The Instigator
spencetheguy
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
aaltobartok
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Social Welfare Programs do not work

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 13,250 times Debate No: 1278
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (9)

 

spencetheguy

Pro

All the social programs that this county uses are wasteful. it gives money to people who have shown that they are unable to manage money well for free. It tells people that if you fail at making a living and taking care of yourself and your family that it does not matter because the government will take care of you.
the free market system is based on incentive, and in this case incentive to make money and live is removed. the wish to work hard and make the world a better place is nullified to those who are offered free money. it is incredibly easy to get into the welfare system but not many get out. it is a trap that halts progress.
i'm not saying that there should be programs that help people in times of emergency but the government should help people get out of poverty and not keep them there and the present system does just that. the best way is to lower taxes for those that make less. not raise taxes on the rich to give to the poor who will remain poor. then that money that would of been used badly can be used to expand the economy and create more jobs and pay better wages allowing people to get out of poverty.
please do not think i am a jerk but i think that is the best way to help people.
aaltobartok

Con

"All the social programs that this county uses are wasteful. it gives money to people who have shown that they are unable to manage money well for free. It tells people that if you fail at making a living and taking care of yourself and your family that it does not matter because the government will take care of you." First of all, the argument of "the government will take care of you" is a falsity because nobody, democrat or republican, (with the exception of Kucinich and he's not going anywhere) is proposing any programs that would fully support a person or a family. No existing programs fully support a person or a family. So what specific government social programs are you referencing? To look at one successful program, the food stamp program, only nine percent of recipients have no income from jobs, in fact, twenty four percent are employed. The food stamp program requires that any able-bodied adult from 16-60 be actively seeking a job or working. There is no free money, nor will there be under any viable candidate's plan.

"the free market system is based on incentive, and in this case incentive to make money and live is removed. the wish to work hard and make the world a better place is nullified to those who are offered free money. it is incredibly easy to get into the welfare system but not many get out. it is a trap that halts progress." Ask the people in Germany, Sweden, Finland, Britain, and the many other countries in the economically booming EU about that; remembering that they have far more extensive social programs than we do. They might have a different answer.

"the best way is to lower taxes for those that make less. not raise taxes on the rich to give to the poor who will remain poor." The US's progressive tax system (and the earned-income tax credit) already means that the lowest income families pay no or almost no income tax. Poor people will remain poor if they don't get any assistance. It's not about giving out free money, it's about lending a helping hand to those who want to work, but cannot find a job; or to the growing numbers (60%) of minimum-wage workers who cannot live on their salaries, even as they work two or three jobs.

"then that money that would of been used badly can be used to expand the economy and create more jobs and pay better wages allowing people to get out of poverty." The theory of trickledown economics has been disproven every time it has been tried. Reagan tried it, it led to massive depression and a huge deficit which only Clinton, with a major tax hike, was able to get ride of. Bush has tried it, it has lead to another depression.

The problem with your argument is that it has been extensively disproven here and around the world. The USA is the industrialized nation with the lowest amount of social programs, and so based on your argument, our economy should be the strongest. It is not. The dollar is plummeting, and as the euro (the currency of almost exclusively socialist democracies) is rising fast. Social programs, like social security and food stamps, are
Debate Round No. 1
spencetheguy

Pro

you are correct, free money is a extreme phrase.

it should be rephrased as easy money.
i must first refute your stance that the US is a week econemy. it is only declining recently as a result of the price on oil.

my arguments still stand unrefuted.
all the examples that you cited and numbers used none were used to show how using these programs helped people use the programs and then leave the programs because the program helped them make more money. all the programs did was help those in poverty. not help them leave poverty. the triccle down economics need a lot of time to take effect. the structure needs to grow and adapt which takes time. if we want to be powerful long term we need to think long term.
aaltobartok

Con

"all the programs did was help those in poverty. not get them out of it"

You just proved my point. Helping people in poverty is synonymous to getting them out of it. It is interesting to note that the USA has the least social programs of any industrialized nation, and yet has among the highest rate of poverty. That in itself proves my point.

Also, I refuted your policy proposal, which would lower taxes for the lowest income makers, because they don't pay income tax.

You also failed to answer my point that Europe's economy is booming, even with their massive slate of social, and indeed socialist, programs. Also, even your "easy money" term is flawed: no government program in existence or in proposal gives able-bodied, working poor people cash to spend however they like. It's that simple.
"the triccle down economics need a lot of time to take effect. the structure needs to grow and adapt which takes time. if we want to be powerful long term we need to think long term." Reagan/Bush had 12 years to implement their policy. They did, on a massive scale, and it sent the country into a recession. Bush has had 8. Same result. If you go back further, than Hoover is the President (before Reagan) that had the most supply side-ish policy, and it sent America into the Great Depression, which only FDR's massive plan of social programs was able to end.

In terms of the US being a weak economy, here is some interesting analysis from Forbes magazine, which can hardly be called liberal: "All three pieces of data released on Wednesday--an economic outlook from America's factory purchasing managers, November construction spending and minutes from the Federal Reserve's latest policy-setting meeting--painted a picture of an economy that was at best moribund." This is from a wide sector of the economy, not from just oil/gas. While that does have a lot to do with it, Europe faces the same crises. Their economy is not falling apart under the strain.
Debate Round No. 2
spencetheguy

Pro

Helping in poverty is not helping people out of poverty. if someone falls into deep pit is the best solution to keep throwing water and food down there until the person dies of old age? or is the most efficient solution to throw down a rope and let 'em get out.
the obvious answer is to throw down a rope. today's present day social programs help people in poverty like keeping the person on the bottom of the well. getting out never was easy,
this requires work done on the side of the victim who needs to climb up and out.
It is easier living at the bottom of the pit. food and water come easy without much effort. but when you leave you will need to get a job and work and live and it may be hard. this system that i propose i believe is the best. it may take decades i do not know how long it will take for people to learn that to become a success story you need to get an education and work hard. the trickle down system may of failed at keeping people out of poverty but it did succeed in removing the incentive to not move up the ladder. I think it will take generations of americans to fully understand. today's social programs are just a band aid on a deeper infection started by FDR and his social programs.

points i refute.
europe may be moving ahead but not for long. the birth rates are so low that the next generation will be tiny and unable to sustain the economic pace. russia had a holiday for national have sex day, offering prises to those who give birth exactly 9 months from the date. in spain the ratio of children to women is almost 1;2 meaning the nest generation in spain will be half as large. this may or may not be a result of the social programs but the economy is a boom-bust. they are also much more adapted to the price of oil. they do not use as much and are heavy recyclers and users of alternate sources of fuel. their price of gasoline is higher than ours but they are better adapted. Oil does not have a lot to do with the economic forecast it has everything to do with it. i might also add the negative effect of the iraq war on our economy.
FDR's programs did not end the great depression. All he did was put the government in a huge defect and the onset of WW2 truly ended the great depression by creating jobs and industries. All the great depression was is that people realised how much money they actually had and not how much they appeared to have borrowed.
I also understand a able bodied hardworking poor person generally a contradiction. this is the information age where knowledge is power. An education is imperative. (please do not think that all poor people are there because they flunked out of school or otherwise) unless we want another generation of the poor who are unable to live on their own the government needs to remove the incentives of not making a decent living. if the safety net is removed the careless will fall but everyone else will be more careful, then the careful will teach the newcomers to be careful and so on. but that takes many more than 12 years. the trickle programs were a long term plan but everyone got tiered of waiting and got a democrat elected who undid everything. today's present day social programs do not help the poor escape poverty.
aaltobartok

Con

"this system that i propose i believe is the best." You have never proposed a system. Your idea to lower taxes on the poor was refuted 100% by me, because the poor already pay no taxes.

"the trickle down system may of failed at keeping people out of poverty but it did succeed in removing the incentive to not move up the ladder." Do you have any proof of this? No. I have proof that it was disastrous to the economy: every time it has been tried (Hoover, Reagan/Bush I, Bush II) it has sent the economy into a recession.

"the birth rates are so low that the next generation will be tiny and unable to sustain the economic pace. russia had a holiday for national have sex day, offering prises to those who give birth exactly 9 months from the date. in spain the ratio of children to women is almost 1;2 meaning the nest generation in spain will be half as large. this may or may not be a result of the social programs but the economy is a boom-bust." First of all, the global population is growing so fast, and the immigration rates into Europe are so high, that this is almost a nonissue. I refute that it will negatively affect these countries' economies. It isn't like many things (other than cars) are manufactured in Europe anyway - they do not need a large population to sustain their booms, which are based on high-tech products. In fact, there is the beginning of a massive brain-drain out of the USA into Europe, because they are investing their businesses in high-tech and we are not. Therefore, Europe's population decline (which is not nearly as dramatic as you make it sound, because you leave out immigration numbers) will not affect their current economic booms. As to your point that their economies are boom-bust, the last time I checked, so was ours. In fact, their economies are much more stable.

"unless we want another generation of the poor who are unable to live on their own the government needs to remove the incentives of not making a decent living" You have never addressed my point that no government handouts that are now in place or that are likely to be in place allow anybody to live off of them comfortably. Most of the poor, contrary to your statements, are hardworking Americans struggling to get by. Programs like welfare and unemployment insurance and food stamps act as a safety net in the middle of your metaphorical well. Disabling them and replacing them with a trickle-down system has been tried, and it has failed. The people just fall down the well, and they drag the rest of the nation with them.

"If someone falls into deep pit is the best solution to keep throwing water and food down there until the person dies of old age? or is the most efficient solution to throw down a rope and let 'em get out. the obvious answer is to throw down a rope. today's present day social programs help people in poverty like keeping the person on the bottom of the well...if the safety net is removed the careless will fall but everyone else will be more careful" You have never put forth a coherent plan for replacing the rope to help people get out. In fact, unemployment insurance, one of the social programs that you so hate, does exactly that: it provides a lifeline for those who have been laid off so that they can live while they look for a new job. As for "being careful", people who have just been laid off from their jobs cannot have been more or less careful. They were just laid off from their jobs. In this age of massive corporate and factory layoffs, that is not surprising. I would like you to talk to some of these people. To tell someone who works two jobs (at Walmart and Sears) trying to support herself on her meager salary; a person who needs their welfare check to survive; that she should be more careful and learn how to manage her money.

In short, you have never been able to answer any of the following points:

1. That social welfare programs help people out of poverty.
2. That they are not devastating to the economy.
3. That you have no viable proposal for anything else.
4. That trickle-down economics have been tried and they have failed.
5. That most poor people are, in fact, employed and hard-working; or searching for a job.

I have, therefore, won the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by KSN 9 years ago
KSN
I am about to go to bed, but I am very interesting in finding out the Pro in this conversation has to say. At the moment I believe he really does not have a clue to what he is talking about. And if he has been in a personal experience with thos subject, all people are not the same and do take advantage of the program, but like I said I am going to sleep and I'll be back tomorrow. Tootles for now!!!!
Posted by spencetheguy 9 years ago
spencetheguy
Define very good
hepls people in poverty
of these good programs do the recipients leave the program because it has hepled them leave an enviroment where thye are dependent on others?
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
some social programs are very good

my wife is a social worker

so I do know
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by spencetheguy 9 years ago
spencetheguy
spencetheguyaaltobartokTied
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 
Vote Placed by Schlitz 9 years ago
Schlitz
spencetheguyaaltobartokTied
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 
Vote Placed by Greylance 9 years ago
Greylance
spencetheguyaaltobartokTied
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 
Vote Placed by ajgenerally 9 years ago
ajgenerally
spencetheguyaaltobartokTied
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 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
spencetheguyaaltobartokTied
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 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
spencetheguyaaltobartokTied
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 
Vote Placed by Statesman 9 years ago
Statesman
spencetheguyaaltobartokTied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
spencetheguyaaltobartokTied
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 
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
spencetheguyaaltobartokTied
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