The Instigator
RonPaulConservative
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Verithenes
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should welfare be maintained?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 232 times Debate No: 96539
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

RonPaulConservative

Con

I will argue that we should abolish and replace welfare.
Verithenes

Pro

Hi, I hope this is a good debate.
Okay, so I'll give a definition of welfare.
Welfare
/'wel,fer/ (n)
The provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for citizens without current means to support basic needs.

Here's another definition:
Financial support given to people in need.

1) Okay, so first, lets go over the definition of welfare. It's basically saying that it's helping the US citizens who can't help themselves, meaning like, food stamps, paying of mortgages, social security, ect. My opponent wants to abolish this but first let's think, what happens to the people who are on welfare and are aided by the government, what happens to them if welfare is abolished? Well, the people on food stamps won't be able to get the food they need in order to stay alive and healthy so we will have starvation and for the people who have trouble with their mortgages, this means that the next time the mortgage company calls, they get kicked out of their house. Now this is America, the country every other country looks up to and we have to set a good example. Another country that is letting it's citizens starve right now is North Korea and we do not need to look like North Korea because they are seen as a very bad country and the are also a third world country.

2) 21.5% of Americans are on welfare (Census Bureau)
So let's look at this information. that's 20% of the US and if we do not maintain welfare which my opponent wants to do, we will be abandoning 67,891,000 Americans and that is a horrible thing to do. If we do not maintain welfare, millions of Americans will starve and/or be kicked out of their homes. That would basically be like the United States government saying, "hey you guys, we aren't going to help you anymore, you'll be okay" when actually, they will not be okay, people will starve because they don't have enough food. 41,170,000 Americans are on food stamps. That's 41,170,000 Americans that would not have the food they need to survive/stay healthy. This leads to obesity and we already have a big obesity problem, do we want to make it worse?

3) Not maintaining welfare WILL have these effects.
These people that are on welfare are all lower class citizens and if the government stopped helping them, most of them would have no options left because they don't have the money to pay the bills they need to pay without the government helping them. My opponent wants to not maintain welfare which will result in starvation and obesity and people being turned out of houses. Millions will have nowhere to go and nothing to eat. If you want millions to go homeless and starve, than vote for Con, but if you want the government to continue to maintain welfare and ensure that this DOESN'T happen, than I strongly urge you to vote for Pro, thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
RonPaulConservative

Con

By "welfare" I was refering to the welfare program, which can, and should, be replaced by any number of better replacements, such as:

A GOOD PAYING JOB
Unfortunately most people on welfare are employed, {1} the problem is they aren't earning enough, so clearly they need a raise, the problem is deciding how to do that. By goveronment mandate or by Free Market principles? I propose that we institute an all-out industrialisation policy, which will create tens of millions of jobs, increasing the demand for labor, thus inflating its price.

A NEGATIVE INCOME TAX
A negative income tax isn't a program but a tax plan. The idea is that you should have a tax exemption based on your dependants (children, retired parents, stay at home wife/husband, etc.), and that you should have a tax on those exemptions that you didn't have. A reverse tax, there are many different plans for this, just as there are many different forms of taxation, but my equation is this:
income=i
d=num of dependants
t=tax to be paid
(i-(d 20,000+10,000))25%=t

For example, a family of four with one working person working for minimum wage, on welfare, will receive 900$ in welfare monthly. {2} Whilst that same person would earn 15,080$ annualy, so his tax rebate would be factored this way:
(i-(d 20,000+10,000))25%=t
(i-(60,000+10,000))25%=t
(15,080-70,000)25%=t
-54,920 25%=t
-13,730=t
So this person would receive 13,730$ annualy, which equals 1,144$ monthly. That is much better than welfare.

WHY A NEGATIVE INCOME TAX IS BETTER THAN WELFARE
First of all, it doesn't remove incentives, in welfare if you earn just 100$ more than minimum wage, you are not elegible for welfare so you don't receive any money. Unless you can get a really killer job right away, this program prevents poor people from getting better jobs and getting out of poverty slowly. But in a Negative Income Tax system you still receive money, but it decreased gradualy until it reaches zero, and it will only do that when you are out of poverty and not struggling.

Second of all, it removes the beurocracy, enable to receive your negative income tax you simply need to file your income tax returns which everyone is already oblidged to file! Many people need welfare but cannot get it because abuse of the welfare system makes it harder to get, this will simplify the system and make it so that everyone can get their rebates.

Third of all, it would be a lot cheaper, it seems strange that giving the poor more money costs you less money, but apparently we waste billions of dollars on paying welfare beaurocrats, and giving welfare to illegal immigrants, these tens of millions of people on welfare who do not exist, oh yeah, and this guy:
https://www.youtube.com...

WELFARE HAS BEEN A FAILURE
We started this "war on overty" thing in the late 1960's, now let's see our progress since then shall we? Unemployment has grewn from 5% to 25%, wages have dropped from 12$ to only 7.25$, and the middle class is weaker than ever. Taxes are weighing down on the middle class and the working population while the pocxkets of Goveronment Bearocrats and Corporate Billionares are being fattened, and now the people, after fifty something years, have finaly devised a conclusion- what we need is more welfare, more Bearocracy, higher taxes on the middle class, and more socialism.
I think we can blame THAT absurd conclusion on our sh*tty education system, but that is a different topic. The point is welfare is a complete failure and has done nothing but make people dependant upon the bearocracy to survive.

{1}. http://blogs.wsj.com...
{2}. https://www.reference.com...

Verithenes

Pro

Okay, first, I thought you were just talking about welfare in general, not the actual welfare system and I completely agree with you on the fact that we do need to replace the welfare system and I misunderstood your claim at first so sorry about that but I completely agree with everything you've said about welfare, you made some really great points that I agree with and you are very right about that. A Negative Income Tax is a much better Idea than welfare. I also agree that we need more Socialism in our economy. However, I do not agree that this can or should be accomplished by taxing the middle class. I believe we should be raising the tax on the upper class as Robert Reich says in this article , you can read it if you'd like to here at this link: http://robertreich.org... The reason that taxing the middle class even more is the wrong thing to do is because the middle class is already being crushed by taxes and the middle class is being taxed too much already and here is a link that talks about that: http://www.politifact.com...

Again, I completely agree with you on welfare and misunderstood what you meant by welfare at first and I love the equation you gave because that made me understand it even more and I really like the idea of a Negative Income Tax and I am for it. I also agree that we do need more Socialist ideals in today's economy but I don't agree that we should increase taxes on the middle class but instead, we should do it on the upper class because the middle class is already being crushed by taxes and the upper class is not paying enough and also, taxing the upper class would yield more and better results. Anyway, since we both agree that welfare should be replaced, you win on that so very good job. I really liked your evidence and I completely agree with you on it and you explained it really well.
Debate Round No. 2
RonPaulConservative

Con

Well, I won. So let's use the rest of these debate rounds to dscuss how much goveronment should be involved in the economy and our daily lives since you stated that 'we need more socialism.'

As a Constitutianalist- Libertarian, I believe that ownership over the means of production should be lodged with individuals, preferably broken up amongst as many private individuals as possible (to mantain competition). The goveronment should exist only to preserve the liberties of the people, which they are not doing today. Aside from that the goveronment should be restrained from overreaching its power, which means it should be prevented from doing anything not granted to it under the constitution.
Verithenes

Pro

Okay, well I am more of a Democratic Socialist and I think that yes, sometimes, the government does overstep what it should do. For example: the NSA. The NSA has overstepped it's boundaries a lot and they have surveyed us without us knowing. One of the reasons we know this is Edward Snowden, since he came out and told everyone what was going on at the NSA. So I agree with you on that the Government needs to be restrained from overreaching it's power but only in certain areas such as surveillance and some law enforcement. But the government is needed for certain things such as some law enforcement and certain safety laws, such as seat belt laws, helmet laws (for motorcycles/bikes), and just everyday laws to keep people safe. I also believe that the government should help people in need.Those are the only things that the government needs to get involved in and nothing else.
Debate Round No. 3
RonPaulConservative

Con

The only thing I disagree with is that the goveronment should help those in need, now I support a negative income tax ad helping those in need, but most if not all social programs just screw things up. This is why I made a joke and said 'the goveronment should get a job in demolition, because they're only good at 1 thing, and that's breaking stuff.'

A perfect example of this is Obamacare, progressives such as Obama decided to address the symptoms of an issue rather than their cause, so they decided to make a goveronment ran insurance plan that forced everyone to apply for it. Now Obama knew that no one would give up their OK insurance plans for his sh*tty one, so he told them that they could keep their insurance plan, of course, he lied, and instead decided to fine everyone some large sum of money for not applying.

The reason- it wasn't working so he used goveronment mandate to try and fix it, but that just made it worse. If Obama wanted to fix the issue of healthcare beng too expensive, he should have just repealed Medicare and Medicaid, then he should have enforced the Sherman Anti-trust act, and should have broken up the insurance oligopolies, the BigPharma, and the healthcare monopolies. By busting up these trusts and forcing them to compete he could have made healthcare prices fall flat onto the ground.

If we did this, you could pay out of pocket like you used to be able to in the 50's, you wouldn't need insurance, but even if you did, it would be super cheap since we would have broken up the insurance trusts.
Verithenes

Pro

So first, on Obamacare. Obamacare helps people all over the US who can't help themselves and without it, they wouldn't be able to get the healthcare they need. All it does is help. Here's an article on Obamacare: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

And I loved your joke about the government getting a job in demolition because it's true, about 90% of what our government does hurts us. Obama did not need to repeal Medicaid or Medicare when he created his own free healthcare plan because his healthcare plan gives free healthcare to Americans who normally could not afford it. Also, we will always need insurance to cover the costs of our everyday problems such as car accidents and health problems. Obama fixed the problem of paying for healthcare by creating Obamacare. In the article I gave a link to, it talks about why conservatives don't like the idea of Obamacare. I agree with you on everything else though.
Debate Round No. 4
RonPaulConservative

Con

No- anyone who deals with Obamacare firsthand without having to ask Obama how it is working agrees that it is terrible, just ask your local doctor or better yet- someone on Obamacare. My mom's docxtor gave her a big lecture on how terrible it is.
Verithenes

Pro

Well first, my doctor actually agrees with Obamacare and so does my dad's. I think it's all just a matter of political ideology. The Republicans actually strove for something like Obamacare before Obama was in office but the only reason they don't like it is because a Democrat enacted it. Obamacare makes sure that people all across America get healthcare so all it is doing is good.

Thank you for this debate, I really enjoyed it and actually agree with you on several of your views.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.