The Instigator
migmag
Pro (for)
The Contender
Triple_Jay
Con (against)

welfare

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Triple_Jay has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 170 times Debate No: 93640
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

migmag

Pro

The most important thing to know about Welfare, is that adults Without children are NOT eligible. People like you talk as if EVERYONE is on Welfare, when, in fact, MOST people can NOT get it! And the amount given is VERY low, $100 per child, which does NOT cover almost anything
Triple_Jay

Con

Okay, I accept your challenge. I do have a problem though, I am for revamping welfare in a way that it wouldn't cost the government any money, I am not for abolishing it completely. Nothing should be given away for free, doesn't matter if you have children and need food. My safety net would be a compulsory factory service for financial assistance if you're looking for a job. The work would be available nationwide, giving families the ability to stay upright while at the same time discourages dependence based on the hard work for minuscule pay. It can work around your schedule, especially if you have college work. Children would be allowed to work in non-hazardous jobs there is they so wish, teaching them independence if they have parents that shouldn't even be parents. So the result is a higher GDP, more productive population, a surplus from the welfare programs, a system that could show some children the quality of hard working independence, and an effective safety net. The products made in the factory would be sold/used based on what was made, though I would primarily hope to sell them abroad. Also welfare is not only for parents, in some states, like Connecticut, medicaid is for all adults. http://www.ct.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
migmag

Pro

Having worked in a polling call center, I can tell you that the majority of Americans do not agree with you opinion. That said, your "welfare" program would NOT be "financial assistance" since it sounds like you would be FORCING them to work 40 hours a week it sounds. If it means they are working for it, it's not "welfare", or "assistance" it's them 100% DESERVING every penny they are given, so YES, you WOULD be getting rid of "welfare" completely by your idea. You response is typical of a Republican, you don't care about people or children, you just care about money. Your "safety net" is NOT a safety net at all, it's MANDATORY full time employment in some ficticious factory (which factory, doing what?) The problem you don't address is that MOST people getting financial assistance ARE working, many times FULL TIME, but their employers are UNDER paying them to the point that they NEED assistance to make ends meet. What 'dependence" are you talking about? You CANT be "dependent" on something that does NOT exist for MOST Americans. As I"ve said before, Adults WITHOUT children are NOT eligible for ANY financial assistance whatsoever! And WHAT on Earth are you talking about putting CHILDREN to work? And who the heck are you to say that parents who are financially struggling therefore don't deserve children? So because their EMPLOYERS are UNDER paying them, that's THEIR fault? Get real! There are a MILLION holes in your story, so until you can fill ALOT of those holes, your "theory" isn't feasable about your ficticious "factory" work. You seem to be uninformed about safety net programs. ONE is "Welfare" which is Financial Assistance for CHILLDREN (parents who have), TWO is Food Stamps/SNAP, which is to FEED people who's employers SO UNDER pay them, that they CANT afford to FEED themselves. THREE is "medicaid" which is NOT a "safety net" program, it's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, it provides them HEALTHCARE for if they are SICK!!
Triple_Jay

Con

It looks like somebody is triggered FROM ALL THEIR CAPS. "If it means they are working for it, it's not "welfare", or "assistance" it's them 100% DESERVING every penny they are given, so YES, you WOULD be getting rid of "welfare" completely by your idea. You response is typical of a Republican, you don't care about people or children, you just care about money." All I care about is money? Well sir I am not rich, at all. I lived most of my life at about 10 thousand dollars per year for a family of 4, and we do just fine. And from your quote that I just cited it seems like you support giving out gifts to everyone, and anybody who doesn't is a rich person that doesn't want the well being of other people. "The problem you don't address is that MOST people getting financial assistance ARE working, many times FULL TIME, but their employers are UNDER paying them to the point that they NEED assistance to make ends meet." Well you are talking about the problem of wages being too low and everything costing too much money, and I would solve that if I were president by first making taxes on employers somewhat high but then give tax breaks to them for raising wages to their workers all around, therefore wages for everybody decent would raise but their is no incentive to raise prices for their services, so everything is cheaper while people would have more money. I also support abolishing sales tax and income taxes for people making x<75,000 which would be very helpful in poor people buying food, so you see I am not anti-poor. Another problem about the wages everybody should consider is that our massive trade deficits are giving away millions of jobs, just from China we gave away 3.2 million jobs http://www.usnews.com... which would make jobs more competitive in the US, causing wages to be lower. And my factory proposal is related to the work for welfare type of polices, but I feel that the original proposal is not the safest net for people that are truthfully trying, and my factory proposal would pay for itself. What type of factory? A little bit of everything, it is just an idea to make revenue besides taxing people for what they earned and make a safety net just in case they can't find a decent paying job. "And WHAT on Earth are you talking about putting CHILDREN to work?" A big reason why my family were in poverty was because children are not allowed to work at all because the government just don't think it is right, so less economic freedom that would hurt the lower classes the most! And under my proposal for giving children the right to work if they want to couples living in poverty still have potential to have children because they may actually support them along the way. Also children already have to work at school, so don't be too dramatic. I am also not advocating for industrial revolution type of labor for children, they can just clean buildings or build some toys. So please tell me why my mostly-libertarian plan would be catastrophic for the poor if it provides them with a guaranteed chance to work for a livable wage, abolish sale taxes and income taxes, give incentives to employers for giving higher wages, bring jobs back to America, give their children the freedom to work if it is necessary for the family's financial security, and eliminate the deficit so the market rating would increase giving more economic prosperity to America, which would help everyone.
Debate Round No. 2
migmag

Pro

Long story short Adults WITHOUT children can NOT get ANY "welfare" AT ALL. THAT is WRONG! People making ZERO to TEN dollars an hour NEED Some level of financial assistance to pay their bills!
Triple_Jay

Con

If democrats had their way everybody that is poor would receive welfare, and that's not even considering food stamps and medicaid. If you are making low money move to a place that is cheap, like Jacksonville Florida, there you can easily pay your bills with minimum wage if you live in the right apartment. Now if it was New York the minimum wage should be accommodated to their cost of living, taking away the necessity of welfare. Why should a poor person do all that and why should the government not support them? That takes government spending, which requires taxes, which hurts the economy and economic freedom. Therefore, we should limit it to only defense of the nation. And my anti-welfare argument was just on the assumption that there would no non-profit welfare programs ran as charities, which would be highly unlikely as America is the most charitable country in the world. There are also general downsides to welfare from the state, dependency and fraud are very real downsides. Sister Connie"s House of Hope shelter for women in Chicago has a 95% success rate a record that towers over that of any of the city"s shelters. This is because Sister Connie can practice a "tough love" approach. She has random drug testing, curfews, and requires her "clients" to find solid employment. So we do not have to pay extra tax dollars on welfare. So I vote no to welfare and food stamps, given that the government would allow these non-profits to be spawned everywhere and give a guaranteed opportunity for work everywhere as well.
Debate Round No. 3
migmag

Pro

Canada, and all of Europe have MUCH better Welfare Safety Nets than we do, in fact, ours is almost non existent
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SJM 4 months ago
SJM
Yea, his vote on my debate is a joke.
Posted by migmag 4 months ago
migmag
Wow, you would backstab a fellow Democrat? seriously? I will be unfriending you
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
Warning: Migman needs to stop vote bombing. Your votes have been reported and will be deleted.
Posted by migmag 4 months ago
migmag
the FACT of the matter is MOST EVERYONE agrees that if someone is VERY POOR and has NO INCOME, there SHOULD be a SAFETY NET for FOOD and HOUSING and MEDICAL CARE
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.