The Instigator
32no
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
debateme
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Welfare

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...
debateme
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,235 times Debate No: 20419
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

32no

Pro

Opponent Requirements:
Opponent must have a legitimate argument against welfare.
Opponent must be willing to spend time to make a point.

Round 1- Acceptance of Challenge
Round 2- Main Point
Round 3- Rebuttal
Round 4- Conclusion/Final Comments/Final Points

Best of Luck to whomever accepts!
debateme

Con

I accept with this definition from Merriam Webster:

Welfare: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need

http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
32no

Pro

Respectfully, I have recently joined debate.org and half an hour is not sufficient to create a point. The structue of the debate will unfortunately be broken. I appologize for failing to make time. I will do my best in 3 rounds. Best of luck to you opponent. I am ready to read your argument.
debateme

Con

Contention 1: Welfare hurts the poor.

The US government spends 13% of it's budget on welfare.[1] Because of "modern" keynesian economics, the government is constantly spending money that it doesn't have because the budget is almost always unbalanced. This spending causes inflation which has extremely harmful effects on the economy and especially the poor. Inflation devalues the currency, so the poor have to pay more for things that they can barely afford already. Inflation also takes a toll on businesses, who see decreased sales. This ultimately hurts the poor because when businesses do poorly, there are fewer jobs to go around.

Contention 2: Welfare gives incentive for people to immigrate to the US, both legally and illegally.

A 2011 study by the US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services showed that while 54 percent of legal immigrants with children and 70 percent of illegal immigrants with children receive welfare assistance, only 39 percent of native-born Americans with children receive welfare assistance.[2] This goes to show that people who come here, both illegally and legally, tend to get on welfare. Getting rid of welfare would get rid of the incentive for people to come here and take jobs, which would give that 34 percent of native-born Americans more job opportunities.

Contention 3: Welfare decreases incentive to work

Unemployment benefits in America last 99 weeks.[3] That's almost 2 years of no work! During those two years, the government provides enough money to sustain a person. The person does not have to work during this time, and since they are getting welfare assistance, there is a much lower incentive to work. President Obama's former economic advisor, Lawrence Summers, has argued against unemployment welfare, saying, "The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work."[4]

[1] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

[2] http://blog.chron.com...

[3] http://www.cbsnews.com...

[4] http://www.econlib.org...

Debate Round No. 2
32no

Pro

Thank you Debateme. First, I shall state my rebuttals, and then my main point, as I did not have a chance to do so in the first round.

Rebuttal to contention 1:

Welfare does not hurt the poor. People pay taxes, and when they are in need we support them with welfare, giving them money to spend in our economic system, therefore it is like a direct cash flow for the businesses, and at the same time keeps the poor alive and well. When businesses succeed, jobs open up. But some rich greedy businesses refuse to hire, therefore slowing the economy. The 2011 budget totaled to 3.8 trillion [1], 13% of that is 500 billion. There are currently 46 million Americans below the poverty line [2]. The average amount that a jobless American in poverty receives is $10,000. The average citizen spends 80% of the money they do not pay taxes with in the free market. That means that each person would spend $8,000 in the free market, multiply that by 46 million, and that is 368 billion dollars. That's 3 percent of the GDP. Welfare relocates money to the hands of the people. Also, even if a person makes 20,000 a year for a family, they would lose 1/3 of their value if welfare was taken away. How would you feel if you lost 1/3 of your income? What would you do? The poor would begin to steal. Let's say only 15 million (1/3) of the Americans in poverty resort to crime (dealing drugs, smuggling, theft). Because after all, they need money to survive. In 2010, 10 million crimes were documented [3]. If 15 million, or even minimally, 5 million, people were added to this crime rate, it would be disastrous. There are approximately 800,000 police officers in the US. That means that each officer arrested 12.5 people in 2010. One officer, 12 crimes. That's a lot.

Rebuttal to contention 2:

This is an invalid source as it is a blog, but I will take it on anyway. This is Texas, the state governed by Rick Perry. All he cares about is gays in the military and children praying in school (states this in his ad titled "strong"). I clicked on the author's name, and interestingly enough, this woman wrote an article in SUPPORT of Rick Perry. Hypocrite? Attacking him, or supporting him? Also, Welfare has a strong applicant policy, that could be made even stronger, instead of getting rid of welfare.

Rebuttal to contention 3:

Many people actually cannot work, or are not being hired, because no business is hiring now. People simply cannot get jobs, and start to slip into poverty. These are good hard working people, that apply for jobs, but get refused or laid off. Google had a record of 75,000 job applicants for 6000 job openings [4]. Only some of these people are actually lazy.

You should check out this website: http://progressivetoo.com...

SUMMARY:

- Welfare keeps the poor alive and well while contributing 3 percent to the GDP. (via the market)

-This allows business to hire.

-If people are barely making 20,000, $10,000 in welfare means a lot to them. If they don't get the money they need to live, they will commit crime.

- There are 10 million crimes committed a year, and 800,000 police officers (12.5 crimes per officer)

- If more crimes are added, while spending is cut to police departments, then officers would have 15+ crimes to deal with each.

- Contention 2 uses an invalid source (blog)

- The article is written by a hypocrite.

- Welfare has a strict applicant policy.

- Instead of getting rid of welfare completely, why not make an even more strict applicant policy?

- People worked hard, paid taxes and deserve to get support when the slip into poverty in the non-hiring economy (most of these people).

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.pbs.org...

[3] http://www.disastercenter.com...

[4] http://www.welfareinfo.org...


I look forward to your criticism debateme.

debateme

Con

Thanks 32no, here are my rebuttals:


Contention 1:

The first part of your argument describes how people who recieve welfare support the free market because 80% of what they recieve is spent in the free market, and this contributes 3% to our GDP. This is fundamentally flawed, however, because all of the money they are recieving is coming from the government. Government spending causes inflation, which hurts the free market by devaluing the currency. Therefore, even though people on welfare are spending into the free market, they are hurting the free market because the money they are spending is only inflating the currency.

The second part of your argument describes how taking away welfare would cause people to lose part of their "value" and cause them to commit crimes. This is another fundamentally flawed statement because getting rid of welfare would open up the free market and create tons of new jobs. Once people have jobs, they will no longer feel the need to commit crimes. Eliminating welfare, then, would ultimately cause the crime rate to go down.

You never refuted my original argument: welfare causes inflation, which devalues the currency, which destroys jobs, which causes people to need welfare in the first place.

Contention 2:

Your argument on the validity of the source I used is flawed because I referenced data from within the article (originating from a study by the CIS) and not the article itself. Therefore your argument about the author and her support of Rick Perry is completely irrelevant.

Here is the original study: http://www.cis.org...

The exact wording from the study:

"In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children."

"We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children."

Putting in a stricter applicant policy would require far more work on the government's behalf. This means the government would have to spend more money, inflating the currency more, and ultimately destroying jobs.


Contention 3:

Want to know the reason people can't get jobs in the first place? Inflation. What causes inflation? Government spending. What is welfare? Government spending. Your argument about people not being able to get jobs is flawed because welfare, which contributes to inflation, is what causes the lack of jobs. If the government stops inflating the currency through welfare, jobs will be created and those people won't need welfare anymore. Therefore, my original argument: "Welfare decreases incentive to work" still stands.
Debate Round No. 3
32no

Pro

Here are my final rebuttals and refutes.

First of all, GOVERNMENT SPENDING DOES NOT CAUSE INFLATION. There is no correlation, therefore, one can conclude that government spending does not cause inflation. Here is two charts of government spending and percent inflation (combined). If there is any correlation between the two, I must have gone cross eyed.


Chart #1: http://imgur.com... (I made this chart)


There is absolutely no correlation (inflation actually fell in 2009, -0.4% to be exact, so don't mind the weird layout). This also means that this statement is wrong: "Putting in a stricter applicant policy would require far more work on the government's behalf. This means the government would have to spend more money, inflating the currency more, and ultimately destroying jobs." I have stated that welfare puts money back into the economy while helping people. This creates jobs. That is why welfare is needed. Because inflation and government spending have no correlation, there is no relation, therefore, government spending does not cause inflation, therefore your whole argument falls apart.

THEREFORE, GOVERNMENT SPENDING DOES NOT AFFECT INFLATION BECAUSE THERE IS NO CORRELATION. THEREFORE YOUR STATEMENT THAT "welfare causes inflation, which devalues the currency, which destroys jobs, which causes people to need welfare in the first place." IS WRONG. WELFARE DOES NOT CAUSE INFLATION, AND THEREFORE, THE REST OF YOUR TOWER COLLAPSES. Here is two more charts of welfare spending and inflation.

Chart #2: http://imgur.com...
Chart #3: http://imgur.com... (I made these charts and could find no other way to get the chart to be linked here other than this site, so do not tell me it is a flawed source.)



SOURCES (For Charts)

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us...
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...
http://inflationdata.com...


SUMMARY:(UPDATED)

- Welfare keeps the poor alive and well while contributing 3 percent to the GDP. (via the market)
-Your Rebuttal to this is that it hurts the economy because of inflation, I disproved this with the charts.

-This allows business to hire.

-If people are barely making 20,000, $10,000 in welfare means a lot to them. If they don't get the money they need to live, they will commit crime.
-Your argument to this is that eliminating welfare will create jobs because there is inflation, (disproven by the charts). Also, people who are too lazy to work will still commit crime.

- There are 10 million crimes committed a year, and 800,000 police officers (12.5 crimes per officer)

- If more crimes are added, while spending is cut to police departments, then officers would have 15+ crimes to deal with each.

- Contention 2 uses an invalid source (blog)

- The article is written by a hypocrite.

- Welfare has a strict applicant policy. (Therefore, Illegal immigrants have an extremely difficult time to actually get approved for federal welfare, maybe they got approved for state welfare, which would be Governor Rick Perry's Fault)

- Instead of getting rid of welfare completely, why not make an even more strict applicant policy?
- Again, the charts disprove your argument on this.

- People worked hard, paid taxes and deserve to get support when the slip into poverty in the non-hiring economy (most of these people).

All my points still stand. I rest my case.

VOTERS:
Take into account that my opponent has the final word, and I cannot refute anything he says, because there is no more rounds in this debate.

debateme

Con

I would like to first point out that my opponent never re-addressed Contention 2. Therefore, it still stands.


What your charts show makes sense, there should not be any correlation between government spending and inflation. Government spending in and of itself does not cause inflation, but the United States government almost always spends more than it takes in (the late 90s were an anomaly): http://bit.ly...; What I should have said (although I thought it could be implied) was that government overspending causes inflation. Since government overspending is the direct devaluation of the currency, government overspending is inflation. When the government spends more than it takes in, it is printing money that it doesn't have. This devalues the currency, resulting in inflation. Welfare contributes to overspending, so eliminating it would slow the devaluation of our currency and cause prices to stop skyrocketing.

Your charts comparing spending to inflation, then, are irrelevant, as overspending is what causes inflation. Because of this, Contentions 1 and 3 still stand. Contention 2 was never refuted, so it also still stands. Therefore, all of my points still stand:

1. Welfare hurts the poor.
The inflation caused by overspending through welfare results in increased prices for the poor.
•Decreasing inflation by eliminating welfare will open up the free market and create tons of new jobs. Once people have jobs, they will no longer feel the need to commit crimes.

2. Welfare gives incentive for people to immigrate to the US, both legally and illegally.
•54 percent of legal immigrants with children and 70 percent of illegal immigrants with children receive welfare assistance, only 39 percent of native-born Americans with children receive welfare assistance.

3. Welfare decreases incentive to work
•Unemployment benefits in America last 99 weeks.
•The person does not have to work during this time, and since they are getting welfare assistance, there is a much lower incentive to work.


Conclusion

Because all of my points still stand, and because my opponent never presented any points of his own in support of welfare outside of refuting my points, I encourage you to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Shadowguynick 1 year ago
Shadowguynick
How does inflation cause job loss? Inflation causes lower wages (due to devaluation, and price raising) but job loss? And second how much does welfare affect inflation? And third, his charts would be relevant, since, you know, there is no difference in what the government spends and "overspending". He used charts that showed what the government spends each year, to what the inflation rate is. Flawed logic. This debate is so old though, I doubt anyone will see this.
Posted by debateme 2 years ago
debateme
I should have included part b of the definition as well, but it is implied.

b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Contra 2 years ago
Contra
32nodebatemeTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Both arguments had some errors