Barack Obama has been a harmful president

Well, this looks like it is going to be a rather brutal debate. I applaud you on coming up with valid points to prove that he was not a harmful president. First off, however, I would like to point out that you did not comment on his heightening of race tensions, increased government dependence and his ILLEGAL executive actions (I realize that you may plan to address these in your rebuttal, but just wanted to let you know). Now, on to my rebuttals. You initially begin with the standard liberal response to problems lately: "It was Bush"s fault." You mention the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, please don"t as we are discussing domestic policy (If you look at my outline, we are scheduled to introduce foreign policy 3rd round); you were the one who wanted to do this first. Even if Obama did inherit a troubled economy, I would appreciate it if you look at what he has actually accomplished rather than comparing him to a poor predecessor. In the four and a half years since the close of 2008, the American economy has grown at the inflation-adjusted rate of 1.6% per year. Is this number, 1.6%, any good? Let"s compare it to that obtained by Bush. From the beginning of 2001 until the close of 2008, economic growth averaged 1.7% per year. So Bush wins by a nose. But as everyone knows, Bush came into office in the midst (as it turns out, at the peak) of one of the great historic booms in modern American economic history. Bush started from a high base and came in low. Obama started from a low base and came in worse. The statistic we are talking about here is the, "Gross Domestic Product," or GDP. GDP grew at a 1.7% per year from the close of 2000 to that of 2008 and has gone up at 1.6% since. The thing about GDP is it is designed to flatter the government. Government spending is considered outright a component of GDP. Whatever dollars the government spends, it shows up in GDP. [1] When it suits his purposes, President Obama still makes the economy seem worse than it is so that he can both blame President Bush and justify more policies he wants to implement. Conversely, when President Obama hopes to avoid blame or get credit (like during his re-election campaign) he makes the economy seem much better than it is. Obama correctly points out that stagnant incomes for the middle class have hurt the ability of many Americans to move to better jobs. What he doesn't usually mention is that the combined trends of increased income inequality and decreasing economic mobility have worsened during the years he's been in office. According to the Census Bureau, this is the first time since 1965 that the poverty rate has remained above 15 percent for three straight years; since 2009, median household income in America has fallen 4.4 percent to $58,000 per year; median household income for black Americans has dropped nearly 11 percent to just $33,519. After five years of "recovery" under the Obama administration, a shocking 46.5 million Americans still live in poverty. The best way out of poverty is a job, and unemployment has remained stubbornly high since Obama took office [2]. Look at the facts, straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: "23,136,000: The Number Of Americans Who Are Unemployed, Underemployed, Or Have Stopped Looking For Work. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) 12,544,000: The Number Of Unemployed Workers. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) 8,031,000: The Number Of Workers Working Part-Time For Economic Reasons. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) 5,033,000: The Number Of Workers Who Have Been Unemployed For 27 Weeks Or Longer. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) 1,043,000: Construction Jobs Lost Since President Obama Took Office. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) 582,000 Manufacturing Jobs Lost Since President Obama Took Office. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) 261,000: Jobs Lost Since President Obama Took Office. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) 1981: The Last Time The Labor Force Participation Rate Was At Its Current Level Of 63.5 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) 43: Consecutive Months The Unemployment Rate Has Remained Above Eight Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) 39.2 Weeks: The Average Duration Of Unemployment " Nearly Double The 19.8 Weeks When President Obama Took Office. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) 14.7 Percent: The Real Unemployment Rate, Including Those That Are Working Part-Time Due To Economic Reasons. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) 11.2 Percent: The Unemployment Rate Had Labor Force Participation Remained Steady Since President Obama Took Office. (American Enterprise Institute) 8.4 Percent: The Unemployment Rate Had Labor Force Participation Remained Steady From July. (American Enterprise Institute) 8.1 Percent: The Unemployment Rate In August 2013. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) 7.8 Percent: The Unemployment Rate When President Obama Took Office. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics) 5.4 Percent: The Unemployment Rate President Obama"s Advisers Predicted If We Passed His $787 Billion Stimulus. (Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, "The Job Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Plan,")" [6] Not sure where you are getting your facts from, but if the Bureau of Labor Statistics cannot be trusted, then I do not know what can. I doubt your "nationalmemo.com" source is more credible than this official government agency. Next, you bring up other issues, like stem cells and "clean energy." The embryonic stem cell research is a very different debate, and it can be argued that this is actually harmful as it takes the lives of unborn children. As for "clean energy revolution" let's briefly look into that. Wind and solar energy generation has indeed increased. Wind still only accounted for 13 percent of all renewable energy generated in 2014, and solar was at 1.3 percent of all renewables generated in 2014, up from 1.2 percent from 4 years earlier. Since wind and solar are coming from a small starting point, an increase percentage-wise sounds large. But it doesn't sound as big when looking at the total production [8]. Not only has this "revolution" barely made an impact on current renewable resources, they have cost over 2.2 billion taxpayer dollars [10]. Mind you, Obama chose which businesses and companies received this taxpayer money, of which all are currently decreasing dramatically in their value since his enormous investment in them [9]. Currently, solar produces 0.4% of US electricity, wind 4.4%, and biomass 1.4%. Is this minuscule increase even close to worth the 2.2 billion dollars dumped into it? Not in the slightest. As I said above, the "green" companies that were subsidized or given taxpayer dollars are failing miserably [11]. You go on to list numerous "accomplishments" President Obama. I don"t have space to rebut all of them, but I will most certainly address Obamacare, and then introduce my foreign policy points. Obamacare has most certainly not been a "resounding success." Evidence is mounting that Obamacare raises health costs for small firms and thereby reduces workers" wages. From a larger perspective, the law is not just discouraging firms from creating new jobs " it"s actually reducing the size of the labor force. A new economic study from the American Action Forum shows that the law is reducing the pay of workers at small businesses " those with 20 to 99 employees " by at least $22.6 billion every year. "On average, employees who work a full year for a business with 50-99 employees lose $935 annually due to ACA regulations, while employees of businesses with 20-49 employees, on average lose $827.50 annually," the study noted. Obamacare isn"t just reducing workers" pay " it"s putting them out of work. The AAF study concludes that the law"s regulations and increased premiums are likely responsible for American employers having shed more than 350,000 jobs. California, Florida, New York, Ohio, and Texas have each lost more than 20,000 jobs, thanks to Obamacare. Federal Reserve data reveals a similar trend " that employers are hiring more part-time workers to avoid Obamacare"s penalties and save money. At the same time, the law is driving people to avoid seeking work altogether. Obamacare grants many Americans subsidies to help pay for health coverage. These subsidies are pegged to their income levels " the less they make, the more they get from the government. That creates a substantial disincentive for people to work more " or at all. Picking up more hours or shifts can lead to the loss of hundreds or even thousands of dollars" worth of health insurance subsidies [12]. There is so much wrong with Obamacare - and I wish I could go into more detail, but alas, the debate must continue. A final point I must address: When you say "People seem to freak out over the fact he made some Executive Orders," I don"t know where you got the idea that executive orders freak people out. It is the ILLEGAL ones that freak people out. I would like to see you defend his blatantly obvious disregard for the Constitution. Just to lay out my points for the foreign policy debate (to give you a heads up): -Iraq/Afghanistan withdrawal -Fumbling of Syria, Ukraine and ISIS -Disastrous Nuclear Deal with Iran [1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] http://www.forbes.com... [6] http://www.powerlineblog.com... [7] http://www.powerlineblog.com... [8] http://www.factcheck.org... [9] http://www.powerlineblog.com... [10] http://www.washingtontimes.com... [11] http://www.eia.gov... [12] http://www.forbes.com...