Welfare is a form of forced charity. It is wrong and should be outlawed.

Welfare is funded by money stolen from its rightful owners and given to those the government deems worthy. This is charity funded against the will of the individuals who is forced to pay for it. Thievery is wrong and immoral,and should be outlawed, regardless of what the thief does with the stolen funds.

You can call it "forced charity" but literally, its the government taking care of its people. When those less fortunate dont recieve enoguh via charity, the government must help, and this is the best way they can. What do you suggest as an alternative?

"When those less fortunate dont recieve enoguh via charity, the government must help"

It is you who believes the government "must" help, but you want to use my money and the money of your fellow Americans to provide that help. Why should a soft spot in your heart cost me or anyone else money?

I know a lot of broke people, and very seldom does it have to do with misfortune. If you can't make it in this country, you may be one of the least resourceful people on the planet. But let's say I am broke due to misfortune. Do I have the right to expect a charity to take care of me or for the goverment to pick up where the charity left off. Absolutely not. Charity is noble, just like helping the old lady nextdoor take out her trash cans. It feels good. But does that mean it should be required by law? Absolutely not. The fact that charity is voluntary is the reason it does feel so good. And replacing it with inefficient government-imposed charity just leaves that much less in our pockets to support good charities and feel good about it.

So i suppose poor children and elderly people who have no ability to work, they should just suck it up? Your argument is based on a ridiculous proposition: that everyone can earn money at will. they cant. They really cant. In this, or any country, you can see that high rates of unemployment, poor economic stability or outsourcing are prevelant in many cases. this makes one man = one job, impossbile. there are extenuating circumstances and your friends that are too lazy to work are only a fraction of the unemployed community. And its not my soft spot, its common logic. Part of being american, being a capitalist, being democratic is being willing to help your neighbor when he is in need

"poor children and elderly people who have no ability to work, they should just suck it up"

Go down to the welfare office and tell me what percentage of "poor children and elderly people who have no ability to work" are in those lines. It would be nice if these truly needy people were the majority of those receiving welfare. But you know that's not true. Before our great welfare state existed, lazy people did have to "suck it up." But truly needy people did not. It's easy to spot a truly needy person, and private charities have always been around to do that. And I'm sure there was a day when people could afford to give more to those private charities (because their paychecks weren't being confiscated). Before FDR started the ball rolling toward turning the U.S. into a socialist republic, people helped people. It wasn't government, just people helping people (private charity).

Since private charities are and were run mostly by volunteers, most of the money donated was spent on those in need. Private charities keep costs lower because they are largley staffed by volunteers. They also experience less fraud because (unlike government welfare), they are able to discrimate between the people who need help and those who are able-bodied and just plain lazy.

Long before government decided its job was to save people rather than help them be free, it was PEOPLE who helped other people in need. That same good will that resides inside each liberal, resides inside all of us. We just disagree on the delivery method. You think charity should be forced. We think it should be voluntary. We want to express our generosity through genuine charity. It's commom knowledge that private charity is way more efficient than welfare, and therefore better for the donor and the recipient. Most of all, it just plain feels better. Welfare cheats the truly needy, rewards laziness, turns otherwise willing givers into victims of theft, and bastardizes the whole concept of giving.

1) want evidence? the congressional demographics commission states that 87% of welfare recipients belong to families with children under 16.

2) if charities solved this problem, id agree, but there is absolutley no way you can prove this. reason?: charities contribute about 1.2% of what welfare does (Newsweek, Jan 08)

3) charity money is also often corrupted. I agree there should be reform to our welfare system to make sure the money goes to needy people, but repealing doesnt solve this issue.

4) help people be free? pretty sure we are free. and PEOPLE dont adequetly help other people. thats what makes welfare necessary.

To conclude, thank you for your time, good debate and good luck in the voting period.