You're being quite misleading with a lot of what you're arguing.

The 2009 budget would be a Bush budget, since we're talking fiscal years, which begin in October of the previous year when Bush was still in office. 2010 would be the first true Obama budget.

Secondly, the economic crash occurred in Sept. of 2008, so the 2009 Fiscal Year was going to have a much larger deficit no matter who was President and no matter what type of spending was done because the crash was going to cause a huge drop in tax revenues. And of course, the crash itself was no fault of Pres. Obama's, whether you want to try to trace it back to Pres. Bush or to policies of the 80s and 90s. So even saying that he cleaned up a mess in 6 years IS still a positive on his record, because it wasn't HIS mess that he cleaned up.

On your last point, it's certainly a reasonable thing to believe that perhaps the numbers aren't as accurate as many might think, but even you acknowledge that it's a reasonable assumption (although admittedly still an assumption) that the numbers would probably be consistently off, so if we use the first term numbers of FY 2009 and FY 2013 as I used before, we go from 1.4T to 680B, which is a 51-52% reduction in the deficit.

The thing is: If you want to argue that someone else might've handled the recession in a better way, fine. That's up for debate. If you want to argue that the ACA has hidden costs, fine. But if you want to debate whether Pres. Obama cut the deficit by 50% in his first term, you're simply debating against the facts. And if you want to debate that the economy hasn't markedly improved during Pres. Obama's tenure, you're debating against the facts there as well.