The Instigator
SlaterJ23
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
utahjoker
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should Welfare be allowed for only a set amount of time?

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 1 vote the winner is...
utahjoker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,021 times Debate No: 34212
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

SlaterJ23

Pro

This will technically be a 3 round argument. First round is for anybody who would like to accept the con position to the topic that Welfare should only be available to people for a set period of time before they get back on their feet. so to speak.
Debate Round No. 1
SlaterJ23

Pro

Excellent. Sorry for the long wait but finals and other things came up that diverted my attentions. Now then I believe Welfare should be allowed for only a set amount of time UNLESS there are binding circumstances that require out of ordinary measures.

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.

3. Exceptions?
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.
utahjoker

Con

Welfare should not be funded by the government. See the main wording I used in that sentence funded by the government, which means if a Church, Charity, or Organization wants to fund their own Welfare system like many already have such as the Church of Latter day Saints or the Catholic church they can. The best kind of Welfare is first a job, second your neighbor, third Churches and Charities, and at last place government. Right now the debt is at about 16.7 trillion dollars and the amount they spend on Welfare reaches at nearly 131.9 billion dollars which is money that can be spent on helping lessen our debt. When government gets taxes it has a list of things it tries to fund like Military, Defense, Education, Police, Social programs and Welfare the government cant give that specific attention to detail like a Church or a Charity can. Many people do need Welfare like when someone loses a job, sicknesses, and death can bring a family down on their knees begging for help and that is what many Churches and Charities do help those in need. 4.3 million people are on Welfare and 46.7 million are on Food stamps, but that is what Church and Charity funded food banks do help while government can't. Many people go without Welfare because the government does not have enough money or resources to do so.

Welfare can help people, but government welfare hurts more than it helps.

Sources
http://www.brillig.com...
http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Debate Round No. 2
SlaterJ23

Pro

SlaterJ23 forfeited this round.
utahjoker

Con

I extend my arguments
Debate Round No. 3
SlaterJ23

Pro

Sorry for my delay time got away from me. Now then as far as your points go there is some truth to them. I do agree government is getting too much power and controls too much of the nation as it is, however, having churches and other fundraisers to raise money for welfare would just not work. The money needed to fund those on welfare would far exceed what private fundraisers could provide. I believe the government should control welfare but it should be regulated. The way it is now is too flawed and needs to solve the problem of poverty and unemployment rather than provide free money to those on welfare. a "time limit" so to speak would allow those who are unemployed or in tough times to get themselves back on their feet and get back out into the job market. The time limit would also create incentive to work knowing that the people cannot just feed off of the welfare system. The government does an okay job regulating welfare it just needs to be upgraded not dispatched.
utahjoker

Con

To close I will refute my opponents arguments in the 4th 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.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by InGodwetrust33 2 years ago
InGodwetrust33
I'm not debating your point of view. I completely agree. Welfare is not for life. It should never be. No one deserves to be payed for by hard earned tax dollars. That money should go to education or other constructive programs. The welfare system has just encouraged people to be lazy and to take what they want without really paying for it
Posted by SlaterJ23 3 years ago
SlaterJ23
Rookie mistake i meant the con position will argue why it should not be a set amount of time or whether there should be welfare at all etc etc. your choice
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
I would be interested in your debate?

A couple of questions first.

1. I am in NB, Canada and our laws and programs are far different from your country / state / province. I suspect we have similar positions, but I would bring up the range of situations that require life long care for some.
ARE YOU OK IF I DEBATE THAT SOME SHOULD QUALIFY FOR WELFARE FOR AN UNLIMITED TIME?

2. I am in favor or reduced freedoms and more intrusive monitoring for those on welfare.
Mandatory pee tests for drugs, alcohol and tobacco.
Why should I pay for non essentials.
Welfare should only allow a percentage for non essentials.
Recipients should be required to use 80% of their check for essentials (food / housing)
I WILL ARGUE THAT OTHER INCENTIVES TO QUIT WELFARE ARE MORE EFFECTIVE.
DOES THIS CONFUSE THE PURPOSE OF YOUR DEBATE?

3. Long term birth control should be required for welfare recipients.
If you can not look after your own needs you should not be bringing children into the world.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS STEP WILL MAKE SOME PEOPLE WANT TO LEAVE THE SYSTEM

4.I propose that welfare recipients need to work.
For recipients of welfare without medical or mental limitations work should be required.
Those with medical and mental issues might be helped by work programs.
I WOULD ARGUE FOR A RANGE OF PROGRAMS RATHER THAN JUST LIMITED TERMS

If that won't ruin your debate I am willing.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
SlaterJ23utahjokerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro missed a round, didn't use references and had weak or unsubstantiated arguments.