The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Losing
45 Points
The Contender
Contra
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

Should we cut Welfare

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,579 times Debate No: 18087
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (19)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

I think that welfare should be cut and looked at for two reasons.

1. People are abusing the system and using it to get free money and in other words we are giving money to somone who has no problem.

2. One of the issues is that welfare was a good idea when it was first made, but now it can look bad because more money is be put into the system from other Americans.
Contra

Con

I thank my opponent for presenting this interesting topic. I will now post my position on this statement.

1) Welfare saves lives by providing the poorest citizens food and economic relief, and 1 in 4 children receive welfare. Also, when welfare is substantially reduced, poverty increases as shown in the early 1980s. Also, most people on welfare (excluding children) have been in and out of the workforce, most caused because of lack of skills and education.

2) Also, social welfare is not super expensive by Washington's economics. Typical Welfare (assistance) cost around $31 billion in 2008; this includes state and federal government's expenditures combined. However, corporate welfare was not cheap. Corporate Welfare; which includes tax breaks for corporations, oil subsidies, etc. was around $100 billion. Social Welfare was only around 1% of the Federal Budget, yet people do not seek to reduce a waste of federal funds that is given to the already wealthy.

When people refer to "welfare," they usually mean the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program (TANF), which provides funds to families with children while encouraging parents to find employment so they do not need the assistance long-term, so I assume this debate is on TANF.

So, instead of hurting millions of citizens, 85% + of which do not abuse the system (likely), why not analyze the system for fraud, end corporate welfare, and improve education with the new funds? Vote Con!

Sources:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.huppi.com...
http://www.zerohedge.com...
Other
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

Hello and I thank my opponent for the debate. I am first going to say I am new to this whole debating website so I am probrably at the moment a terrible debater.

1. From a practical point of view, it never solves the problem. People living on welfare never get back to the working force, at least not the formal working force and that is perhaps why they jump in and out from different jobs. It also sets a threshold for the cost of labor. If you get 100 dollars for doing nothing, then you probrably won't take a job unless it pays more than 100 dollars. If you are not work, then you are probrably not getting the work experience needed. As for education, that may be a different issue, but we all know we need to make sure people get a good education, but we also know that now everyone can be succesful.

2. Now by cutting, I off course do not want to eliminate the system entirely, but just partially. If we spent more time looking into the profiles of the people on it and find out they do not need the welfare due to their physical performance as well as how long they have been on it then we should make the decision to either remove him from the system or not based on how he is doing, if he is finding jobs, and so forth. My father is a police officer in Milwaukee, WI and he sometimes encounters people who are in perfect shape, but they end up being on the welfare system. As for Corporate tax and welfare for them I believe we should find a way for them to acheive economic growth and development for more jobs and still be able to pay their fair share. One problem is that if the corporations have so much money then they should be able to hire many people and build more.

I agree with you that perhaps 75% or 85% of the people on welfare do really need it. One issue is that from politically it is a socialist way to keep the people on it supporting the same person. One candidate says he wants to keep it and the other says he wants to either cut partially or cut in entirely, then who do you think the people on welfare will vote for? They are so many people working at the offices of this system for the goverment as well as it is basically a nice but worthless job if you have so many.

http://answers.yahoo.com...
Contra

Con

Here is my rebuttal:

1) My opponent says that welfare is unsuccessful in the long term and is only necessary for children and hopeless people basically. I have to say that I do not agree, Welfare achieves most of its goals of providing short term income and helping the genuinely disadvantaged. In fact, over 80% of welfare recipients are on Welfare for at the most 5 years; no more. Also, at income less than the poverty rate for these people, it provides an incentive to gain a middle class life, with help with educational training for needed skills if necessary.

2) My opponent says that we need to reduce funding for Welfare; I partially agree. Yes, we need to define what welfare can and cannot help who, and we need to make sure that the people on Welfare are and are still looking for work. For example, here in Michigan, people need to look for work for at least a month before receiving funds. However, people who really need welfare will have trouble getting by, so this helps them reenter the workforce with the promise of more cash with a job as well as a house! (Welfare cannot usually help people alone own a home).
Welfare needs stable funding for the genuinely needy and we need more educational assistance as well for people who need an additional footing, and the "Welfare Queens" can be kicked of by more defined standards. Welfare also reduces poverty for people in the short term.

3) My opponent says that Welfare are Socialist actions that are useless to the "Welfare Queens", in conjunction with my above arguments, about 93% of all committed fraud with Welfare was by the vendors. This is still insignificant to Corporate Welfare, but both need to be ended.

http://www.anitra.net...
http://www.anitra.net...
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

Here is is my rebuttal:

1. My opponent says that welfare works because 80% of the people who use it usually just take 5 years to find another job. What about the other 20% that are taking this to the long term because 5 years is not a long time. By middle class life I guess opponent has not just meant the vital things needed (running water, electricity, a house, food supplies, etc.), but also several luxuries you get in middle class life. Some Americans on welfare have great housing while receiving unemployment checks at food stamps, but are abseloutly making no attempt to find a job. In fact one baker was asked by a woman to make a cake that looked like her new designer purse. When the baker told her it would cost 150 dollars she asked if he takes food stamps.

2. I do agree with my opponent that we need more stable funding and need to make sure that these people on welfare are actually looking for jobs. As for educational assistance I think that we need to send the people who need it back public schools or schools for just adults that need to look back at education. We should fund educational assistance, but make sure we have the capability to teach all these people without going over the needed capacity which would cause more government funded teachers to be around than needed.

3. What we must do is find out who and why these vendors are giving out welfare claims to people who need them. It is possible that they are just doing it so they can make themselves useful. That goes for the 93% that my opponent claimed that are abusing welfare. This is why we need more detail on the other 7% that find other ways to get welfare without needing it.

In closer I have found this:

"It is morally wrong for the government to take money from people and redistribute it to those who they say are in need (i.e. more likely to vote for them). Having said that I want to emphasize that I am not against charity. Just the opposite, I believe it is the duty of every man to help out his fellow man as he is able but I am very much opposed to public welfare.

Let me put it on the very personal level. If some poor fellow comes up to me in the street and asks me for some help feeding his family and getting medical help for Tiny Tim (who is a cripple), perhaps I will be moved with compassion and want to help. I would then reach into my pocket and see if I have anything there that would help. But maybe he needs a friend or a teacher and I could be that person to make a difference in his life. Maybe my efforts to restore this guy who is down on his luck could change both our lives. But the least I could do is give him a few bucks. But let's say I don't have the means or interest in helping out this guy. Is it okay for me to go to you, beat a few dollars out of you and give it to him? No, it's not. That is theft. Perhaps a well-intentioned theft but theft nonetheless."

http://shine.yahoo.com...
Contra

Con

1) Yes I think that we both agree that Welfare needs to have defined standards for eligibility and that the recipients need to continuously look for work while on and before Welfare. However, since the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 bill Bill Clinton signed into law, it limited federal funding for Welfare for 5 years per capita maximum, so the earlier statistics I quoted were not updated to this provision, so the few people who DO commit fraud on Welfare rolls (recipients) have only a limited amount of time with help from the Federal Government. Also, with defined standards and eligible people, people who do not need assistance won't get it, and the people who DO need temporary assistance (the 80% + under 5 years) can be given sure help. Also, Welfare is critical for family members who lost the Breadwinner of a family and disabled people that cannot find work.

2) The fact that it takes some so long to get off Welfare permanently (true needy) is because they lack the educational skill to hold a higher more stable job. Also, the largest group of people on Welfare are children, Yes, people under 18! So they cannot be held responsible for their condition.

3) What I said earlier was that out of ALL fraud 93% was committed by the vendors, NOT the recipients. I did NOT say that 93% of vendors committed fraud. Welfare is not as "inefficient" as many think, I lowers the poverty level, gives a boost to local economies (esp. in poorer areas), and helps the poorest of our people.

You also said that Welfare was "well intentioned, but theft nonetheless". Is it theft to give a helping hand to a person and their family while they (should) be looking for a job? They cannot survive without it in most cases. However, Corporate Welfare is theft because the rich cats don't need more money, $100 billion a year in potential funds is horrible. You say that Private Charity could replace welfare. So, I will present the information supporting your belief.

- Before Welfare (Private Charities DID exist and were in the same conditions as today mostly) poverty was at the 22% range. After Welfare; it was around 13%, reaching a low of 11% in the late 1990s.

- Private Charities do not look to see if the recipients have a job or are looking for one, they can rely on it for much longer than necessary, the Federal Government looks for inefficiency.

- Private Charities are less stable than the Government by far. In the recent recession, many charities had to cut back, and without Government Aid, the needy would of been in a poor state, if still alive.

4) You say that Welfare is a system to help politicians get reelected by their helped Constituents. However, voter turnout by the significant majority of Welfare recipients is only about 36%, so this may be a small reason for Welfare support, but the majority of Americans like the idea of a Safety Net for when people lose their jobs.

- Welfare is less than 1% of all of the Government's total yearly spending!

http://www.zerohedge.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com...

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
leol your retarded... my vote was legit.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
@Willoweed "I dislike the stereotyping especially given that it is incorrect" Because we all know that was the WHOLE point of the debate.

@Imabench thanks for the bomb man!
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
I think no one is going to vote anymore.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Cool!
Posted by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
It is also my first debate on this website.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
I agree. Oh I hope I win my first debate!
Posted by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
Since Welfare (TANF) is an insignificant amount of cash in the Government's total budget, I think that the only "cuts" we need to Welfare are the people that do not really need the Government's assistance and are not looking for a job.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Still I thank my opponent for a good debate.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Thank you. Why are they frowned upon? It was somewhat in unecessary to post the video because the "Americans on welfare have great housing while receiving unemployment checks at food stamps, but are abseloutly making no attempt to find a job. In fact one baker was asked by a woman to make a cake that looked like her new designer purse. When the baker told her it would cost 150 dollars she asked if he takes food stamps." was in that video.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
Generally, video posts are frowned upon (but you didn't know so it's ok).
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
1HistorygeniusContraTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro uses yahoo which is a bad source. Source points to Con.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
1HistorygeniusContraTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Dragonb95 He gave no proper reasoning to why he voted Con. His vote easily could have been based on biasness.
Vote Placed by dragonb95 3 years ago
dragonb95
1HistorygeniusContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: I end up siding with con because I found his rebuttals better. Great job though
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
1HistorygeniusContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was framed by Pro so that he could argue that welfare 'should' be cut. In later rounds he makes it clear that he was looking for reductions and reforms not elimination. To which, Con agreed. Sources go to Pro for supporting that argument.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
1HistorygeniusContraTied
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:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter tmar, Lordknukle and Leol. Leol vbed 7, lordk vb 5, so therefore two points for pro. Tmar had very bad RFD and gave one extra to Pro, so Con gets a point.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
1HistorygeniusContraTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a better argument, con had better sources.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
1HistorygeniusContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: CON wins on sources. Not that they were that great, but PRO provided hardly any, and CON did include a nice graph. Several of PRO's points were anecdotal, whereas CON included reference to data.
Vote Placed by TheHunter 4 years ago
TheHunter
1HistorygeniusContraTied
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: At first sight of the resolution I was under the impression that Pro was for cutting welfare partially. After reading the debate he did say partially, but it was obvious that he meant as a program entirely or that he wasn't well-versed in the actual welfare program. Based on that premise, I do not believe that he held his BOP very well against the particular arguments that contra presented him with.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
1HistorygeniusContraTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's resolution was in favor of cutting welfare and throughout the course of the debate he made a good case but Con agreed that some welfare should be cut as well basically conceding the resolution, even if just to a degree. Pro wins based on that.
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
1HistorygeniusContraTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter teafood votebomb