The Instigator
blackkid
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Debate_King1475
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Welfare is bad for the Economy

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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: 5/24/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,195 times Debate No: 75722
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

blackkid

Con

BOP is on Pro. First round is for opening arguments. The rest are what they are. Good luck to you opening round person.
Debate_King1475

Pro

Thank you for the debate. I accept the challenging of trying to prove that welfare is bad for the economy. I wish you good luck and I am excited to hear what you have to say.
Debate Round No. 1
blackkid

Con

Welfare for the economy on three fronts:

1. It's good for business.

Whenever a government hands out a fund of any sort or makes a trade deal with vendors of any sort it ensures that the economy stays strong. Welfare is a type of governmental spending which ensures this particular behavior continues by offering coupons to citizens and therefore giving companies incentive to offer goods at abnormally low and subsided prices.

2. It's good for the populace.

People need various things such as food, clothing, shelter, support, healthcare, etc. and these things when granted by any form of welfare improve the overall health of the community. When the health of the community is ailing it is usually a sign of a distinct separation between the governmental entity and the people such as in countries where bribes are required to give aid to the locals who need it (http://www.bloomberg.com...).

3. It just makes sense.

Countries that have more social programs and integrate these social programs into their culture have higher ratings in whatever that social program's value is. For instance Finland invests a lot more money and social power and recognition into it's teachers and has one of the best teaching regimines in the world (http://www.smithsonianmag.com...). Countries that do not invest, such as the United States, fall far lower on the totem pole particulary due to the culture of "take care of yourself."
Debate_King1475

Pro

Rebuttals will be in Round 3 for fairness and so we both are allowed equal time to rebuttal. So I will make my points.

Welfare is bad for the economy because it is the governement trying to help people. But them trying to help people is hurting the economy because it starts to interfer with the laissez faire principle of not interfering with the market. If the goverment is paying people in the lower class to become lower/middle class, then it could mess up the class structures and by that hurting the economy from an unbalanced class system. Unfortunately, to help the economy, the government really only should prevent monoplies but other than that not provide people with money just because they are poor. The economy would be better if the class structures naturally unfolded with some lower class, some middle class, and some upper class. This is why welfare is bad.
Debate Round No. 2
blackkid

Con

1. "Welfare is bad for the economy because it is the governement trying to help people. But them trying to help people is hurting the economy because it starts to interfer with the laissez faire principle of not interfering with the market."

Welfare does not inherently offer any form of regulation on the matters of the market. As a matter of fact in many cases when there wasn't "Obamacare" the market was just fine since government funding simply was contracted and passed-through private corprorationes such as BlueCross Insurance:

"Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies have partnered with the federal government to process Medicare fee-for-service claims and payments since the program’s inception in 1965. (http://www.bcbs.com...)"

There are no inherent losses and while he government pays out in social care business as a sector is not inherently "restricted".

2. "If the goverment is paying people in the lower class to become lower/middle class, then it could mess up the class structures and by that hurting the economy from an unbalanced class system."

There is already a major class disparity and the government at current is already paying welfare. That upse is no "foreseeable" in any sense relating to the real world and thus I'll personally just refer to Common Knowledge as sufficient evidence that this simply isn't true at all.

3. "Unfortunately, to help the economy, the government really only should prevent monoplies but other than that not provide people with money just because they are poor."

This is a double-standard. So the government should not be involved in the regulation of it's own funds due to "upsetting" laizze-faire but on the same coin should be willing to fundamentally work to prevent corporate monopoly, which is the source of the 1% to begin with? Which is it? Also, governmental money is a "pass-through" type funding (http://blog.ecivis.com...) for the most part as we've seen that contracted businesses take that funding and provide services for others. This means that there is no loss in transaction and that the money does not lose value as it passes from hands regarding the nature of the services. Grants, State Funding, and "Handout" programs all have his status.

Debate_King1475

Pro

Counter Arguments

1)You say that wellfare is good for business. You did not really explain what you meant by this. You say that government spending of any sort help to keep the economy strong but how exactly do you think that it keeps it strong? And what does welfare have to do with giving out coupons by lowering prices? You are calling welfare a coupon and I do not know what you mean by this.

2)You say that welfare is good for the populace. But where do you think the government gets the money? The answer is from the tax payers and if that tax payer money is going toward other people's belongings then the government basically robs from the rich to feed the poor. Also, it is not that the money is being used only for needs. If the money was going only toward the need of the poor I would support it. But, it is the people that abuse it and the people that get welfare for a little extra ease on their lives that ruins the whole welfare system. It is allowing for hard working Americans with high income to have to give money to the less income just for the family to have a little more ease on themselves and take it easy.

3)You say that it just makes senses, which isn't a valid argument because just because it makes sense to you (makes sense just means that you understand a possible way for it to work independent from whether that way to work is right or wrong). You said in your first sentence that, "Countries that have more social programs and integrate these social programs into their culture have higher ratings in whatever that social program's value is." You said that the more social programs they are the more important they are. That is obvious because the more you have of something is because of the value that it has.

Defence of my arguments

1)You claim that welfare does not offer regulations in the market. This is simply not true because by giveing more money to the lower class, that completely interfers with the market. The majority of people are in the lower class and if the government pills up all that money to the lower class, then the target market will drift toward the target market being the lower class and this will help industries that produce a lot of product for only a little bit of money such as fast foods and dollar stores.

2)For you second points you seem to be talking nonsencical. First you talk about class disparity then wefare then the real world and you use Common Knowledge to prove a point that you never made. I think you need to rephrase that one.

3)Yes, the government should not interfer with the market but there are exceptions like monoplies that the goverment needs to make sure do not take over the market. In the event of a monoply, the producer for that certain good or service can increase the price as much as they want because they have no competitors to offer a better alternative. In an event like that, the government must make sure to prevent that market in order to protect the citizens. Yes, it is a double standard but you have to understand that the government can only stay out of the market until a certain point where the goverment needs to intervene to prevent coruption.
Debate Round No. 3
blackkid

Con

"You say that government spending of any sort help to keep the economy strong but how exactly do you think that it keeps it strong?"

There are more person's to spend more funds which keeps communities strong as entities which overall aids in revenue on all levels.

"And what does welfare have to do with giving out coupons by lowering prices? You are calling welfare a coupon and I do not know what you mean by this."

That is a form of welfare. WIC for instance is essentially a coupon program. SNAP uses a card to allocate funds for very specific sets of food items and includes exclusions. Etc.

"You say that welfare is good for the populace. But where do you think the government gets the money? The answer is from the tax payers and if that tax payer money is going toward other people's belongings then the government basically robs from the rich to feed the poor."

Many programs (such as the one shown for BlueCross) are actually enterprises or contracted so it isn't all tax money; very few programs get significant amounts of tax dollars (https://www.nationalpriorities.org...) that would go to fund these programs so major donations and other sources are really the mainstay. These are handled on the State or Provincial level usually anyway.

"But, it is the people that abuse it and the people that get welfare for a little extra ease on their lives that ruins the whole welfare system. It is allowing for hard working Americans with high income to have to give money to the less income just for the family to have a little more ease on themselves and take it easy."

Do you have any citations that would show that this is significantly true to the point where it would be worrisome?

"You said in your first sentence that, "Countries that have more social programs and integrate these social programs into their culture have higher ratings in whatever that social program's value is." You said that the more social programs they are the more important they are. That is obvious because the more you have of something is because of the value that it has."

This basically acts as a proof of the value of community over the individual, yes.

"This is simply not true because by giveing more money to the lower class, that completely interfers with the market. The majority of people are in the lower class and if the government pills up all that money to the lower class, then the target market will drift toward the target market being the lower class and this will help industries that produce a lot of product for only a little bit of money such as fast foods and dollar stores."

While normally it's your job to prove your own claims I'll just show that this is wrong with simple marketing: http://www.learnmarketing.net...

Price Marketing easily, just by the way it works, shows that the effect you claim there to be on he economy doesn't exist at all.

"First you talk about class disparity then wefare then the real world and you use Common Knowledge to prove a point that you never made. I think you need to rephrase that one."

No. Unless you somehow show that there is real threat to the class system being "destroyed" by the marketing you "fear" exists (which it doesn't) then I'll not be bothering with the point any further. There's no grounds.

"Yes, the government should not interfer with the market but there are exceptions like monoplies that the goverment needs to make sure do not take over the market. In the event of a monoply, the producer for that certain good or service can increase the price as much as they want because they have no competitors to offer a better alternative. In an event like that, the government must make sure to prevent that market in order to protect the citizens. Yes, it is a double standard but you have to understand that the government can only stay out of the market until a certain point where the goverment needs to intervene to prevent coruption."

There are no buts. You claim that there will be an upset in the current class structure but you're willing to prevent the natural flow of class structure using the government that you stated ouright as a means to prevent welfare programs from existing should stay out of the market.

I've no new arguments.
Debate_King1475

Pro

Debate_King1475 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Nisectus 2 years ago
Nisectus
Pro says that welfare means that when it helps poor people it is "robbing from the rich and giving the poor." But taxes happen anyway, the "robbing" part is already part of the system. What better way to spend that tax money than to help the poor? Sure, it gives richer people higher taxes, but that way, the only people who pay high taxes are the people who can afford them. I know that rich people feel like they deserve to be rich, but honestly, who works harder, the rich plumber on the other side of town who never went to college, or my father the English professor with a PhD and spends hours grading hundreds of students' work? He says that welfare is just a way for poor people to "take it easy", but usually poor people are just people who were born poor, and didn't have a chance to get the education required for a high-paying job. Or they didn't know how to do something like plumbing. Then they end up with a low paying job that isn't very important, but is hard. Welfare isn't poor people being lazy, it's the government helping people who really need help in life and can't afford the opportunities that we can.
Posted by Kaynex 2 years ago
Kaynex
Keynesian multiplier. Any form of spending is good spending.
No votes have been placed for this debate.