Should Welfare be allowed for only a set amount of time?
Debate Rounds (4)
1. It would help reduce the reliance on Welfare.
Statistically there are approx. 30 million people that are on a form of Welfare. This makes up for about 8% of the US population. Welfare induces a cycle of poverty and despair. People who are on Welfare often never get off not just because they are lazy or don't want to work but instead are caught in a cycle of poverty. People cannot rely on Welfare as a means to an end they must break the cycle. Giving people a set amount of time on Welfare can help them provide for themselves and family if they have them but also give them incentive to find a job. I believe one year would be sufficient to help people through their tough time and find a job that can pay more than Welfare and break the cycle of poverty.
2. Cuts off people who abuse Welfare
There is a large amount of people who abuse the Welfare program and live off of "free money" essentially. Giving them only a set amount of time would deter those who abuse the system from digging themselves deeper into the hole. This allows more allocation of funds to those who are in need of it at the moment and intend on getting themselves back into the job market.
There is always going to be exceptions however the only exceptions that should be allowed are that of people who have serious injuries or illnesses that restrict them from work. A broken arm or leg would not cut it. People can still work from home that have minor injuries. Only extremely serious circumstances would allow them to be excused. This helps the balance of Welfare be fair to all.
Welfare can help people, but government welfare hurts more than it helps.
SlaterJ23 forfeited this round.
My opponent claims that allowing private organizations to fund welfare could not occur because the money needed far extends the private organizations limits, however, this reasoning is flawed. The questions comes into play, who funds the government, well it is private organizations through taxes that give the necessary funds for the government to work. The problem now is that private organizations can't afford to pay taxes and give to charities, so they are forced to pay taxes or face legal problems. Now because of this system private organizations now have to go through the middle man, the government, to give to the poor, but the government has other obligations besides welfare. Now lets say a private organization pays one million dollars in taxes all that money doesn't just go to welfare it goes to Military, Defense, Education, and other Social programs, then some of that money might go to the poor in welfare. If taxes are lowered because cuts were made to welfare and other programs that means private organizations now can fund welfare in a much more effective way.
Government can't help the poor, people help the poor and it starts with taking government out of the equation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro missed a round, didn't use references and had weak or unsubstantiated arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.