Urgent: Need some help refuting right winger who happens to be my friend
I know you all are busy, but could you possibly point me in the right direction with this? This is what he emailed me.
Here is an unbiased report on numbers from Obama's term that I thought you might find interesting. In my opinion, the cons outweigh the pros, some of which are listed below. I encourage you to read the article if you get an opportunity. It's a shame that there is no longer an assault weapons ban in place, which, if I'm not mistaken, could have easily been passed in Obama's first two years with a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate.
Gun sales have boomed under Obama, who did not deliver on campaign pledges to restore the “Assault Weapons Ban” that expired in 2004 or to require background checks for guns sold by non-dealers at gun shows.
Federal debt has soared under Obama, driven by a string of annual federal deficits exceeding $1 trillion each. The president inherited a gusher of red ink, which has continued despite his promise to cut deficits in half.
Typical families and households have suffered financially since Obama took office, and poverty has increased.
A rise in the number of persons on “food stamps” accelerated under Obama. That’s the highest number on record, and equal to nearly one of every seven Americans. It’s also an increase of just under 46 percent since January 2009.
His source: http://factcheck.org/2012/10/obamas-numbers/
= new reply since forum marked as read
GW Bush. Why does he/she think there are more households in poverty and on food stamps?
As to the debt, asked him about the $2 trillion added by Bush for unfunded wars, the unfunded tax cuts to the wealthy in 2001 and 2003, and the unfunded Medicare drug program. Here's a look at how we got to the national debt. And remind him that Obama has grown spending by the least amount in over 4 decades.
Democrats did not have a fillibuster-proof majority for two years -- that's a LIE.
January 20, 2009 - After suffering a seizure during Barack Obama's inaugural luncheon, Senator Kennedy’s health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts.
April 28, 2009 news outlets issued the following report: Republican Sen. Arlen Specter has switched parties, which would give Democrats a filibuster-proof 60 seats.
Despite the fact that the media hailed the party switch of Arlen Specter and claimed it gave Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate, the Minnesota seat still remained vacant. The Senate had 57 Democratic members and 2 Independents. Technically, the Senate was two members short, but I'm counting Senator Kennedy even though he was at home ill because he did cast a vote in June. 59
May 15, 2009 Senator Robert Byrd was admitted to the hospital reducing the number of sitting Senators to 56 Democratic members and 2 Independents. 58
July 7, 2009 Al Franken (D) was sworn in after the election dispute over the Minnesota seat was decided in his favor. Senator Kennedy continued to recuperate at his home in Massachusetts and was unable to cast any more votes; Senator Byrd was still in the hospital. The Senate had 56 sitting Democratic members and 2 Independents. 58
July 21, 2009 Senator Byrd returned to the Senate making the count 59 seats. No Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy died August 25, 2009.
The Kennedy seat was vacant from August 25 - September 24 when Paul G. Kirk was appointed to occupy his seat until the completion of a special election. The swearing-in of Kirk gave the Democrats a 60-seat majority.
Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown got the Kirk/Kennedy seat. 4 months; not 2 years!!
This does not account for the number of days Congress was not even in session during that time. If one subtracts the number of days Congress was out, the time that President Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress is further reduced by more than 30 days, or another full month.
Of a possible 94 legislative days during that period, the Senate was only in session for 67 days, while the House only labored for 54.
Add to the above: Lieberman, Nelson, Landreau, and Lincoln, who may have caucused with the Democrats but they voted with the Republicans.
As for a suggested response to your friend's "unbiased" article, try this:
It was Bush who erased the surplus he was handed by Clinton and doubled the national debt on two unfunded wars, an unpaid-for prescription drug program (Medicare Part D- a gift to the pharmaceutical lobby), and of course the huge Bush tax cuts to the rich. It was Bush who handed over the $1 Trillion TARP to the banks in 2008.
Obama came in to a tanked economy (thanks to Republican deregulation and spending) that he had to rescue with a $800 billion stimulus that mostly consisted of middle class tax cuts and extensions of unemployment. That stimulus immediately slowed and then reversed the 700,000/month job losses we were suffering. If he hadn’t done that, we would have gone into another great depression, then the debt would have really taken off. Instead, we have had 18 straight months of private sector job growth. We’d have an even better recovery, but Republicans AND Democrats have been slashing public sector employees—those jobs have decreased, unlike private sector jobs.
Obama has stopped the spiral of federal spending that started under Bush.
But the Bush legacy lives on. Bush's tax cuts and two unfunded wars drive the current increase in the deficit.
you more than likely can't switch him to vote for Obama, encourage him to vote for Johnson.
That can be your contribution to the Obama campaign. 
