The debate question is bogus. It's not the president's job to "care" for the poor.
NCLB.
Protected them from further terrorist attack for four years.
I would answer a question with a question.
Since when is the government responsible for ANYONE'S existence and subsequent success(es) / failure(s)?
Last night on O'Reilly Factor it was stated by O'Reilly that Bush is spending more on poverty programs than ever in history. Even more than Bill Clinton. I don't personally think that's something to be proud of, but it is something that he's done for the poor.
Bush's legacy will be expanded socialism and a great foreign policy.
Well, I'm sure his teacher is a democrat. One thing you could point out is that he's signed every piece of Democrat legislation that they've put on his desk. I don't think he's vetoed anything.
So the dems got what they wanted, except for these judges. So if the poor are suffering then they're to blame as well.
Actions are what count, not perceptions or rhetoric.
"It is better to be respected than to be liked"
This is what Bush has done for this nation. Back when we were liked but disrespected, we were being attacked by terrorists and doing nothing about it.
Now, terrorists are on the run, and we have a thriving economy and low unemployment. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Narrowed the achievement gap between rich and poor kids, covered prescription drugs, spurred economic and job growth by cutting taxes, began the fight to eliminate the scourge of radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorism from their planet...
Go here http://www.gop.com/Search/Search.aspx
And search on poor
Much higher education spending than ever before. And besides, the "war on poverty" (LBJ's legacy - a democrat) is a failure despite the many trillions of dollars we've thrown at it. Just throwing around money doesn't fix this; education and values do, and Pres. Bush has contributed more than any prior president to both.
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.
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.)