession got so bad was because of Paul Volcker's actions to disrupt the money supply. The restrictive monetary policies naturally brought down inflation, but hit unemployment badly:

"Yet, as inflation plummeted, unemployment skyrocketed. The Phillips curve struck back with a vengeance. The unemployment rate rose from 7 to nearly 11 percent, which meant more than 10 million Americans were out of work. Businesses began to close doors. Farmers suffered foreclosures."
[1]

And:

"Volcker deserves high praise for the change in policy. But Reagan clearly warrants a large part of the credit for endorsing the overdue correction in Federal Reserve policy from the high-inflation 1970s. A major element of Reaganomics, in addition to the tax cuts, was sound money--a policy the nationhad not followed since the late 1960s. The Federal Reserve's policy of sweating out inflation took place with the explicit approval of the Reagan administration, even though that policy contributed to the deep recession of 1981-82 and the unexpectedly large and immediate fall in inflation was a major factor in the budget deficit explosion in the early 1980s." [2]

Next, my opponent blames Reagan for the 2008 economic crisis that Obama had to deal with. This is highly foolish as three presidents served after Reagan and before the recession. In fact, financial regulations grew under the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. As study conducted concluded the results:

"The past few decades have witnessed a significant expansion in the number of financial the widely held belief that our financial market regulations were “rolled back.” While many regulators may have been shortsighted and over-confident in their own ability to spare our financial markets from collapse, this failing is one of regulation, not deregulation. When one scratches below the surface of the “deregulation” argument, it becomes apparent that the usual suspects, like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, did not cause the current crisis and that the supposed refusal of regulators to deal with derivatives and “predatory” mortgages would have had little impact on the actual course of events, as these issues were not central to the crisis. To explain the financial crisis, and avoid the next one, we should look at the failure of regulation, not at a mythical deregulation." [3]

II. Foreign Policy

My arguments that Reagan won the Cold War have not been refuted. My opponent does criticize the president for the Lebanon crisis, but Marines are meant to fight and be in dangerous areas. It is a war zone, so obviously they would be attacked the Marine Corps decided how to protect their own Marines.

Overall however, Ronald Reagan is responsible for the greatest victory in world history, more than World War 2 and World War 1 combined.

My opponent criticizes Reagan for raising the deficit and cutting taxes, but during massive wars like the Cold War it is natural for the debt and deficit to increase. Do you blame Lincoln for giving us huge war debt during the Civil War? The goal was noble and we had to fight the enemy. Finally, his tax cuts actually raised revenue. [4]

Barack Obama

I. Economic Policy

"The economy shrunk more than 8% preceding his first quarter as President. When Reagan took office, he did not have nearly as much financial crisis to take on as Obama did. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges."

When Reagan entered office unemployment was already at 7% and rose to 11% as a result of the Fed's actions. He was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs too and the recession was far worse than the current one. Stagflation is more dangerous than inflation or deflation.

Obama's stimulus package and auto bailouts were a weak response to recovering from the recession. He should have done exactly what Reagan did: supply-side tax cuts. Those tax cuts under Reagan brought a faster recovery than Obama's demand-side strategy has been.

"It is actually Bill Clinton who has the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime of a 120 month expansion from 1991-2000."

According to the Cato study, the Reagan/Bush period from 1981 to 1990 saw a 92 month economic expansion. Clinton, before his 1997 capital gains tax cuts, had seen his economy grow at 65 months. He cut the capital gains tax in 1997 and saw growth and revenue skyrocket. It is because he cut taxes, not raised it, that the economy rapidly grew. [2,4]

Finally, Google Finance is wrong, MSN found its own results in Dow Jones growth which gives Reagan 130% growth in the Dow Jones average and Obama 58% growth. [5]

II. Foreign Policy

"You can"t just dismiss the killing of America"s greatest enemy in the 21st century. This is not irrelevant. All victories against other leading terrorists cannot be dismissed either. Ordering the killing of Osama Bin Laden was one of the most important accomplishments Obama has had in his presidency thus far. "

We are really early in the century to determine if Bin Laden is America's greatest. The Soviet Union was far more powerful and more dangerous. It is not just about killing leaders, it is also about forever economically and militarily damaging an opposing power. Reagan saw that happen, Obama did not.

The problem with Obama and the embassy was that it wasn't the military, but his own State Department that was in charge. This was not even a war zone, the rebellion against the government was over, but they still ended up dead.

Sources

1. D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.
2. Niskanen, William A., and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record." Cato.org. Cato Institute, 22 Oct. 1996. Web.
3. Calabria, Mark A. "Did Deregulation Cause the Financial Crisis?" Cato.org. Cato Institute, July 2009. Web.
4. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.
5. Blaine, Charley. "Stocks Have Had a Great Run in Obama's Term." MSN.com. MSN Money, 5 Nov. 2012. Web.

theliberal1219

Con

Opening Note

I would like to bring to the spectator"s awareness that my opponent has used almost all sources that are right-wing and conservative, which would of course support his argument that Reagan is a better president. While I, have made sure to find centered sources, despite the fact that I am arguing from a more left perspective. I find this to be immature and unfair. I discredit any facts cited from the Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and extremely conservative writers.

Barack Obama

I. Economic Policy

In response to your claim that Reagan entered his presidency during a much worse recession is again, not true. On what grounds are you claiming this as fact? You have no source to prove it and no evidence to say why. The job losses under Obama during the recession were far greater than anything Reagan experienced. Check out my credible and non-biased source, showing job losses for every year and month throughout history. You"ll have to put the starting year as 1981 or earlier to see the graph yourself. [1]

"Those tax cuts under Reagan brought a faster recovery than Obama's demand-side strategy has been." Obama"s stimulus package was formed on the concept of keynesian economics and was comprised of targeted tax-cuts and direct government spending. It was proven to work. You are wrong. It has been proven, you can"t ignore facts. The fact that you think supply-side tax-cuts would have solved the problems we faced in 2008 shows your lack of knowledge about economics. Why would we approach two different problems with the same solution? Reagan dealt with high inflation, a problem we did not deal with this time around.

The auto-bailout was not a weak response to the recession. It was successful beyond anyone"s expectations. How is saving possibly million of jobs a weak response?

Google Finance was not wrong, it was your logic and findings that were inaccurate. I compared the increase of the Dow Jones to the day. It would be inaccurate to compare how much it increased under 8 years of Reagan, and only 5 years of Obama. Sorry that our source was confusing because you had to do the math yourself.

II. Foreign Policy

All I was trying to say about the death of Osama Bin Laden is that you cannot just push it aside. It was a huge accomplishment.

"The problem with Obama and the embassy was that it wasn't the military, but his own State Department that was in charge." So, again, it is Obama"s fault that four Americans died, but not Reagan"s that 241 were killed? Reagan ordered the marines into the war-zone itself, then after 241 of them were killed, he pulled them out and accomplished nothing. How is that a leader? And we still haven"t mentioned all the American personnel who died at embassy bombings under Reagan"s tenure.

Another one of Obama"s responsible moves as a leader can be seen as he withdraws our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. The wars were bungled by his predecessor, and he inherited a mess. By the time he will leave office, he will have responsibly withdrawn from two unnecessary wars and brought home thousands of soldiers to their loved ones.

Ronald Reagan

I. Foreign Policy

A great leader wouldn"t have 14 members of his administration indicted after illegally selling arms to Iran. This shows a lack of moral compass on Reagan and his administration, which does not make him a better president than Obama, who has had no real scandals outside the conservative echo chamber. [3]

"Overall however, Ronald Reagan is responsible for the greatest victory in world history, more than World War 2 and World War 1 combined." Based on what, your personal opinion? Your over exuberance for the Cold War victory is unnecessary and not backed up with factual evidence. It"s hard to take someone seriously when you say things like the Cold War was the "greatest victory in world history." What ever happened to the American Revolution? We wouldn"t even be here having this debate if it weren"t for that.

II. Economic Policy

The claim that tax-cuts raised revenue overall is laughable and is apart of the voodoo economics that George Bush accused Reagan of. In response to Reagan"s tax cuts increasing revenue, Bruce Bartlett states,

"In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That"s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent." [4]

The idea that tax-cuts always pay for themselves seems to be a conservative lie that will never go away.

My opponent engages in so much fact bending that it"s frustrating to try to debate someone who does not present arguments with true factual evidence. Unfortunately, I do not have enough room to argue more of my points, as I am too busy proving yours wrong.

Sources

1. "Bureau of Labor Statistics." United States Department of Labor. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://data.bls.gov...;.

2. "National Data." U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.bea.gov...;.

3. "American Experience: TV's most-watched history series.." The Iran-Contra Affair PBS, n.d. <http://www.pbs.org...;.

4. Bartlett, Bruce. "No, Gov. Pawlenty, Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves | The Fiscal Times." The Fiscal Times. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...;.
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Pro

Unless, my opponent can prove that the the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation are wrong, then they are fair studies.

Ronald Reagan

I. Economic Policy

My opponent basically answered my argument for himself. In the writing conducted by Mr. Bartlett, he gives statistics showing that tax cuts increase revenue nevertheless. The population always grows, so that should be counted and inflation changes over time. In fact, according to the budget itself, the increase in 25% revenue was quite postitive compared to the lack of growth under the Bush-Clinton tax hikes, which only saw 19% revenue growth. So in comparision, revenue grew much faster. My opponent is arguing against economic common sense, the Laffer curve, that tax cuts don't raise revenue. [1,2]

In addition, many middle class and poor people became very wealthy during the Reagan years and were able to pay at higher rate. When Reagan entered office, 5,000 people listed their income over $1 million. When Reagan left office it was 35,000 people. The number of billionaires rose from a few under Reagan to over 50 when he left. Those earning more than $50,000 rose over 5 points during the 1980s. [3]

II. Foreign Policy

"A great leader wouldn"t have 14 members of his administration indicted after illegally selling arms to Iran. This shows a lack of moral compass on Reagan and his administration, which does not make him a better president than Obama, who has had no real scandals outside the conservative echo chamber."

Incorrect. Obama has had one of the most corrupt and dangerous administrations in American history. I'd hardly consider fair and balanced news sites like CNN, Fox News, and the IRS conservative echo chambers. These include the Benghazi scandal, the Fast and Furious scandal, and the IRS scandal. [4,5,6]

The Iran-Contra Affair found Reagan not in trouble and was only one scandal. My opponent then tries to change the topic by comparing the Cold War to the American Revolutionary War. This is a debate comparing two presidents. This is not a historical debate, but to quickly say why it is important to world history consider this:

One was a mere revolution involving muskets and colonists vs. the other being a large global war involving the entire world and nuclear weapons that could end all life on this planet.

Barack Obama

I. Economic Policy

Simple to see why the 1982 recession was worse than the 2008 one. Unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1982 comparing to 10% in 2008. In addition, inflation was a much worse issue in the 1982 recession than it was in the 2008 recession. These issues combined created major problems for the government at the time, so it is no as bad as the recession Obama is dealing with. [7]

"Obama"s stimulus package was formed on the concept of keynesian economics and was comprised of targeted tax-cuts and direct government spending. It was proven to work. You are wrong. It has been proven, you can"t ignore facts. The fact that you think supply-side tax-cuts would have solved the problems we faced in 2008 shows your lack of knowledge about economics. Why would we approach two different problems with the same solution? Reagan dealt with high inflation, a problem we did not deal with this time around."

There are many other historical examples I could provide where tax cuts have worked without the issue of inflation. You cannot provide any source saying that it is a fact that the stimulus package worked. I have showing the unemployment figures. In fact, combining tax cuts with spending is a contradictory economic policy and has never been proven to work because no president has done it in the past.

"The auto-bailout was not a weak response to the recession. It was successful beyond anyone"s expectations. How is saving possibly million of jobs a weak response?"

We have a very slow unemployment rate and GDP growth rate. In addition, there have been times government has held great influence over companies, as in Britain in the 1970s, and it is has been proven to lead to national decline. [8]

"Google Finance was not wrong, it was your logic and findings that were inaccurate. I compared the increase of the Dow Jones to the day. It would be inaccurate to compare how much it increased under 8 years of Reagan, and only 5 years of Obama. Sorry that our source was confusing because you had to do the math yourself."

To the contrary, it is fair because you want to see where Obama lies ahead in comparision to other presidents and exceed expecations. Right now that cannot happen. I have no problem comparing Obama to Warren G. Harding, who served just three years in office, too.

II. Foreign Policy

"All I was trying to say about the death of Osama Bin Laden is that you cannot just push it aside. It was a huge accomplishment."

No kidding, but not enough. One accomplishment does not define a good president who is certainely not better than Reagan.

"So, again, it is Obama"s fault that four Americans died, but not Reagan"s that 241 were killed? Reagan ordered the marines into the war-zone itself, then after 241 of them were killed, he pulled them out and accomplished nothing. How is that a leader? And we still haven"t mentioned all the American personnel who died at embassy bombings under Reagan"s tenure."

Reagan and French President Mitterand responded by launching bombings. This was a strong response to what happened. Keep in mind that Lebanon was a war zone and Lybia was not and there is where the problem lies. The embassy was under the State Department's control and the 241 marines were men who were there to fight. There is a difference. Would you blame Obama for the death of a soldier in Afghanistan? No because that falls to what he was doing and what officers were leading him. [9]

"Another one of Obama"s responsible moves as a leader can be seen as he withdraws our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. The wars were bungled by his predecessor, and he inherited a mess. By the time he will leave office, he will have responsibly withdrawn from two unnecessary wars and brought home thousands of soldiers to their loved ones."

He left with leaving Iraq the way it is. A stupid mistake. There are different ethinic groups there that should have been divided up into several countries. We saw the same trouble with Yugoslavia. Rather than giving people fairly what they deserved, Obama kept the borders the way they were drawn up 100 years ago by European empires who only wanted to benefit themselves.

Conclusion

I have proven Reagan was a better president than Obama. He dealt with a worse recession yet saw a better recovery and defeat America's most important enemy. I have refuted the arguments against him and have proven Obama has been an incompetent president.

Sources

1.
Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1997.
2. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2004. Web.
3.
D'Souza, Dinesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Free, 1997. Print.
4. Staff, CNN Wire. "Sources: 15 Days after Benghazi Attack, FBI Still Investigating from Afar." CNN.com. Cable News Network, 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
5. Lott, Maxim. "Senator Calls ATF on Allegations Agency Is Allowing Guns Into Mexico." Foxnews.com. Fox News Network, 2 Feb. 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
6.
United States. Department of the Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review. N.p., 14 May 2013. Web.
7. http://www.debate.org...
8. http://data.worldbank.org...
9. http://www.pbs.org...
theliberal1219

Con

Conclusion:

I am withdrawing from the current debate because it is not worth arguing with someone who claims that Fox News is a "fair" and "centered" news source. Fox News is the farthest right wing news source in America, and has posted a story from a SATIRE website as FACT on their show. You are clearly caught up in the right-wing agenda, and that is fine. But a debate needs to be made on the basis of fact, not opinions, and "facts" from sources that are completely biased.

I believe I have proven that Obama was a better president than Reagan if not just on the fact that my findings were sound. I used non biased sources. If I found a source and felt it was too left, I would go looking for a more balanced one. Where my opponent uses sources like The Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and articles written by conservative economists who worked FOR Reagan. I find that this type of conduct in a debate is unacceptable, which is why I will no longer present anymore arguments on my behalf, seeing as this debate is going no where.

Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Greematthew 3 years ago
Greematthew
Pro sucessfully refuted all of Con's points. Con was inappropriate in the last round. Just because you don't agree with a source your opponent provides you, does not mean you withdraw from the debate. That's foolish and shows extreme partisanship.
Posted by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
This was a tough debate to judge because judging two different presidents on actions that occurred during their presidency is post hoc ergo propter hoc on a number of levels, especially on economic issues. Both sides showed clear deficiencies in understanding economics. For example, pro's R2 argument about the debt increasing doesn't account for simple mathematics - using his numbers, the debt increased 160% during Reagan's presidency and only 33% during Obama's. And con used the characteristic deregulation claim for the recession, failing to actually understand the economics of the country before the recession, in addition to the use of the overly inflated stock market to judge economic policy.

The other issue was foreign policy. Overall, I think pro had a slight edge on this, but it was more con's failure to make a reasonable case. It's obvious that both administrations were corrupt - it was simply a judge of which was more corrupt, and I think Obama's overall is, because the scandals were more damaging to national security and could have been prevented. I think pro exaggerated Reagan's part in the collapse of the Soviet Union; I think the latter had a lot more to do with it for the reasons pro pointed out, which does give him a slight edge.

I gave pro the arguments for two main reasons. One, con dropped an important last round (and hence conduct). When you drop the last round, that generally indicates a failure to adequately refute the opponent's point (compared to, say, forfeiting R2). And two, pro's arguments were slightly more fundamental with regards to sound economic policy and responsible foreign policy.
Posted by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
Now speaking personally, one can say what they like about the Contra incident, but I'm not too persuaded that Obama is any sort of foreign policy guru in light of Fast and Furious, Benghazi, this asinine Red Line crap and so on.

Granted, I'll admit that it took some thinking to see a lot of this stuff for what it is. The last time I had frequented this website (when I was younger), I thought Obama was a decent guy who got a lot of bad rep for problems "beyond his control." Then I started debating people who disagreed with me elsewhere. Got my butt kicked in a number of those debates, but over time, it became harder and harder to defend this president until I had finally "woken up" so to speak.
Posted by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
Obama is an incompetent boob who never appears to know what is happening in his own office. It's always someone else's thought with this fool. Reagan every day of the week and 3 times on Sundays and Tuesdays.
Posted by jwcmcorbin 3 years ago
jwcmcorbin
The con just gave up?
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
Not to some.
Posted by BEaPATRIOT 3 years ago
BEaPATRIOT
isn't this common sense?
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
No one will ever take this lmao
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
I second that.
Posted by WyattEarp19 3 years ago
WyattEarp19
I agree with Pro entirely.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
1Historygeniustheliberal1219Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
1Historygeniustheliberal1219Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I give conduct to Pro because Con's arguments seemed to be decrescendoing (sorry for the musical term) as the debate went along. For example, in the final round, she only gave a conclusion and failed to privide ending arguments. That is also the reason why I give Arguments to Pro, and because his were more convincing and believable. I had to tie S&G and sources, because both debaters seemed to do pretty well in those areas.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
1Historygeniustheliberal1219Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: As a voter and a conservative, if CON is trying to persuade me to vote for her, comments like hers (regarding sources) are inappropriate. I'd recommend that CON never use such arguments in any adversarial institution of official capacity, less she find herself chewed out considerably by MANY less forgiving than I am. Her argument is also a fallacy (poisoning the well to be precise). I'll be the judge of whether a source is "too right wing." If there is an issue with the sources, CON should dispute the truth of them and nothing else. Since CON has not done so, PRO gets the sources and also gets conduct for not resorting to such petty antics. Naturally, PRO wins on arguments too not just because CON effectively forfeited in a highly inappropriate fashion, but because PRO's arguments are simply more persuasive. To blame Reagan for the current economic mess is nonsense. Obama got elected and has failed miserably fix it. Foreign policy is easily's Reagans in light of the cold war.
Vote Placed by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
1Historygeniustheliberal1219Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro for not forfeiting. Sources go to Con for calling out Pros use of obviously biased sources (upon investigation). Args go to con for many reasons. Pro seems to think that the moment a president leaves office, the lasting effects of his economic policy are not his fault, and con touched upon this, also cons points regarding the Contra scandal were strong and hard to counter (the contra scandal being the closest a president has EVER been to HIGH TREASON). Con had a long way to go to convince me that Obama's foreign policy was good, and failed. Pro could have won this as Reagan's foreign policy was successful, if it hadn't been for Pro's point with the Contra scandal. Con wins the argument over economic policy for her points regarding auto-bailouts and the lasting negative effects of Reaganomics.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
1Historygeniustheliberal1219Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Points go to Pro, I think he showed how Reagan did more for the country than Obama did. Reagan helped open more jobs, ended the cold war, and helped our country in times of need. I will give have to say to both candidates great job, this is what a true debate is about. Both had great conduct, spelling and grammar, and credible sources.
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 3 years ago
AndrewB686
1Historygeniustheliberal1219Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a difficult debate to judge. The sources used by pro, upon further examination, were painfully biased towards the conservative ideology, the majority of pro's sources were not credible. I give conduct to pro because can withdrew, although I believe she was justified in doing so, it was still detrimental to the debate for her to abandon her case. The arguments presented by pro were absurd in regards to the cold war. Con did not need to refute the claims concerning the cold war because no source was used to support such erroneous claims on the part of pro. The majority of the points by both sides were equally presented and subsequently refuted; however, the statements made by pro concerning the cold war were his ultimate downfall.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
1Historygeniustheliberal1219Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I had some issues with sourcing: this is part of a chain of debates that compare Reagan to various other presidents. It is an almost word-for-word copy of those debates, but this is not attributed. Since Pro wrote those passages in the first place, this is not plagiarism, just a sourcing error. Many sources are also obviously biased. As for arguments, when we learned about Reagan in history class, the defining feature of his term was Iran Contra, unstable tax policies and supply side economics. These required more focus, in my view. Withdrawing from the debate was also detrimental to the argument.