The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Welfare in the US Should be Abolished

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,160 times Debate No: 19853
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




The first round should be for acceptance and defining or clarifying whatever you wish.

I will be taking the stance that Welfare should be abolished.

welfare - financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government

abolish - to do away with; put an end to; annul; make void

should - must; ought [1]

Thank you.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for engaging in what is sure to be an interesting debate.

Welfare is wrong for a multitude of reasons:


The money put into welfare is a ridiculous amount. This year (2011) the government spent 700 billion dollars on welfare (just unemployment "benefits"). Add government health care, Medicare and Medicaid and you get a whopping 1.8 trillion dollars [1], in one single year. If this spending is kept up each year we will have spent over 10 trillion dollars on welfare in the next eight years. This number is simply unacceptable. In a time when we are broke this money is a waste. Our combined welfare spending is greater than the defense spending meaning we are spending more money on the poor than we are on our troops. Its inefficient and its unneeded and its unconstitutional. The costs are unsustainable and its too expensive. The democrats answer to questions about the cost by demanding tax raises on the "wealthy" to pay for such things. Once again pushing the take from the rich give to the poor attitude, an unhealthy attitude for any government to have.


There is nothing in the US Constitution that says the government is required to take care of the poor. In fact I don't believe they should have that power. It's not in the Constitution therefore the government has overstepped its bounds. Free money is not a right given to anyone. In fact this overreach is immoral. [2]


Welfare is morally wrong, not because giving to the poor is wrong but because of the implications of welfare. People in the US do not get to choose where their tax dollars go, they go wherever the government decides to spend them. This means that hard working people get their money taken away, money they worked hard for, in order to pay the poor and unemployed. Why should the government be able to do this? If your neighbor is poor and he breaks into your house and robs you does he get off because he's poor? No. So why should the government be able to rob your house for him? This is a socialist ideal, its an entitlement ideal and it doesn't belong in America. Its theft. 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes and 87% of the 47% make 40,000 dollars or less.[3] Not being required to pay taxes should be welfare enough.

Politically Wrong

Welfare buys votes. Since the Democrats will always champion welfare they will always get the votes of the poor. This is blatant vote buying. The government doesn't care if you are poor or not but they will hand you a check since they know that will entice you to vote for them. Entitlement programs in the US have been labeled as the "third rail" of politics because whoever tries to touch it gets fried. This holds a gun to the head of politicians and voters alike making it impossible to reform or destroy welfare programs. This is wrong, not only does welfare buy votes but it has ingrained itself into the political life making it impossible to touch it. The sense of entitlement is disgusting. The poor now feel like they deserve to be taken care of by the government which simply isn't the case.

Other Methods

I am not against helping the poor, in fact I am far from it, I am in complete favor of it. However there are other methods besides government intervention. People can get help from charity organizations, churches, friends, family neighbors. All of these groups have been pushed aside now days because everyone expects the government to take care of people. If welfare disappeared the poor wouldn't be left to starve they would just have to seek help elsewhere. And if they can't find help then that's honestly too bad. It's not the governments job, not their right nor their purpose to take from those who have and give to those who don't.


People on welfare will instantly become dependent on the federal government for their well being. We don't need thousands of people dependent on people in government in this country because that feeds into the political wrongness of the whole thing. Will people dependent on certain people in office ever vote said people out of office? Never. Its bad for our political system to have people dependent on the federal government.

Civic Damage

It has been shown that those welfare recipients who don't vote democratically don't vote at all and they become politically "passive" refusing to vote or participate in any civics at all.[4] This goes back to the dependency, if they are being taken care of why should they work? Why work hard? Why try? It makes them passive. Welfare is damaging to political participation and the political system as a whole. It also damages work ethic. Why work hard when you're getting something for nothing?


People abuse the welfare system all the time. A couple who was living in a 1.2 million dollar home were receiving welfare benefits [5]. It's too easy to abuse. Most everything is done electronically now making it easier to fool and abuse the system while getting free benefits from the government. This problem wouldn't be here if we didn't have welfare.

January 2008 – Ventura County
A Simi Valley woman was recently arrested on charges of welfare fraud, identity theft, and committing a new felony offense while on bail. The accused allegedly received $1,694 in cash and food stamps, for which she was not legally eligible, by using fake Social Security numbers similar to her own. The charges also included allegations of identity theft and perjury. She was arrested on the new charges in Simi Valley without incident on January 4. Bail was set at $100,000.

June 2007 – Butte County
Eight people were arrested for welfare fraud by investigators from the Butte County District Attorney's Office on the morning of Thursday, June 7, 2007. District Attorney Mike Ramsey made the announcement of the arrests in a press release. [6]
(complete list on website)

In conclusion: welfare is the root of dozens of problems and degenerative behaviors in the US and it would be beneficial to abolish it. There are other methods to get help to the poor without going through the government therefore it is the best thing to do.









Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Unfortunately my opponent has decided to forfeit the round...

Extend arguments.


Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jared_BL 6 years ago
If welfare is not abolished politically (not that it ever will), it will abolish itself overtime. Eventually, most Western governments will raise taxes to pay off the interest on their debt, the global economy will lurch into a downward spiral, and everyone dependant on welfare will get sicker, poorer and hungrier until the whole system collapses, leaving them with nothing.
Posted by Contra 6 years ago
Is this debate centered around T.A.N.F. - the welfare from the Government that comes to mind to most U.S. citizens, or all welfare including Social Security, Medicare, etc?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Complete forfeit by Con.