The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Nearly All Welfare Should Be Replaced With Public Works

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,699 times Debate No: 23930
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

MasturDbtor

Pro

Sometimes it can be hard to find a job, and it certainly is wrong for the government to abandon people in need. Furthermore when people are desperate crime rises. Doing nothing about the problem of poverty is not an option.

However, the economy would be in much better shape and we would have less problems with national debt if people government aid were provided in exchange for work rather than just handed over to people for free.

Furthermore, just giving people free money encourages a lifestyle of laziness. They get used to not having to work and just stay on welfare. If they are working in public works then they will be in the habit of working for a living and even if they remain in public works for life they'd still be giving back to the community and society that they live in.

There should be only 2 exceptions:
1. People attending college who have significant financial need and do not have enough time for both class and work.
2. Disabled persons.
InVinoVeritas

Con

I guess I'll just use the first round for acceptance.

Lay out those arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Pro

Quite Simply,

We have 3 options:
1. Completely get rid of government provision of aid.
The problem here is that this drives up crime rates as people try to find "alternative" methods of making a living and things becomce harder and harder for those such in a cycle of poverty to get out of poverty. The gap between rich and poor grows.
2. Continue just giving people handouts.
The problem here is if we're giving people money then the tax-paying public should at least get some services back.
3. Give needy able-bodied citizens jobs in public works rather than welfare handouts.
This is the most common sense solution. This would allow people to provide for themselves and still have some work and therefore a tie in with the community and experience job networking.
InVinoVeritas

Con

I believe that the second option is viable.

The state should provide an income safety net for those who, through sickness (physical or mental), age, or disability, cannot work; and those who can, but for whom no jobs are available. There are many people in the current economy who cannot find work despite having the ability to do work; it is not their fault.

The opponent's plan isn't feasible, because then the government would be artifically creating jobs and thereby dominate the job market. Such an action would allow the government to greatly influence the market. This would lead to a system that is far more socialist than our country strives to be, leaving the current market vulnerable to harsh government intervention.
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Pro

The second option is a bad option for both taxpayers and recipients. People are given money with no strings attached without requiring anything in return. This promotes a lifestyle of dependency on welfare benefits.

My opponent's contention that this would lead to a full government take over of creating jobs is ridiculous.
The government would devote the workforce towards duties of a public nature, such as highways, cleaning neighborhoods, building libaries, schools, and homes for those in need.

There's no reason this could lead to the government outcompeting the private sector fully.

That it would allow the government to influence the economy is true, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. With the right policy the government can direct public works towards those things that will best help people and enterprises as they go about the economy, such as by creating better roads and transportation.
InVinoVeritas

Con

In 2010, there were over 4.4 million people on welfare in the United States. [1] So, let's get this out of the way: the United States government would be artificially be creating millions of jobs for those who are currently on welfare.

"The government would devote the workforce towards duties of a public nature, such as highways, cleaning neighborhoods, building libaries, schools, and homes for those in need," the opponent says. As it stands, though, the government often hires private contractors to complete these jobs. Hence, even by focusing on "public services," the government takes away from the stability of private businesses that thrive on the government's dependency on and cooperation with them.

The private sector is put in jeopardy when the government artificially adds millions of jobs into the market, doing work that could have been done by millions of private sector contractors.

The "safety net" argument for those who cannot work due to legimate reasons was dropped.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com...

Debate Round No. 3
MasturDbtor

Pro

"In 2010, there were over 4.4 million people on welfare in the United States. [1] So, let's get this out of the way: the United States government would be artificially be creating millions of jobs for those who are currently on welfare."

Sometimes the government can do good things through public spending, such as funding for research into treating a number of treatable diseaes.

"The private sector is put in jeopardy when the government artificially adds millions of jobs into the market, doing work that could have been done by millions of private sector contractors."

There's no reason the "public works" program itself couldn't be subject to some "contracting out", providing incentives to private businesses to hire people given jobs through the public works program, though it also would not work in every case to make that the entire program. In some cases government does a better job directing resources.

"The "safety net" argument for those who cannot work due to legimate reasons was dropped.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com...;

Providing people in need money through public works programs both fulfills the promise of a "safety net" and gets back what is spent through the gains to the community through public works.
InVinoVeritas

Con

The opponent states, "Sometimes the government can do good things through public spending, such as funding for research into treating a number of treatable disea[s]es."

Okay. So? Through creating these jobs, the government will be promoting the treatment of diseases? Let us remember that most health care-related careers are in moderate to high demand. Most unemployed people would not be able to contribute to medicine-related progress. The opponent should clarify the point he was trying to make.

"...providing incentives to private businesses to hire people given jobs through the public works program."

So the government is going to provide incentives to private businesses to hire people in publics works programs (who would otherwise be on welfare)? The opponent must remember that a business has a set number of seats for new employees. Even with incentive to hire those in the public works program, other people would be displaced and will not have jobs.

Look at it this from the perspective of a small-scale model: A business has 20 employment applicants and 10 seats for new employment. Whether the business hires public works program members (through government incentivization) or not, 10 people will ultimately be unemployed.

"Providing people in need money through public works programs both fulfills the promise of a 'safety net' and gets back what is spent through the gains to the community through public works."

For the people who literally CANNOT work, due to health problems, the "safety net" of a public works programs is of no use. There are people in need who cannot participate in a public works program due to serious hindrances.
Debate Round No. 4
MasturDbtor

Pro

The opponent states, "Sometimes the government can do good things through public spending, such as funding for research into treating a number of treatable disea[s]es."

"Okay. So? Through creating these jobs, the government will be promoting the treatment of diseases? Let us remember that most health care-related careers are in moderate to high demand. Most unemployed people would not be able to contribute to medicine-related progress. The opponent should clarify the point he was trying to make."

That was more just an example of how the government CAN do good things with public money.
Better examples would be public highways and national parks. Public works could help lend to the maintenance and cleaning of these.

"So the government is going to provide incentives to private businesses to hire people in publics works programs (who would otherwise be on welfare)? The opponent must remember that a business has a set number of seats for new employees. Even with incentive to hire those in the public works program, other people would be displaced and will not have jobs.

Look at it this from the perspective of a small-scale model: A business has 20 employment applicants and 10 seats for new employment. Whether the business hires public works program members (through government incentivization) or not, 10 people will ultimately be unemployed."

A process could be involved to make sure the private sector is not "displacing" employees and creating new unemployed using the public works program, and also analyze the number of non-public works employees that would likely be hired if they weren't participating. Statistical analysis could determine how many would be there without public works and then require the business to "make room" if it is going to participate in the program, require them to change the number of people they are hiring.


"For the people who literally CANNOT work, due to health problems, the "safety net" of a public works programs is of no use. There are people in need who cannot participate in a public works program due to serious hindrances."

I stated up in Round 1:
"There should be only 2 exceptions:
1...
2. Disabled persons."

If you can't work due to health problems you fit #2.
InVinoVeritas

Con

Increased employment by the government for public works would be an attack of private enterprises that deal with parks and highways. Also, there are millions of unemployed people, definitely too many to strictly do public works.

---

The opponent then suggests that a vague process is implemented to avoid employee displacement. The government, through statistical finding, would "REQUIRE THE BUSINESSES TO 'MAKE ROOM' IF IT IS GOING TO PARTICIPATE." So private contractors would now have to give up control over their companies' own hiring procedure and allow the government to do it?

This means that in order to work with the government, private businesses would have to give up control over their own enterprises and allow the government to control hiring.

Let us also remember that THIS DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. If the government were to artificially squeeze additional workers into a business, it would simply be too little work for too many people. The dilemma persists.

---

The government artificially creating jobs only hurts business and creates a surplus of jobs that leads to overemployment.

Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
@16k

Canada has oil too.

*rallies the troops*

Tallyhoe!
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Canada
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Perhaps they should be conscripted into an army, and used to colonize a nation or two. Just a thought....
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Better than sitting on their assses waiting for a check for nothing.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Damn fvcking autocorrect. We'll try this again.

Don't hate, Dave!

lol
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Don't be hat in' Dave, lol.
Posted by WriterDave 4 years ago
WriterDave
That's an awful lot of jobs that the government would have to either create, or fill regardless of qualification, or force the private sector to create or fill regardless of qualification. You okay with that?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
MasturDbtorInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never made a good case as to why Welfare should be suspended, and simply said that we should do it because Public Works were good, which Con effectively negated. Sources went to Con because he used them.
Vote Placed by tyler90az 4 years ago
tyler90az
MasturDbtorInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never really made good arguments that welfare should be replaced with public works. He really just gave examples of how it could be done. I would have liked to see him say why regular welfare is bad more. I also think Ivino did a god job refuting public works argument made by mastur.