well others have corrected you mostly, but I'll chime in.
1) increased prosperity: well, hard to measure prosperitity and it is never equally distributed, but its broadest definition is household net worth. and it has never been higher than now.
"The Federal Reserve reported today the net worth of American households – the difference between the value of total household assets and total household liabilities – rose to a new all-time record high of $80.66 trillion in Q4 last year (see chart above). Here are some additional details and highlights of today’s report:"
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/03/us-household-net-worth-increased-to-a-new-record-high-of-80-6t-in-q4-fueled-by-stock-market-and-housing-gains/you can fairly say that most of that went to rich people - but as a whole, the country has never been richer. Certainly it is far richer than when Obama took office in an epochal financial crisis.
2)Peace - as others have pointed out, two wars are ending an no new ones have taken their place.
3) decreased deficits: absolutely. You have to define your terms, but deficits have been shrinking. as a percent of gdp they are quite low. It always depends if you count 2009, which was budget written under bush but executed under obama. that was a huge deficit.
"Now the Treasury and Office of Management and Budget is out with the final budget results. Surprise! The deficit fell quite a bit in 2013. The federal government took in $680 billion less revenue than it spent, or about 4.1 percent of gross domestic product. In 2012, those numbers were $1.087 trillion and 6.8 percent of GDP. That means the deficit fell a whopping 37 percent in one year."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/30/congratulations-america-your-deficit-fell-37-percent-in-2013/4) shrinking the size of government: a common tea party misconception. Even rand paul doesn't understand this: ne of the least appreciated but easily-confirmed facts about the current state of the American economy is that the number of Americans employed by the government has gone down under President Obama. But apparently this is news to one the Republican Party’s most prominent tea party conservatives. During a roundtable discussion on ABC this morning over the size and adequacy of the 2009 stimulus, a flabbergasted Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) asked economist Paul Krugman if he was actually arguing that government employment had gone down under Obama:
PAUL: The thing I don’t understand is that you’re arguing that the government sector is struggling. Are you arguing that there are fewer government employees under Obama than there were under Bush?
KRUGMAN: Of course. That’s a fact. That’s a tremendous fact.
PAUL: No, the size of growth of government is enormous under President Obama.
KRUGMAN: If government employment had grown as fast under Obama as it did under Bush, we’d have a million and a half more people employed right now — directly.
The catch is that much of the de-employment has been at the state and local level. Fed employment is about the same. But certainly not growing.
5) the aca - well yes, that is a new law.
6) inflation is around 1-2% - much lower than normal.