Posted on 09/14/2005 2:19:04 PM PDT by visitor
Pardon me, but I smell a setup by a left-wing excuse for a teacher who probably has a lifetime membership in the anti-American National Education Association. If your grandson argues in favor of President Bush he will no doubt be wrong in the teacher's eyes, and will probably be humiliated in front of the class as a bigot.
And, as a previous poster wrote, it's not the president's job (or that of the government) to take care of people. Rich or poor, people are expected to take care of themselves. This is a republic, not a socialist welfare state. Yet, anyway.
No child left behind.
No child left behind.
First of all, it's a question, not a proper Debate resolution. The question is put in a way that unfairly puts the burden on the Bush supporter to prove that Bush has an obligation to help the poor. He's the President, not a local social worker! His job is chief executive officer of the United States. IT'S NOT HIS JOB. The question itself is thus in error: it presupposes an obligation that does not exist. If I were arguing this I would attack the question as being in error in its supposition, and point out that it is drafted in a way that makes Bush responsible for something over which he is not. The job of the Chief Executive is to see the laws faithfully executed, not to give to some who may not be deserving. By definition, poor are not necessarily victims. They have some degree of personal responsibility for their own status.
Free prescription drugs regardless of need. He has also provided positive roll models to poor black and hispanic kids by appointing more minorities to high levels than any other president by far.
America and the Poor...
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
By Bill O'Reill
America and the poor, that is the subject of this evening's “Talking Points Memo.”
The aftermath of Katrina has produced a debate over poor Americans. There are about 37 million people living below the poverty line right now. The issue was described this way by Newsweek (search) reporter Evan Thomas (search), a liberal guy but not alone, who writes, "Liberals will say [the authorities] were indifferent to the plight of poor African-Americans. It is true that Katrina laid bare society's massive neglect of its least fortunate."
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.
Did the elite media mention that? Jesse Jackson (search) mention that? Of course they didn't, because it's much more convenient for Evan Thomas and others to imply America under President Bush has turned its back on the poor, but it's absolute nonsense.
Even in the midst of the war on terror, this country's spending a massive amount of money trying to help the poor. So why the lie? Because political gain can be made off the suffering of others, that's why.
Those who oppose the Bush administration don't care about the truth. They only want to advance their own agenda. So once again, the no- spin zone rides to the rescue.
Hard-working Americans are providing the poor with Medicaid, food stamps, supplemental security income, that's free money, child nutrition programs, welfare payments, child daycare payments, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care, adoption assistance, and health insurance for children.
But it will never be enough for the Jesse Jacksons and Howard Deans of the world, never. They told you the truth. They'd go out of business.
Now I fully expect to be attacked by the far left media for telling you all this. I'm sure they will label me a racist, a shill for Bush, stuff like that, but I don't care. The dollars don't lie. We are a generous nation. And that is the truth. And that is “The Memo.”
The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day
Michael Jackson (search) has announced his lineup for a Katrina relief song. Among others, it features R. Kelly (search), Snoop Dogg (search), and James Brown (search), the godfather of soul. Apparently, O.J. Simpson (search) was busy, or maybe he can't sing.
Now, if you don't get that, all of those previous gentleman have records, OK? Not records singing, records in jail.
Might be ridiculous.
At least in my area, that wouldn't be a strong point on either side. Modified it would.
Click Here for a brief overview of what the government is not supposed to do. (An email I received today.)
Depends on the teacher. I had a teacher do a similiar thing with us in high school. She had both Dem and Rep cantidates for local offices come in and talk to us. She treated each very courteously and did not try to influence the opinion one way or the other. We then had to choose a cantidate and represent his point of view against a student representing the other cantidate. Mine was a Republican congressman and I smoked the other one. The teacher gave me a good grade. She was a good history teacher.
For: Explain to me mayor responsibility of his or her city
Explain to me how to spell the number four.
I probably wouldn't use the no child's behind left act. But some of the other info is pretty good here.
:}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}thank you
...snip...
The Census Bureau reports that 35.9 million persons "lived in poverty" in 2003. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers and examine the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution--an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. Yet only a small number of the millions of persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. Although real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well off just a few generations ago.
The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:
Although the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience hunger--meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2002, 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experienced hunger at some point during the year.8 In most cases, their hunger was short term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor reported that their families had "enough" food to eat,9 while only 2 percent said they "often" did not have enough to eat.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. Although this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists, and politicians.
Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty obtaining medical care. However, even in households in which such problems do occur, the hardship is generally not severe by historic or international standards.
The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home. In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work each year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.
Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes. Each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty. If welfare could be turned around to really require work and to encourage marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly.
The recent Census Bureau report substantially exaggerates the extent of poverty and economic inequality in the United States. To the extent that enduring poverty continues in our society, it is largely the result of personal behavior, particularly the lack of work and marriage. Policies that require welfare recipients to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid and that encourage the formation of healthy marriages are the best vehicles for further reducing poverty.
Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
velcome:)
His economic policies have resulted in more tax revenues, more growth, more jobs and less unemployment.
Those on welfare want an opportunity to work and Bush's policies give them that.
Those who are poor have a chance of improving their conditions when the economy is growing.
Taxation slows that growth and puts more people out of work.
More people own their own homes now than ever before and one of the reasons is that better jobs and more income from them allows home ownership to grow.
Additionally the taking the fight with our enemies into their home court, Iraq and Afganistan, has improved the safety of the poor here at home.
Many of those who were killed in the 911 attacks were poor: janitors, clerks, etc.
When the Nation is safer the poor are safer.
When the Nation grows more prosperous the poor become fewer.
1. George Bush is in favor of an ownership society:
An ownership society values responsibility, liberty, and property. Individuals are empowered by freeing them from dependence on government handouts and making them owners instead, in control of their own lives and destinies. In the ownership society, patients control their own health care, parents control their own children's education, and workers control their retirement savings.
http://www.cato.org/special/ownership_society/index.html
An ownership society help relieve poverty by improving a)social security, b) education and c)healthcare See links on abpve page.
Also:
Ownership makes markets possible, and markets make prosperity possible. The incentives created by property induce people to create value, precisely because ownership allows them to "capture" a portion of the additional value that they create. Furthermore, ownership makes markets possible and markets make prices possible, and prices make possible a higher degree of coordination of efforts than would be possible under any form of central direction. Without the prices made possible by the exchange of property rights in free markets, there are no signals to guide entrepreneurs to the best use of scarce resources or to coordinate the efforts of large numbers of persons and resources.
The role of prices was articulated by the Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek (who went on to win the Nobel Prize for his contributions to economics) in the great debate over the viability of socialism, but the implications are not merely negative (namely, that socialism won't work); the discipline of "law and economics" has drawn on the results of that debate to show how legal and political institutions, by providing well defined and legally secure protection of property, make possible the benefits of prosperity and social harmony. As Hayek noted, coordination among people who may not share common ends is only made possible by exchange of property: "It is indeed characteristic of such acts of exchange that they serve different and independent purposes of each partner in the transaction, and that they thus assist the parties as means for different ends. The parties are in fact the more likely to benefit from exchange the more their needs differ." (Law, Legislation, and Liberty, vol. I)
Ownership channels the efforts of millions of persons who are unknown to each other into cooperation to produce wealth, rather than into the squabbling and conflict characteristic of political control. Ownership - based on well defined and legally secure property rights - is the foundation of a society of widespread and growing prosperity.
Extending Ownership
The extension of ownership rights to fields that have been dominated by government power - including social security, medical care, and schooling - represents an opportunity for Americans to enjoy in their retirement planning, their medical care, and the education of their children the responsibility, freedom, and prosperity that only ownership can make possible.
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/palmer-0401.html
2. President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson.
Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years.
* * *
Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750
That seems a pretty heady topic for 7th grade. It can't help being a very partisan debate.
Pres. Bush told them:
"Get off your lazy ass and go get a job, or two if necessary..."
or maybe he didn't...
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.