The Instigator
mb852
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DaveDiV
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Pensions for Government Employees and Social Security should be abolished...

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,323 times Debate No: 13400
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

mb852

Pro

I'll let my opponent lay out his points first...
DaveDiV

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for posting this debate.

While this is my first debate, I see it is customary to start with definitions:
A pension is an arrangement to provide people with an income when they are no longer earning a regular income from employment. In the US, government employees are among the last to receive pensions.
Social Security in the US covers a number of social welfare and insurance policies, but since my opponent has attached it to a debate about pensions, I will define it as the social security retirement benefits, which function similar to pensions.

If my opponent will be so kind as to respond that he agrees or disagrees with my definitions.

Because this debate is about two programs, while similar in function, are of enormously different consequence, I will divide my argument against abolishing them into two parts.

Social Security-
No one can work forever. Those in jobs that require manual labor will eventually be unable to physically perform them, while in other positions, those of advancing age will find it difficult to compete in areas such as energy and salary. Also while age discrimination is reproachful, it does exist and is virtually impossible to enforce against- leaving employees of a certain age at a disadvantage for finding and keeping jobs. Retirement is a part of life and, for most, a pleasant one.

Since the phase out of pensions millions of Americans rely on social security as their primary (often sole) source of income after retiring(1). While some workers enroll in 401k programs and other retirement savings accounts, this is not an option for everyone. Notably- non-working widows or widowers and those with expenses that meet or surpass their income. Additionally, many people are short-sighted, or simply bad with money. While this is not an attractive trait, social security legally requires these people to save. Abolishing social security would push these people into welfare or disability programs once they were beyond an age where they could feasibly work. This would be need to be funded by responsible taxpayers, penalizing those who thought ahead.

Social security is notorious for being "borrowed from" by politicians who want to fund other programs and aren't interested in problems that will arise after their term limit. However, rather than abolish the victim of this action as well as other government mismanagement, the solution should be to elect more competent officials.

Pensions-
Though not necessary for basic survival, pensions are a benefit that rewards loyalty and service. While the private sector no longer has the luxury of pensions, the sour grapes of the private sector should not stop those working for the government from receiving pensions. To explain using a over the top analogy: If it was private sector policy to set their employees on fire when they made mistakes and government workers were not subject to this treatment, where should the correction be made? The private sector, of course. The lack of pensions in the private sector are a component of the downturn in employee treatment that should not be reflected anywhere.

That is the basis of my case at the moment. It's not particularly extensive because I honestly can't think of many reasons anyone would want to do away with pensions and social security. However, my opponent may have reasons I've yet to think of. I await his reply.
___________________________________

(1) http://seniorjournal.com...
http://www.emergingminds.org...
Debate Round No. 1
mb852

Pro

mb852 forfeited this round.
DaveDiV

Con

Since my opponent has yet to give a reason why this should happen, I would find it difficult to debate against.
Debate Round No. 2
mb852

Pro

mb852 forfeited this round.
DaveDiV

Con

Once again, I have nothing to respond to.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
(Posting here bc you aren't accepting messages)
Cool votebombing, bro. http://www.Debate.org...
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
You're asserting that something should be done, and you're the instigator. You should write the first argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
mb852DaveDiVTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF