Health care:
Pro:
Obama personally improved the quality of American life with the passing of his health care reform.
Your kid has cancer? Guess what, your insurance cannot drop you.
You have a pre-existing heart condition? It’s your lucky day, chief. No company can deny you. Lower income? Lower prices. You can not afford your own health insurance after high school? You get to stay on your parents’ insurance until you are 26.
If you have money, you have insurance.
Con: Obama completely ignores the main cause of high-cost health care, as his plan does not address tort reform, which would limit ridiculous malpractice suits. This is needed to reduce the price of malpractice insurance and the cost of medical care in general.
Without sacrificing quality.
He says he’s open to conservative ideas, but then lampoons Republicans when they stall his health care bill with legitimate concerns.
Even after the Republicans proposed a plan that got to the heart of the issue, he claimed they were still stalling for partisan reasons.
He demanded his health care bill be passed now, because it’s “desperately needed.”
In reality, the bill doesn’t go into effect until 2013.

The economy:
Pro:
Obama spoke of change time and time again as he ran for office. The man certainly does know how to deliver.
Alan S. Blinder, professor of economics at Princeton University, said Obama saved us from our economic free-fall and stopped us from entering what the professor dubbed “The Great Depression 2.0.”
Blinder went on to say 2010 GDP increased 3.4 percent by the stimulus package alone, and kept the unemployment rate 1.5 percentage points lower by creating and saving 2.7 million jobs in his report on the end of the recession.
To put it simply, the previous administration was not putting any stimulus money into the economy.
When Obama came into office, the government started putting money into the economy.
It took a turn for the better.
But that’s just a coincidence, right?
Con:
Obama promised his budget would result in a surplus, while so far his deficit has quadrupled George W. Bush’s in every year of his 8-year term.
While it is true Obama stabilized the economy, he’s stabilized it slightly below the level it was at in Bush’s prime. Just because $800 billion is going to make something better, doesn’t make it right.
In January 2006, the GDP capped its growth rate, then dropped significantly and started on a downward slide to a low in January 2008.
If you want to look to the stock market as an indicator of financial well-being, track NASDAQ’s numbers over the past 10 years. The market crashed when financial institutions started going under in 2007.
While this happened on Bush’s term, it was by no means Bush’s doing. It was Democrats forcing banking institutions to give loans to people they knew couldn’t pay them back, or sub-prime loans.
It then started to recover quickly but growth has slowed, apparently in time with Obama’s stimulus package.

Arizona Bill:
Pro:
Now to examine the controversial Arizona law. First of all, it isn’t Obama’s lawyers suing Arizona. It’s the Department of Justice that is suing.
The law states that any police officer can check any person’s immigration status with reasonable suspicion, after making ‘lawful contact.’ Lawful contact being, “Hey, buddy, you are in the parking lot of a store, that’s private property. You could be trespassing. Lemme see them papers.”
The Obama administration is simply trying to stop racial profiling. The proposed system could easily be abused by local police officers with the power to deport someone without a warrant.
Con:
He misrepresented Arizona sb1070 as legalizing racial profiling.
In truth, the bill says that if during lawful interaction, an officer has reasonable doubt of the individuals legal presence in America, he can detain the person until citizenship is confirmed.
This doesn’t mean a Hispanic man walking down the street in Phoenix can be asked to show his papers. Rather, if someone who is pulled over fails to produce a driver’s license or any indication of citizenship, he or she can be held.
Secondly, it allows state or municipal law enforcement agencies to deport illegal citizens without turning them over to federal authorities.
There’s no legal precedence for challenging the bill. It is a clear overstep of federal boundaries.