Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

Those two links don't say that he's lying, they say that he's misrepresenting information... which as my second link shows is the case for both knoller and the people who attack Knoller.They speak against the validness of the article, and portray good arguments. Considering there is a lot of problems with the sources of information in regards to this issue, I feel it is relevant to point out misinformation where it is apparent.Keynsian economics is not the consensus. Many believe that increased spending is never a good idea, especially under a recession. Letting the largest of corporations fail is not only supported by Right Wing economists but by even some of the Left-Wing revolutionaries (Occupy Wall Street).I'm not even talking about how to get out of a recession, I'm talking about the very necessities of his office. In a recession, were millions become unemployed, he has to pay billions more than anyone else in the history of US presidents just in unemployment benefits, keeping the people alive. And I have no one argue that government spending should be high in a boom, such as Bush did, the second highest debt creator.Bush had reasons, including the War and humanitarian aid for Africa and India (yeah... people forget about that part for some weird reason). I disagree with Bush's fiscal policies as well as Obama's.The war was his choice to enter, and considering the flaky reasons for it, I do not give him any relapse on the trillions it cost. Considering the US' abysmal foreign aid (as a percentage of national income) history, its effects are miniscule on such large amounts of money.Obama supports the Bush tax cuts. He did not try to end them in any way.He said he would not have signed the bill if it did not include "other extensions of relief that were also set to expire." Among other provisions, he cited the extensions of unemployment benefits and tuition tax credits, as well as new tax incentives for businesses.Obama acknowledged that "there are some elements of this legislation that I don't like," and some that congressional Republicans and Democrats don't like. "That's the nature of compromise, yielding on something each of us cares about to move forward on what all of us care about," he said. "And right now, what all of us care about is growing the American economy and creating jobs for the American people."But yes, I'll concede, I wasn't aware of that. However, considering the whole Buffet tax debate (estimated to save 47 billion by 2022), I would disagree.Even Romney wishes to use the Ryan plan, which would save AT LEAST 5 trillion dollars.Ryan's plans were the ones that led to this recession (yes, he designed Bush's budget too). Considering the widespread criticism of his plan, I would hesitate before supporting it, yet alone attaching such massive claims to it.It's not just about cutting spending, Ron Paul wishes to eliminate most Federal powers that keep our economy at a stranglehold.This is what annoys me about Ron Paul. Some of his policies are fantastic, ending the war on drugs/terror, all that bullshit, but at the same time, he applies his unconventional ideals to everything, and it would just be a bad thing overall. But, that's unrelated.How are they hurting the people it "helps".Social support is supposed to help those who need it the most. Reducing spending on social support, and taxation, increases inequality, and disproportionately affects the poor.