The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Valladarex
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...
Valladarex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 827 times Debate No: 33546
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
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 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......

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.
Valladarex

Con

Rebuttals

"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........."

10% is still very significant when it comes to the budget. Although it's actually more than that. I'll show in my arguments.

"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."

Actually, most general spending is on entitlements. This is important, because entitlement spending is nondiscretionary. This means it is automatic, and can't be changed unless congress passes legislation to change it. Much of this entitlement spending goes to the poor.



This graph illustrates how much money we actually spend on entitlements.

"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."

12% is a lot of money compared to a lot of other things we put money in.


"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."

Everything adds up. A hundred billion is a lot of money.


"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."

The only reason we have social security is to prevent poverty in old age. This is certainly for 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."

Welfare spending is about $179.7 billion in total for states, and $430 billion for the federal government. This is hardly just a few billion per year. (1)


"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?"

Student assistance, including grants, loans, direct payments, and contracts add up to $195 billion in total state spending. This isn't just a percent. (2)


"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.??"

You're missing a lot, and it's a lot more.

"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."

Poor people are a problem in America. We don't like it when people are poor, so then we spend hundreds of billions in trying to make their lives better.

Arguments

State spending

The states spend a substantial amount of their money on the poor in various ways.


This graph shows the spending as a percentage of total spending, in 2010. The 16% welfare is obvious to notice, but other spending on the poor is much more subtle. Of the $436 billion the states spend on health care, $337 billion is in vendor payments (welfare). This makes the welfare spending in healthcare at around 23% of total state spending.(1) Not including the money we give to the poor through education, social security, food stamps etc., this is still 39% of the state spending. This proves that spending on the poor is a primary cause of government spending problems.

Sources:

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

2.http://www.usaspending.gov...

Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

you showed student loans as being billions but as a percentage only like three or four of the federal budget. aside from that, social security is supppose to be self sustaining, you get what you pay into it, for the most part.
the state budgets, if i assume are accurate, are telling, i concede. they show states spend maybe a fifth or so on that. but state spending v federal is a lot smaller. percentage of overal spending puts poor spending at a small fraction.

let's say each state spends 30 billion a year, pretty standard. times 50 states. 1.5 tillion. and the fed spends 3.5 trillion. that means twenty percent on teh state side, 10 on the fed side, we're talking like 13 percent of total ependitures. you said ten was a lot, i simply disagree and im sure most people would. 13 might be pushign it more, but it's still not a ton of money or at least not of realtive significance.
Valladarex

Con

Rebuttals

"you showed student loans as being billions but as a percentage only like three or four of the federal budget. aside from that, social security is supppose to be self sustaining, you get what you pay into it, for the most part.

the state budgets, if i assume are accurate, are telling, i concede. they show states spend maybe a fifth or so on that. but state spending v federal is a lot smaller. percentage of overal spending puts poor spending at a small fraction."

Well now that you concede that spending on poor is a problem in state governments, and not a misconception, I shouldn't really need to show anything beyond that. But to make it clear that, even on the federal level, much of the spending is on the poor, I will continue to show statistics.

The federal student assistance programs accounts for $38 billion for 1.1% of the budget in 2010. (1) Federal spending on vendor payments(welfare) is $330.7 billion, or 9.5% of the budget. Federal welfare spending is $502 billion, or 14.5% of the budget.(2) This all together adds up to $870.7 billion, 25.1% of the federal budget. To put into perspective, this was more than the entire defense budget. It's evident that this is part of the spending problem we have in America.

"let's say each state spends 30 billion a year, pretty standard. times 50 states. 1.5 tillion. and the fed spends 3.5 trillion. that means twenty percent on teh state side, 10 on the fed side, we're talking like 13 percent of total ependitures. you said ten was a lot, i simply disagree and im sure most people would. 13 might be pushign it more, but it's still not a ton of money or at least not of realtive significance."

Even though it's about double what you thought the total expenditure was, 13% would have still been a very significant amount of money. Thats enough money to give $1,459 to every single citizen of the United States in 2010. Its triple what the federal government spends on education. To think that $449 billion isn't a significant amount of money is absurd. Even if you think that the other 87% is a bigger part of the spending problem, that 13% is a problem nonetheless.

1. http://www2.ed.gov...;
2.http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

we just disagree that X percent of the budget is signifcant or not. i also dont thinkwe can say 450 billion or X amount is a lot when it's only a fraction of the budget. it might be a lot and seem like a lot, but proportionally it's nothing. 10-15 percent is relatively nothing.
Valladarex

Con

"we just disagree that X percent of the budget is signifcant or not. i also dont thinkwe can say 450 billion or X amount is a lot when it's only a fraction of the budget. it might be a lot and seem like a lot, but proportionally it's nothing. 10-15 percent is relatively nothing."

Every X amount will only be a fraction of the budget. It doesn't make it negligible. Also, I already showed that it isn't 10-15 percent. It's about 25.1%.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 3 years ago
Zealous1
dairygirl4u2cValladarexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't want this to look like a vote bomb but conduct: Dairy dropped a lot. Spelling and grammar: Obvious. Convincing arguments: Con proved it was 25.1%, and Pro never said that's insignificant, just ignored it. It seemed as well that dairy's sources were not very fitting for the discussion. Vall's sources were more directly talking about the issue on the table. Overall I think I would vote based on the fact that Pro never proved Welfare is not the primary spending, since he never refuted the 25.1% number. What both sides could have done better is clarifying the debate by listing your numbers in a recap. It's hard to read this through.
Vote Placed by enclave101 3 years ago
enclave101
dairygirl4u2cValladarexTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. thanks for educating me on the topic.