The Instigator
Mr.alwaysright
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Resolve: The federal government should substancially increase social services for people in poverty.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,942 times Debate No: 13633
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Mr.alwaysright

Pro

Intro: The federal government should substantially increase social services for people in poverty. I believe the federal government can and should do this. Three main ways the federal government could substantially increase social services are through Medicaid, Education, and Minimum wage. The federal government can do this by extending each of these topics programs.

Medicaid- I think fraud on Medicaid's punishment should be worse than what it is now. Instead of a five year imprisonment I believe It should be upped to ten years. I also believe for an individual who does this instead of paying 250,000 dollars they should pay 400,000. With a corporation I believe that a 500,000 dollar fine isn't big enough. I think a 1,000,000 dollar fine is more suitable.

Education- I believe that the federal government should give out more grants and less loans. People in poverty can't necessarily afford a four year college that costs thousands of dollars. A State College for Instate residence are relatively cheaper than a out of state resident but is usually about 18,000 dollars a year. And For Out of state College residence 25,000 dollars a year. Grants scholarships and less loans should be given out. Loans are okay but you have to pay them back. It doesn't necessarily help someone in poverty to get money and pay it back when they didn't have it to begin with. Grants however you don't need to pay back. Also better education equals more job opportunities. People in poverty aren't getting the best secondary education as maybe a private or suburban school gets. The federal government needs to get these schools better qualified teachers and better technology and equipment. If you can send someone in poverty to college and get them a good education then they will be a great force when looking for a job. Without the education they can't get good jobs and won't make a lot of money. The poverty rate won't get any better.

Minimum wage- I think the federal government should increase the minimum wage salary because It can be a struggle. One struggle is that if a person has kids and they have to work and provide their kid with day care the prices range from 210-500 dollars per child. That is a definite struggle because people who are making minimum wage get paid only 7.25 dollars an hour. That's not a lot at all. They would only make a couple hundred a check. Their whole check wouldn't even be enough for childcare for one kid let alone two or three. It can be a struggle to find a decent home in a relatively middle class society. Most people that live off of minimum wage live in a low class society with crime and . I believe minimum wage should be increased to 15.50 an hour. That way they can pay bills and do the extra stuff on the side that may be needed and support a family. They also can live in a relatively safe and nice environment neighborhood. They
can pay for a good education for their child as well. Or even for them. 5.8 percent of people living in poverty are couples. Compare to 16.9 percent of households headed by single men. Also 25.8 percent of households headed by single women are in poverty.

Conclusion- To sum up my argument on why the government should substantially increase social services for people in poverty ,I believe expanding these programs will make the poverty rate decrease. I believe It will make our economy stronger and people in poverty will have better lifestyles.
Danielle

Con

Before I begin I'd like to thank my opponent for beginning this debate. As a disclaimer, I'd like to point out that many times I play Devil's Advocate, so you shouldn't assume to know my real position based on what I write here. Nevertheless, I look forward to a great and interesting discussion. Thanks!

[ REBUTTAL ]

While my opponent's burden is to explain why the USFG should increase social services, you'll find that many of his contentions do not actually give arguments in favor of the resolution. For instance, Pro begins by saying people who commit fraud regarding Medicaid ought to be punished with a higher jail sentence and higher fine. Quite obviously this is merely expressing an opinion about a punishment being too light; it does nothing to say why the USFG increasing funds is a good idea.

Next, Pro writes that the government should give out more grants and less loans. Why? If the government gives someone money so they can receive an education, and then go on to make a living in the workforce, why is it unreasonable to expect said person to pay the government back what they owe? Keep in mind that "the government" are your fellow tax payers. Why is it acceptable to take money from your peers without giving it back? They (citizens) are forced to pay for another's education which is theft. I can understand making lending options available to all citizens a goal - or perhaps even a plan to eliminate all interest on borrowed government money for education. However asking for a completely free ride is not only irresponsible in terms of government spending, but immoral.

Pro continues to point out that college is expensive, though I reject the idea that it costs 18,000 dollars a year. One can attend a typical community college for only 2,000 dollars a year [1]. This is not an outrageous figure. Nevertheless, Pro's next assertion on the topic of education is that the federal government needs to get inner city schools better qualified teachers and better technology and equipment. However the USFG need not increase social services to do this. First, there are various programs that work to get some of the best teachers involved with urban youth, such as the Teach For America program which is non-profit [2]. Moreover if the government cut pork and other useless spending from their budget, they would not have to increase any programs but rather increase funding for already existing programs in order to get kids the tools they need to be competitive in the education field.

Finally, my opponent suggests increasing the minimum wage to an amazing 15.50 $ an hour. There are many arguments against the minimum wage, but I'll begin with a simple contention: that increasing the minimum wage would be pointless, as the repercussion would simply be the cost of living increasing. Approximately 90% of economists agreed that the minimum wage overall had negative economic effects on low-skilled workers [3]. Not only will the cost of products go up as the minimum wage does, but it also limits the number of job opportunities for low skill workers. For instance if an employer is forced to pay someone $16 per hour, that means only 1 worker can labor for that hour instead of 2 if they each made $8. In other words, the minimum wage limits job opportunities which can keep the economy stagnant and increase poverty. I'll leave it at that for now!

[ ARGUMENTS ]

Government spending reduces labor force participation, increases unemployment, and reduces productivity. For instance, not only would increasing social programs take away the incentive to work, but it would decrease productivity growth rates by inhibiting innovation and capital accumulation. Resources are taken from the private sector and placed in the unproductive public sector, which tends to be wasteful and mismanage money on nearly every endeavor [4]. Moreover, if the USFG were to spend more, interest rates would increase that decrease private investment. History shows us that this type of intervention creates an uncertainty within the market that discourages investment, therefore capital, and overall reduces the return of long-term investments [5].

Since the economy cannot grow without increased private investment and consumption, it would be irresponsible to increase social services instead of allowing tax payers to retain that money and pump back into our market economy, thereby making everybody richer (and reducing the need for said programs in a more efficient, effective and moral way). That's all for now... good luck!

[1] http://ezinearticles.com...
[2] http://www.teachforamerica.org...
[3] http://ideas.repec.org...
[4] http://www.heritage.org...
[5] http://www.house.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.alwaysright

Pro

[REBUTTAL]

Id like to point out the reason I brought up the subject of fraud for Medicaid and more severe punishment, is because if we punish those for this crime then less people will do it. The punishment now is five years but obviously that's not enough time to make people think twice. When people cheat their way of getting Medicaid its stealing from everyone not just one individual. If you were to commit is fraud t the federal government is spending money on some that doesn't need it and someone that does isn't going to get it. That someone would be someone in poverty. So this is a very important issue.

Also The government should give out more grants because not everyone goes to college to be a Doctor or Lawyer. What if someone gets a bunch of loans and become social worker? They wont have a high income at all. Its going to be very difficult to pay back money to a four year college and graduate school. Another thing yes in certain fields community college comes in handy. But there's not much you can do with it unless if you transfer. There's not much money that come from an associates degree nowadays. People in poverty get the worst of things when it cs to education unfortunately.

The reason I increased minimum wage so much is because Its tough to make ends meet with 8:00 an hour. If you have a family how can you pay bills, feed your kids, feed yourself, and pay doctor bills and what not?We all should have money for the extra reasonable needs.
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro.

My opponent begins his response by saying the reason he mentioned increases in punishment for people who commit fraud against Medicaid is to avoid people committing these crimes to begin with. He writes, "if we punish those for this crime then less people will do it." However notice that this does nothing, as I said last round, to support the resolution - INCREASING SOCIAL SERVICES. Indeed increasing penalties might be a good deterrent to stop people from hurting the system the way they do now, but how is this in any way, shape or form an incentive to increase funding to expand programs? It simply notes that we can take measures to help the system; it doesn't explain why this measure is a reason to increase services.

Next, Pro writes that some people go to college and become social workers or other low-income professionals who will not be able to afford paying back their loans. While this is true and indeed sad, Pro ignores other methods to reduce the cost of tuition at universities to begin with -- such as increasing competition by giving out LESS government loans and grants. Obviously if people could not afford college, the prices must be reduced for the institution to remain afloat, meaning there are smarter, more practical and fair ways for people to be able to afford college rather than force others to subsidize their education. Pro never responded to my questions specifically regarding why it should be acceptable to take money from your peers without giving it back, which is theft. I gave other ideas in the last round to help people pay for college as well. Also, I reject the idea that community college serves no purpose, and I ask that my opponent defend this so I can refute it in the next round.

Finally, Pro clarifies why he suggested increasing minimum wage, but I explained in the last round why this is a bad idea and disadvantageous to low-skilled workers. Pro never responded to one iota of this argument. Pro also never responded to any of my other arguments, including the USFG being insufficient to take over what private business could; that his suggestions infringe on the labor market and opportunities for profit; that increased interest rates would severely negatively impact the overall economy; etc. Please extend all of these arguments.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.alwaysright

Pro

[REBUTAL]
Id like to point out that the "Teach for America Program" you mention is a program that involves non sertified teachers to teach in not the best areas to pay for graduate school. That really doesnt help to beter things educational wise. Also Trickle-down economics has been proven to never work when tried. When you cut the taxes on the wealthy it doesnt help the rest of the economy. So the people in poverty are still hurt. Government funding is a good thing.
Danielle

Con

Please extend my arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Ah, and therein lies the rub.
Posted by Mr.alwaysright 6 years ago
Mr.alwaysright
things happen.....some people have kids not intentionally
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
If you make only $8.00/hr, you should not even be attempting to raise a family. Minimum wage is a starting point, and through hard work and perseverance, you work your way up to the point when you are ready for a family.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
My RFD:

* Spelling and Grammar __ CON

- Self-evident

* Conduct __ CON

- Pro intentionally dropped all of Con's arguments (see: last round)

* Sources __ CON

- Self evident; Pro didn't use any

* Arguments __ CON

Pro ignored all of Con's arguments; Con defeated all of Pro's
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 6 years ago
Vi_Veri
Mr.alwaysrightDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Mr.alwaysrightDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by WhiteWolf 6 years ago
WhiteWolf
Mr.alwaysrightDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Mr.alwaysrightDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07