Obama should be re-elected

Point 1: The Stock Market. [1] as counter. This source mentions things like the Credit Market Collapse, the Bear Stearns Collapse, and Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Collapse as causes of the recession. But most importantly, "As measured as Farmer’s language is throughout, it is still a fairly incendiary argument — that the stock market itself causes the recession."[2]. And once the stock downturn started, "Once destabilization of the stock market occurs, this incident may be followed by a series of events that trigger an even larger decline in the market. One of these events has to do with investor fear, and the other has to do with stop losses."[1] So the three things mentioned earlier caused the beginning downturn, and with no fix in sight, the stock downturn continued, thus plunging the country into a recession. And as for the fix "The Treasury never tapped the full $700 billion. By the time its authority to spend the money expired on Oct. 2, 2010, it had committed $470 billion and disbursed $387 billion, mostly to hundreds of banks and later to A.I.G., the car industry — Chrysler, General Motors, the G.M. financing company and suppliers — and to what has been, so far, a failed effort to help homeowners avoid foreclosures."[3] All the Bank Bailouts did was increase the deficit by $700 billion and they did not even accomplish most of their goals. Housing prices are going down and foreclosures and just as common. Point 2: Taxes. Your Spelling & Grammar is so bad that I do not even get your point. But I will try to piece it together through rebuttal. The Bush Tax Cuts were pure genius. During a recession, one must lower taxes for one reason. "A policy of lowering taxes and commitment to cut public expenditures will help private aggregate demand and investment increase. In the end it is a healthier and more sustainable way to navigate through the muddy and troubled waters of the following period."[4] Lowering taxes puts more money in the hands of broke Americans. Taxing them more would put them in an even worse position financially. But more importantly, it allows them to buy more, which boosts the economy by having more money in the economy and by increasing GDP. But it is more important to lower taxes on the rich for two reasons. First, they spend a lot more than the average citizen does. "The top 5%, those making about $150,000 or more, account for 37% percent of all consumer spending, about as much as the bottom 80% put together."[5] So their contribution to consumer spending and GDP Growth is a lot higher than for the average American, thus lower taxes for them would mean even more GDP Growth. But more importantly, they spend money on businesses. They are the ones that mostly create and expand businesses, thus increasing GDP Growth and decreasing unemployment. If taxes are decreased for the rich, then they can spend more on expanding their businesses, and thus again, increasing GDP Growth and decreasing unemployment. "So, the larger government gets and the more it raises taxes, the more the economy slows down. The slower the economy moves, the higher the unemployment rate, the less competitive the business environment becomes, and the more people suffer across the board. This factor largely explains why Western European nations are so economically stagnant compared to the United States."[6] The same thing applies with corporate taxes because lower taxes for businesses would mean more profit for them, so they can expand more (I think you get the picture). And how are taxes at their lowest in 60 years? Prove it. As a closing statement:"The President’s new taxes could threaten to destroy up to 1.2 million jobs per year and would cost small businesses $74 billion annually. Americans making more than $150,000 spend an average of $125,000 per year – enough to support more than two middle-class jobs."[5] and "Since that’s the case and we still have a liberal President and a liberal majority in the Senate, it’s entirely possible that every new dime of tax revenue would be spent — and then some."[6]Point 3: Deficit. Simple. US Debt in 2007: $9.008 trillion[7]US Debt in 2009 (three years later and the end of Bush's presidency): $11.910 trillion[7]Change: $2.902 trillion (and this includes the dumb 700 billion dollar bank bailout)US Debt right now: $15,380,704,100,493 (is subject to change)[8.1]Change from 2009 and now (three years for same timeframe): $3.47 trillionAnd as a side note:Projected US Debt on this day in 2016 using current rates: $24,201,845,274,834 (is subject to change)[8.2]Change from right now to this day in 2016: $8.821 trillionThe change number has drastically changed as Obama's policies are just starting to take effect. And this number could be a lot worse if Obama is re-elected. I don't know how you are getting those silly numbers, but if there is any deficit reduction, it is coming from the house Republicans, not Obama. And the federal debt has not decreased ever in decades. Point 4: Housing. No rebuttal is needed here. He says that there is a slow in the rate of foreclosures, but he still says there is an increase. Any decrease in foreclosures is due to the upturn in the economy. Same thing with the rise in home values. And why are people all around me sinking deeper into the mortgage hole? More getting underwater? Explain this. Point 5: Jobs. The unemployment rate is about the same. But the auto company bailouts did nothing but increase the deficit. They did nothing. Sure, the company was "saved", but it was hard work and layoffs that got them back on track. And outsourcing is helpful to our economy (believe it or not) because the companies still spend money here, and they can spend more of it since they have more profit. And the wages that pay the outsourced workers buy a lot of imported American goods, thus increasing GDP. =======Demand to My Opponent=======:You can spend some time countering my arguments, but this debate is about whether Obama should be re-elected. You are just pointing out good things (in his opinion) about his first term. Next round, argue why he should be re-elected. If you were not intending to debate that way, next time change the resolution to "Obama has done a good job as President" or something of that nature. =======As a Final Side Note=======: Sources: [1]:http://www.money-zine.com...[2]:http://www.freakonomics.com...[3]:http://topics.nytimes.com...[4]:http://florincitu.wordpress.com...[5]:http://www.demint.senate.gov...[6]:http://rightwingnews.com...[7]:http://en.wikipedia.org...[8.1]:http://www.usdebtclock.org...[8.2]:http://www.usdebtclock.org...