The Instigator
DJBruce
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Dyankovich
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The United States Government should abolish welfare and other entitlement programs.

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: 2/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,493 times Debate No: 2466
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (13)

 

DJBruce

Pro

America is founded on the idea that people have the chance to work hard and succeed. Theses entitlement programs are discouraging people from going out and working hard to make a living. Instead the are perfectly happy to leach of the system and take the government checks and aid that is given to them.
Dyankovich

Con

While I agree that Americans are using many of our entitlement programs as a crutch, I must really argue against you on this issue. If we were to abolish every single entitlement (as you said we should) then we would have to get rid of a great many other programs that also help Americans... The number 1 of these being social security. And if you look back to before the Roosevelt Administration, this is a very, very bad idea. The last thing that we need in this time of great peril is the elderly standing in breadlines with no medical, no dental, and no chance of survival, dying in poverty. Is that what you want in only a few decades, when it's our time to go to the mail box?
Debate Round No. 1
DJBruce

Pro

If we were to abolish entitlement programs we could allow people to do what they want with the 6% of there salary that foes to FICA. You could take that 6% each year and invest it in a CD at about 4% interest. This would mean that after working they will have more money for retirement than they would have if they had put it into social security. We could still make employers pay the other 6%. We would use this 6% to grandfather social security out. Like say anyone under 20 would not receive it. Although I am still young I have no plan on depending on social security to help me.

By doing this we would reduce federal outlay by about 36%. And greatly reduce the size of the federal government.
Dyankovich

Con

The theory of your argument is good, but let me ask you this... If the average American house hold makes 50k a year, and is 100k in debt, how does your system work?

I'm all for giving Americans the chance to make it on their own... but once again, lets go back to the Roosevelt era... People had the same options then, and the banks offered interest on your savings then as well you know... Do you really think that people will take that extra six percent you are offering them and put it into a savings account?

They haven't done that for all the other centuries before the Social Security Entitlement came about... why would they start now?

I will tell you exactly what will happen. We do your plan and totally cut off SS... People make extra money, and they don't save it, then spend it on whatever their heart fancies.. then they get to the time of retirement, and they have nothing in their savings account. Now we have poor senior citizens who are back to where their great grandparents started over 80 years ago.

This will also hurt the economy. In a national NY Times survey they asked 20,000 people what they will do with their tax return when they get it. The first three answers were this...

1. Buy a laptop.
2. Buy a cell phone
3. Pay off debt.

Now all three of these things are actually bad for the American economy. I will tell you why... Because not one of those things helps it. Numbers 1 and 2 are helping foreign economies because America doesn't make cell phones or lap tops... and Paying off debt doesn't help, because it is a debt, it puts us back to square one. We need social security. We need to fix it so it works better, and we need it to ensure that never again an American senior citizen will die in poverty.
Debate Round No. 2
DJBruce

Pro

So if the average american is 100k in debt why does it matter if they pay it off earlier rather than latter. If you pay into social security you still have 100k of debt but you only have 47000 each year to pay it off. Which means you will end up paying it of latter and latter in life.

As mean as this might seem I do not believe that it is the governments job to make sure we we have good finances. If people do not save there money and they did not prepare if sorry but it is not the national governments job or other peoples jobs to make sure you have enough money to retire.
Dyankovich

Con

I think your statement is incorrect.

It is up to the government however to ensure that people are not sick and dying on the streets. If you need an example of that lets look at hurricane Katrina. President Bush said, "Hey everyone... there is a gigantic killer hurricane coming straight for you. It's stronger than anything thats ever hit the United States, get out of New Orleans!"

People stayed in New Orleans and the hurricane hit with great force, and we know the rest of the story... Are you really telling me that those people should have to fend for themselves? Because it's essentially the same thing as an old man or woman dying with nothing...These are also Entitlement Programs helping them get back on their feet.

Entitlement Programs help a lot of different people... But we are discussing Social Security...So i'll stick to that.

We are talking about a human being who has worked his whole life, and is 100k in debt.(And by the way, the 100k is usually a home purchase.) Nobody should have to die broke if they have contributed to this planet in some way... I'm not talking about good finances and government oversight, i'm talking about a humanitarian mission. Your a Republican, thats fine... I'm a Democrat. When we start to look at people as numbers and dollars like you are now, and not as people...then our Republic begins to have a problem.

Your a younger guy than I am, and I respect the fact that you even care about entitlements. Hopefully this debate with me will kind of help you see what kind of a human being you want to be... I am 21, you are 16... I'm not that much older than you by any standard...

I have been in Naval Intelligence since I was 18 years old. I have been to Iraq twice, and Afghan three times. I have watched friends die in combat, and friends die in car accidents. I have also seen what it is like in a country without entitlements, I have watched elderly Muslims who farmed their entire lives die in alleyways with naught but their clothes on their backs... it isn't right. I hope to God a lot of Americans don't have to see what we see in other countries.

But back to you saying that its someone's own fault if they die in debt... Things happen in life you can't foresee, like if your son has a degenerative heart problem and has to have a life saving open heart surgery, which can cost 100k if your lucky. That could drive a man or a woman in deb for the rest of their lives... Imagine having a little boy someday, and you had to save his life but you also ruined your own. Do you deserve to die broke? How would you feel about someone saying to you, "Well, you deserve what you get."

I am actually a little offended that you said that it's the persons fault if they are in debt. Maybe with some people it is their fault, but not all... Not most. Most people never make 100k a year. Are you saying to the 250 million Americans who are barely making ends meet that it's their fault?

Some of these people are parents putting their children through college so their kids can do better than they did... Some are fathers who have to bury their daughters after 10 years of expensive chemotherapy... As a government we don't have to do much to help someone. If we can fight these 4 trillion dollar a year wars in Iraq and Afghan, and we can drop them off food parcels everyday. If we can build bridges for them, houses... even a government... Then damnit no person in America should be hungry who can't work. No person should be without medicaid or medicare... Those are democratic ideas, and sadly they probably won't ever happen. So how about this? We keep the entitlements we do supply, because it doesn't take much. Compared to the War we are fighting in Iraq and Afghan, helping out a little old lady in her last 10 years who brought forth an entirely new generation of Americans, doesn't seem so bad does it?

Don't forget that sooner or later that will be us getting old. You don't know what life is going to throw at you. You may get out of High School and get hit by a car and be paralyzed for life... There is an entitlement program to help the disabled you know?. It is called the Social Security Administration.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
I could have almost voted for DJBruce in this debate but he didn't expand on his points enough in round 3 for me to really understand where he was going with them. I thought he was going somewhere cool, but not sure. Thus i'm going to have to vote for Dyankovich on clearly superior argumentation and impact analysis.

It's interesting to see someone using the military to support democratic ideals. I'm a little sad to see you support the war on terror though. =)
Posted by legendoffrostx 9 years ago
legendoffrostx
I agree with DYankovich, very well argued. Great!
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
"All principle have to include outcomes." Yes but they principles don't depend on them. If I steal food, good will come of it for me, and I will not be hungry. Just because some good can result from stealing doesn't make it right. Stealing is still wrong in principle.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
I think you just made my point. Any thought of principle has to include outcomes, lest you end up shooting your principles in the foot. All those examples show what I'm saying. That should be self explanatory.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
You make my point. Whether an ideas is morally right or wrong does not depend on the consiquences it yields. But it just so happens that many wrong ideas, when put into action, yield conterintuitive results. They simply backfire. Outlawing abortion doesn't solve the problem, but makes it worse. Outlawing drugs doesn't solve the problem, but makes it worse. Welfare doesn't solve poverty, it makes it worse. Unjust wars don't protect us, but make us more vulnerable.

I'm against any unjust war (including Iraq) whether our country benefits from it or not. I'm against the country spending more money that it has on hand, even though life won't be as grand in the short term. I'm against mob theft of anyone's property regardless of who they intend to give it to. The ends do not justify the means. Right or wrong does not depend on outcome.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
You make my point. Whether an ideas is morally right or wrong does not depend on the consiquences it yields. But is just so happens that many wrong ideas, when put into action, yield conterintuitive results. They simply backfire. Outlawing abortion doesn't solve the problem, but makes it worse. Outlawing drugs doesn't solve the problem, but makes it worse. Welfare doesn't solve poverty, it makes it worse. Unjust wars don't protect us, but make us more vulnerable.

I'm against any unjust war (including Iraq) whether our country benefits from it or not. I'm against the country spending more money that is has on hand, even though life won't be as grand in the short term. I'm against mob theft of anyone's property regardless of who they intend to give it to. The ends do not justify the means. Right and wrong does not depend on outcome.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
Of course, that you assuming Iraq was a just war, which every shred of evidence that even the Bush admin. itself has commissioned says it wasn't. But the claim was that it would strengthen our national security and you obviously agree with it. However, not only has it made us less safe by all accounts, but experts like Gen. Eric Shinseki called exactly what has eventually ended up happening. It is a great analogy if you can be objective enough about the Iraq war to see how it fits.

But if you want a better analogy, then I'll give you abortion. Pro-lifers want to support life and end abortion, yet the latest WHO study shows that abortion doesn't drop where abortion is illegal, it just ends up killing both the mom and baby. Therefore, being pro life leads you to be pro death in actuality. Once again, acting solely on principle gets you further back from realizing your principles in reality.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Bad analogy. Beleiving strongly in national security is a principle that has never suffered as a result involving ourselves in a just war. And a just war should be fought if it is deemed winnable, regardless of ancillary consiquences. Fighting unjust wars has nothing to do with national security, just as stealing has nothing to do with the principles of charity. There is no right way to take what is not yours.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Bad analogy. Beleiving strongly in national security is a principle that has never suffered as a result involving ourselves in a of just war. And a just war should be foughtif it is deemed winnable, regardless of ancillary consiquences. Fighting unjust wars has nothing to do with national security, just as stealing has nothing to do with the principles of charity. There is no right way to take what is not yours.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
Principles of freedom should be followed, but how intelligent is it to be so principled that your principles suffer? For example, believing so strongly in national security that you support going to war, only to have your decision make the country less safe through the recruiting of more terrorists from your intervention. Taking actions that hurt yourself and your principles is illogical and just plain stupid.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
DJBruceDyankovichTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually used arguments and history
Vote Placed by the-mad-ones 8 years ago
the-mad-ones
DJBruceDyankovichTied
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 Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
DJBruceDyankovichTied
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 Addicted_to_piles 9 years ago
Addicted_to_piles
DJBruceDyankovichTied
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 mfoster21 9 years ago
mfoster21
DJBruceDyankovichTied
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 SamuelAdams 9 years ago
SamuelAdams
DJBruceDyankovichTied
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 DJBruce 9 years ago
DJBruce
DJBruceDyankovichTied
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 sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
DJBruceDyankovichTied
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 oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
DJBruceDyankovichTied
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 mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
DJBruceDyankovichTied
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