[kjo]

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.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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.

Said differently, it's his job to cultivate a society in which future generations will be better off - not simply one in which today's generation has a full belly at the expense of those future prospects.

The former is a far more subtle project than the latter.

[ExSoldier]

This was sooo good, I'm going to raise it tomorrow in my AP Government classroom as a discussion topic. They're all a bunch of little genius socialists, although I would posit that as alsmost an oxymoron.