Barack Obama is a good president.

First off, I would like to apologize for posting my argument so late. I have been very busy lately and I have been trying to scrape as much time as possible into writing this. I apologize again for taking so long.Well, I haven't heard of most of these, so I wouldn't really know, and I have never called Obama any of these, so this really isn't an argument. (On the baseless accusations towards Obama part) I didn't mean to say that you made these arguments. I just wanted to make sure that these arguments do not arise because I am extremely tired of hearing them. Thank you very much for being civil and not bringing these up. Now onto the rebuttals! The debt is overwhelming with Obama. He has added more debt than all the 43 US presidents combined! [1] It might sound crazy... but it's true! He has added $6.6 trillion in debt, which is more than all 43 US presidents combined, which has a total of $6.3 trillion. Most of that did come from Bush, so if you take his debt out, you get about $5 trillion dollars in debt. This is an overwhelming amount of money, and our GDP can't even keep up with our debt! Over 227 years, it took $6.3 trillion debt to add up, but he has added more than that much in only 5 years. This is only ONE term. It is pathetic. Now this argument would be quite compelling if my opponent had remembered to adjust for inflation. $100 dollars today would be worth $3.77 in 1774, which means that the dollar has inflated approximately 2653% since then. This very fact creates massive room for error in the data given by my opponent, and as such we have every reason to be skeptical of its validity. Another flaw in this data is the fact that some presidents have actually paid off some of the national debt, which most of the presidents in the 1800's did. Andrew Jackson, in fact, paid off the debt completely. Now I find it quite unfair to use both positive AND negative trends when adding up the total national debt and then compare it to Obama, who, in 2009, inherited one of the world's worst economic crises since the Great Depression (yes, the 2008-2012 recession was global), a highly volatile tax cut plan, and two quite unnecessary and unpopular wars. At January 20, 2009, the day Obama was sworn into office, the national debt was sitting at approximately $10.63 trillion, which is obviously not equal to $6.3 million. After Obama's first term, he had increased the debt by about $6.4 trillion. Now I will, admit, today, he has increased the national debt by about 90%; however, statistics do not tell the whole story, and they never have. Lets look at how Bush used with the money he added into the national debt. 1.Looking for imaginary WMD's in the Middle East 2.The failed "No Child Left Behind" education policy 3.Cutting $1.35 trillion worth of taxes on the rich, which necessitates either cuts in government spending or raising taxes on the middle and lower classes. We know which one Bush chose. Just ask Warren Buffett 4.Mining for oil in the Middle East 5.A "Star Wars"(Ronald Regan, not Darth Vader) style missile defense program. 6.Domestic Surveillance 7.Getting involved in two very unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of funding the recovery from Hurricane Katrina Now let's look at how Obama spent his money 1.Accelerating Stem Cell Research 2.Ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan 3.Pulling America out of the most devastating global economic recessions since WW2 4.Repealing the heavily dysfunctional Bush Tax Cuts 5.Instituting Universal Health care, something which no other president has been capable of doing effectively. As said before, this plan has covered 24 million previously uninsured people. Yes it has its flaws, however, the pros far outweigh the cons 6.Created a Student Loan Relief program, which enabled college graduates to start fresh and immediately start pursuing their ambitions instead of entering their adulthood several million dollars in debt. 7.Promoting alternate sources of energy such as nuclear energy and attempting to reduce America's carbon footprint, which was and still is extremely heavy. Now you can decide who spent money more effectively. Barack Obama's unemployment rate average is terrible. His average unemployment rate for his WHOLE presidency has been 8.27. (http://www.truthfulpolitics.com......) This is more than any other president. The only one to come actually a little close was Gerald Ford. Using Obama's average unemployment rate is hardly fair, it would be like calling a rich man poor because he only became rich during the last few years of his life and as such his "average wealth" is low. His average lifetime wealth doesn't change the fact that he is now rich. It is the same case here. Obama started out with a ridiculously high unemployment rate and has dramatically improved it. Moreover, his unemployment rate average is high because of Bush. The unemployment rate started skyrocketing in 2008 and continued to shoot up in 2009 and peaked at around 10.0% before it started falling. This peak is hardly Obama's fault, as it would be extremely difficult to raise the unemployment by around 4% in the first half year of his term. Had Bush stayed one more year, these unemployment figures would be his responsibility. You talk about creating jobs and unemployment, well because of Obama's policies and acts, 11,472,000 Americans have left the work force. [2] They have been waiting for jobs and looking for jobs, but really can't find any. Because of this the unemployment has increased .2%, so the unemployment is increasing by some. The number of unemployed Americans increased by 197,000 in just a month, too. The number of unemployed people have been increasing. Apparently you didn't read my arguments carefully enough. In 2009, the unemployment rate risen to a high of 10.3%. Today, it has dropped to 6.3%, maybe even less. A .2% increase is significant, but you can't just completely ignore a 4% drop and then complain about a .2% rise. Unemployment is up NOT because of Obama's policies. If they are, please specify which one so I may research on that policy. We just came out of one of the most devastating recessions of our time, so of course unemployment would still be relatively high. Not every misfortune that happens in the US is the president's fault, sometimes it is due to circumstance. In 2013, a record high of 20% of households were on food stamps. This is the most in USA's history. Most people believe that policies such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, have been causing this. Why? Because the remainder of people from the act stemmed from other factors, such as higher food prices and lower income among beneficiaries, both of which boost benefits. [3] This is not good, we are giving out food for free, when most people need it. Food stamp usage is high because Obama has passed laws that loosen the criteria to apply for food stamps, namely Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, a program which, by the way, kept 4.7 million people out of poverty. Moreover, it is normal for food stamp usage to remain high right after an economic crisis has ended, there really isn't anything special about this statistic. Also, "most people" is not a reliable source, and using it would also be invoking the bandwagon fallacy. Instead, use economic, political, or financial experts to make your case, as those people are far more reliable sources than "most people". [3] This is not good, we are giving out food for free, when most people need it. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. Everyone needs food, and the government is giving people food because of that necessity. Please clarify in your response. Even Barney Frank admits Barack Obama lied to the American people just to get Obama Care passed and, he did. He promised that Americans could keep their insurance plans, that they could keep their doctors, and that Obamacare would save the average family $2500 per year. Not only were all of those lies, Obama knew they were lies when he made those promises. Unless you can read minds, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not Obama knew that he could not uphold the promises he gave out to the people. Barney Frank is also (probably) not a mind reader either, so he has no possible way of knowing this. He is also infamous for telling the truth but not the whole truth, which is ironic for a guy who is suddenly obsessed with truth. Obama literally LIED to the American people's faces. He said talking about tax hikes: "You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren’t sold is not the problem."This Gallup poll says otherwise: (http://www.gallup.com......) Unless I completely misread the article from the link, I'm pretty sure it's consistent with what Obama said. "Americans' preferences for deficit reduction clearly favor spending cuts to tax increases, but most Americans favor a mix of the two approaches" -First line of the Gallup poll "You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts." - quote used in my opponent's argument. Also, the federal tax rate is lower than it has been in decades, sitting at around 17.4%. http://www.factcheck.org...http://skeptics.stackexchange.com...http://www.treasurydirect.gov...http://data.bls.gov...http://www.fns.usda.gov...http://www.washingtonpost.com...