The Instigator
skier96
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Pigzooka
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Welfare should be completely transformed.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 670 times Debate No: 81780
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

skier96

Pro

Welfare should not be a lifestyle. It should be a way to support you or your family for a TEMPORARY period of time until you can find a job. The way welfare is today, people are able to survive off of it without getting a job. They may not be living a lavish lifestyle, but living off welfare like it's a job is wrong and ultimately stealing from the country.

Welfare should:
1: Have people drug tested before receiving money
2: Only be enough to pay for food and partial living expenses (should be less than minimum wage)
3: After time, slowly ween people off welfare by urging them to get a job. Much like you can't take a drug addict and in one day cut them off, you can't cut off all aid at one time. Take baby steps and allow them to get a job while being able to save their extra money to either get a better job or a higher education.
Pigzooka

Con

Except that welfare doesn't work that way. People aren't on welfare forever, and it's not a "lifestyle." People on welfare are actually WISER about their money than people who don't benefit from it (1). And welfare doesn't pay as much as a job does: A family of three on welfare earns less than half the minimum wage. The average American gets just $1.40 per meal of food stamps. Pro seems to assume that TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), the traditional "welfare," accounts for most of the welfare budget; in fact, it is dwarfed by Medicaid, food stamps, and Women, Infants and Children (WIC), all of which give services rather than money to needy people (2). And actually, of those on Medicaid, 56% were people not expected to work (children and senior citizens). And only 20% of welfare recipients stay on it for longer than 5 years (3). I would seriously question whether Pro knows anything whatsoever about welfare, or whether he/she is instead arguing off of the far-right definition of it.

1: http://thinkprogress.org...
2: http://www.politifact.com...
3: http://www.city-data.com...
Debate Round No. 1
skier96

Pro

I'm not saying it should be abolished. I just believe that it showed be reformed. There is no encouragement to make your life better if you're getting free money, free food, free health insurance. With a job, you have to work to afford all that. Also, it may be true that people with jobs spend more than people on welfare, but that's because they have more money. Do you know of the percentages of spending for people with a job versus without?

All of that assistance together makes for one easy living, especially since none of it is taxed. With the combined public assistance, it's easier to have money given to you, rather than work for it.

Con, your first source is an extremely skewed to the left. This YouTube source is a first hand documentation of how people can consistently live off of the government's aid. She even said she has no desire to work because she gets everything for free.

http://nypost.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
Pigzooka

Con

Your YouTube source is a high school/college project, and I do not believe it is any more authoritative than my "skewed source," and far further off center. Pro says nothing about my other source, so I assume he/she agrees with what it says. Sorry, I meant the percentage of income spent; as my first source says, welfare families spend 77% of their income on essentials, as opposed to non-welfare families, who only spend 65%. Also, Pro assumes that welfare makes people lazy, but it does not (1). There are still three jobseekers for every job opening, and wage growth remains slow, so, while people on welfare may not be consistently employed, it's not for lack of effort on their part. Also, ALL welfare payments total about $9,000 per adult per year (including all the "combined public assistance" Pro was talking about) (2). I know all Pro will be looking at is the URL (my record isn't much better), so I should point out that that's the top 20% of income earners in the WORLD, not the USA. Pro doesn't make any other points I can rebut, or rebut any of my points, so I'll assume he/she accepts all of them and leave my argument here.

1: http://theweek.com...
2: http://www.forbes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
skier96

Pro

Well the words, "I think welfare recipients are lazy" were never said. Of course there are people on welfare that are looking for jobs, however your, my, and everyone's tax money is going towards the public assistance programs of everyone. Not just the ones who actually need assistance. Your Forbes article seemed to go against your argument, seeing that it did prove that welfare recipients are in the top 20% of all income earners. I can also rebut to "the week" article. I never said that all welfare recipients are lazy. But these two articles are first hand accounts of people on welfare. I praise those on welfare that try to benefit themselves like the woman in the first, however she clearly says that many of the people like her do not have that same drive. And before you read the second article, note that I didn't find this article by accident. The woman in that article is a relative of mine and I've seen first hand of the abuse that occurs when some people are able to live off welfare.

http://www.economist.com...
http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com...
Pigzooka

Con

The Forbes article said top 20% IN THE WORLD. Did you read that part of my argument? Making $32,000 a year puts you in the top ONE percent. So Americans on welfare are far poorer than even lower-middle-class Americans - they're not rich as you would suggest. My point is, whatever you say, it's simply not possible to live off welfare. I don't care what anybody says; $9,000 is not enough to live on for more than a little while. The changes you advocate have largely existed since welfare began during the New Deal; Welfare is just a stepping stone, and it does not provide much monetary assistance. You seem to be ignoring my points. WELFARE IS NOT A LIVING WAGE.
Debate Round No. 3
skier96

Pro

So they're richer than 20% of people in the world. Does that mean everyone else is dead? They are definitely struggling but they are clearly living. And to your point on it's not a living wage, I don't think you read that second article. A druggy woman (on welfare), a druggy man (on welfare), and the two kids were living. Neither of them had a job and they have no desire to work. They just want to live off of what the government provides to them and attempt to steal from a local business. They don't deserve my money or your money. They are the reason why welfare needs to be reformed.
Pigzooka

Con

There are people who will abuse any system, but my point is that anecdotes do not prove anything. I agree that those people were losers; but nothing in the article talks about them receiving welfare, or, if they did, spending it on drugs. Who knows how they were surviving, but this anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Like I said, most welfare DOES NOT COME IN CASH FORM. And it is NOT enough to live on (1). Drug tests for welfare are currently questionably constitutional under the Fourth Amendment; say what you will, your beef is with the Constitution (2). And there are actually not that many welfare applicants who use drugs (3). The average welfare applicant may actually be LESS likely to use drugs than the average nonwelfare citizen. You seem to believe that poor people are stupid and need to be shepherded around all the time. But they're actually mostly good citizens, just like the rest of us, and that's why we trust them with our money. You should go after CORPORATE welfare, which is a COMPLETE waste of money.

1: http://www.welfareinfo.org...
2: http://www.ncsl.org...
3: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 4
skier96

Pro

skier96 forfeited this round.
Pigzooka

Con

Well, um, since Pro forfeited that round, I'd just like to take this opportunity to say that welfare works mostly as it should, poor people are not all thieves, and VOTE FOR ME.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by katwoman012 1 year ago
katwoman012
One should work within the system before deeming to know what works and what doesnt.
No votes have been placed for this debate.