Posted on 09/14/2005 2:19:04 PM PDT by visitor
Why, after Ted Kennedy has spent over 30 years in the Senate, having spent BILLIONS on various forms of welfare assistance, are there any poor people at all left in this country? Is more taxpayer money going to solve this problem?
Sounds like another public school teacher with an agenda. I would suggest giving your grandson some outside resources such as a short course on the US Constitution, and a general idea of what a real debate is supposed to accomplish.
My son went to public high school after 8 years of home school and we finally had to tell him that what was most important at that school was to regurgitate back to the social studies and English teachers what they WANTED TO HEAR, if he wanted a good grade. The actual education of my son in these two areas, unfortunately, continued to be provided at home, not in the school.
rant over ....
I agree with other posters. Argue that the role of gov't is to get the Hell out of the way so people can help themselves. He can throw in personal responsibility to boot.
sigh .... that said .... all of the above helps and resources sound like good places to start!
1. Decreased unemployment and increased overall employment, thereby making it easier to get a job, by well-thought through tax cuts that stumulated the economy. (His obviously liberal teacher (can tell from the loaded question) will think the opposite, so he'll need the data.)
2. Prevented Democrats from creating more entitlements and welfare that would keep the poor stupid, dependent, and unemployed.
3. Kept them alive, as noted above.
4. Partnered with religious groups to provide training and assistence.
5. Allowed them to exercise their religion freely, without hinderance from anti-God Democrats.
6. Stymied efforts by Democrats and Eurpean elites to impose absurd environmental regulations and laws (such as Kyoto), which would have: (A) driven up the costs of necessities for life and (B) greatly increased unemployment, making their lives much harder.
7. Promoted free trade, which results in (among other good things) cheaper consumer goods, thereby raising their standard of living. (For example, the poorest of the poor in America eats, has a color TV, and clothes on their back.)
He should ask;
Who ARE 'the poor'? Define 'poor'.
After defining it, how long do these people STAY poor? It is usually a temporary condition. Young people in their first jobs, etc.
And the ASSUMPTION here is that poor people cannot help themselves but have to be personally attended to by President Bush.
And yes, his spending on 'the poor' is out of sight.
DID THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION NEGLECT THE POOR?
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,169347,00.html
Did you see the O'Reilly factor last night? Bush has spent like 483 billion on the war on poverty in five years, vs. way less than that for Clinton. maybe the oreilly webiste has something.
Try it from this angle.
"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country." ~ John F. Kennedy
First, his "tax cut for the rich" removed a large number of the poor permanently from the income tax roles.
Presided over the shortest and mildest recession in recent history, a recession caused and started in the Clinton administration.
Presided over a rapid increase in employment adding over 3 million new jobs in the last 2 years.
Both of the last two in spite of 9-11 which hit the economy to the tune of about $1 Trillion.
Increased spending on education more in the last five years than Clinton in eight years.
60 years ago, being poor meant that you probably lived on a farm, and were happy with that. In 2005, it means:
- entitlement
- unashamed drug addiction
- crime, crime, and crime.
That is my suggestion to your grandson.
Make sure your grandson let's the teacher know how despicable the Teacher's Union is while you're at it.
"Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that bit of overstatement. Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower.
In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton (search) was called the first black president by some.
However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements."
If you want to help him, get him out of that horrible school.
What a jerky teacher.
Not that this will win brownie points with the teacher (if this is in a government school), but Bush has attempted to establish accountability so that all children meet educational standards going into fourth grade. if once that accountability succeeds, it will establish the principle that there will then be no excuse for not having the same children succeed in fourth grade. And then in fifth grade, and so on.So if his program works at the end of third grade, it will be a pilot for succeeding for all children all the way through school. And it's well understood that that would not affect middle class children nearly so much as it would affect poor children.
Passed the "No Child Left Behind Act" which increased federal spending so local schools could hire more teachers like your grandson's thus reducing the number of people who if they had to get a private sector job would be poor.
Unlike the Senator from West Virgina, he hasn't donned a hooded white sheet and burned a cross on any poor person's front lawn. And unlike the the Senator from Massachussetts, he hasn't killed anyone who is has less money than he has.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.