The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

"welfare" "spending on poor" as primary cause of gov spending problems is a misconception

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 2 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 865 times Debate No: 24204
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i would like to debate someon who thinks "welfare" and spending on poor is the cause of our federal or even state governemnt fiscal problems.
i'll accept most state budgets as examples except maybe california as examples of state budgets if someone wants to get into state specifics.
i'll focus on fed budget with sometimes references to states.

this graph breaks down what we spend money on.
http://www.federalbudget.com...

we could break major spending into somewhat equal sections, general spending, health spending, social security, national debt, defense. the health spending is a bit bigger, but all are roughly ball parked the same.

most general spending is on things like EPA or adminstrative stuff... not poor stuff. SS is a middle class and everyone issue, and in theory is suppose to be self supporting by pay roll taxes. same with medicare, which is probably atleast half of the health spending.
medicaid is for poor people, is probably less than half of that healthcare spending. but perhaps we could account it for half for the sake of argument? if health care is twenty to tewnty five percent of our budget, that's like ten to twelve percent of our budget.
food stamps are only a hundred billion out of a three and a half trillion budget. two to three percent maybe. national debt and defense are for everyone.
not to mention, most of the national debt is due to borrowing against social security. which is an accounting issue more than anything that has to do with the poor.
welfare is a program that in most states, at least ohio, is a woman can only get cash assistance for three years if shes poor and has kids. that is the maximum. this was a result of welfare reform during the clinton admin, ie the feds do match some money spent. but i belieeve this is part of health spending and not much more than a few billion per year.
there's also section 8 housing which is a marginal amount compared to the overall budget. (not that i woudln't mind redireecting this money somehow else but that's beside the point)
grants to college students only add up to a fraction of the education budget which is eighty billion... maybe thirty billion max? (not that i wouldnt mind cutting this too but aaginst besie point) maybe a percent?

so if we add it up, we got medicaid food stamps section 8 student grants matches for welfare. not much else? that adds up to like fifteen, sixteen percent of our budget.??

these are rough estimates. but enough to show it's not poor people as our problems and "welfare" etc. it's mostly governmetn mismanagement, borrowing against programs, not paying for what we spend, cutting taxes while running deficits, not keeping overall spending lower, etc.

this website expands a few more expenditures on the poor... but even it with thwith the formal analysis doesn't put spending at much more than ten percent.
http://www.motherjones.com...
ConservativePolitico

Con

Welfare - financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government [1]

Now, my opponent has a misconception of what welfare truly is. Since "spending on the poor" is an ambiguous statement we will use "welfare" as our benchmark.

If we look at this budget breakdown [2] we see that Pensions, Health and Welfare (the government definition) make up 56% of the budget.

Welfare is any financial or other assistance given to an individual or family from some form of government. Outside of the ambiguous blanket term "welfare" which is 12% of the budget alone we have Pensions which is financial assistance to those in retirement. Health includes Medicaid and Medicare which is health assistance (which costs money) to the poor, the old or to veterans.

So, if we total up all the actual welfare up we see that it totals more than HALF of all government spending to the tune of over 2 trillion dollars.

If you're looking for "government spending problems", it'd be good to look at the 56% of the budget that is financial assistance to various people.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

Con is not using any traditional definition of welfare. Welfare in a more general sense is money that is spent on people who are relatively poor due to their poor situation. This doesn't need to be a precise definition.
Also, more typical preciser definitions of welfare is cash assistance due to having kids etc.

Con simply shows that the government spends money on health, which involves both medicare and medicaid, as already mentioned. Medicare is self funded via pay roll taxes. Even if we spent more than the taxes take in... this is a program that is for everyone who is old. Medicare is most of the health expenses, and so most of what con is referring to doesn't count.

Pensions like for gov employees, or health insurnace for gov employees, sin't for poor people.... it's for regular Joes who the government hires. This isn't a poor people program, or issue.
Pensions like for social security... are also self funded, like medicare is. Social Security has generated so much revenue, that a arge protion of our national debt is simply us borrowing from in in earlier years.

I take con's obscurring and semantics of these issues as a tacit admission that the government doesn't really spend much relatively on poor people... the obvious intention of this debate.
ConservativePolitico

Con

My opponent supplied no definition of welfare of their own except money spent on "poor people".

Define poor.
Define "money spent".
Define welfare.
Give a threshold.
USE SOURCES

Until my opponent does these things, my definition of welfare, financial assistance by the state, fits just fine.

The very first line of Round One by my opponent:

"i would like to debate someon who thinks "welfare" and spending on poor is the cause of our federal or even state governemnt fiscal problems." [sic]

My opponent uses welfare SEPARATE from "spending on the poor" and even uses AND to bridge them meaning that

a) welfare is separate from "spending on the poor"
&
b) "spending on the poor" goes with welfare to combine into the issue at hand

I have pointed out the general welfare side of the equation which includes all financial assistance by the state.

Pensions are financial assistance for the state for retirement.
Health services, insurance and health care is assistance by the state for health reasons.

Any spending outside of normal pay by the government counts as assistance.

My opponent uses claims that they cannot back up and have not backed up with sources.

Welfare and "spending on the poor" account for 56% of government spending.
The government is running a deficit.
It is plausible to assume that the things that take up a majority of government funding has something to do with its deficit.

My opponent says outrageous things that make no sense such as:

"Social Security has generated so much revenue, that a arge protion of our national debt is simply us borrowing from in in earlier years."

Social security generating revenue? So much that our debt is borrowing from it? This is nonsense.

This nonsense, coupled with a lack of sources in addition to terrible spelling and grammar plus my opponents inability to defend the resolution they established in Round One leads me to think that I deserve the victory.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
ConservativePolitico

Con

I rest my case.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 4 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
to the idea that the conception might not exist of us spending all our money on the poor...

that was big in reagan's days. back before entitlements were such an issue. i'm sure back then though it was a larger portion of our budget etc. 'welfare queens' 'on the dole' 'slackers eating this and that' etc. and people thinking we have to cut that to save ourselves. (it's always good to cut out waste and abuse, obviously)
but in any case
Posted by bennourse 4 years ago
bennourse
The thing is I just finished a debate with Dairygirl and I doubt anyone will vote on it .... Debating time wasted .... D:
Posted by Awesome-Sauce 4 years ago
Awesome-Sauce
why cant you seem to capitalize words or even just i or use proper punctuation or sotp minxig up leterts
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
dairygirl4u2cConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Is there a conception that a primary cause of spending problems is on the non-working poor? I don't think so; the word used is "entitlements." Con didn't challenge that, so it came down to the definition of "welfare." I'll give the edge to Con with the broader definition. Pro's S
Vote Placed by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
dairygirl4u2cConservativePoliticoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I wonder who won...