The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

The government should cut significantly spending on 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,236 times Debate No: 27515
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




The government should significantly cut spending on welfare because it is part of the reason why the nation is in a lot of debt. Welfare also gets people dependent on it. It gives people free money without working hard. The government should make it easier for people to get jobs instead of giving them free money. They should do that by helping businesses. If they cut taxes and regulations on businesses then businesses will have more money and they will hire more employees. Once businesses start to hire more employees, there will be no need for the government to spend a lot money on welfare. The people who are looking for a job should be on unemployment benefits until they find a job. The people who don't have enough education to have a descent paying job should be on welfare if they go to college. The government should give loans out to poor people who can't afford to go to college and have them pay back the loans once they are out of college and get a good paying job. This way poor people will afford to go to college and will not have to be on welfare once they are educated. Another problem with welfare is that the government pays for it by taking a lot of money from rich people who worked hard for their money. Taking a lot of money from rich people and giving it to the poor is unfair. It is also bad for businesses because a lot of rich people own businesses. If the government takes a lot of money from rich people than the ones that own businesses will either lay off employees or raise the price of their products. If the government cuts spending on welfare then rich people won't need to pay high taxes. Welfare should only be short term. Long term welfare is bad for the economy.


I am going to break this down in accordance with your argument on Round 1, line by line. The welfare system is a heavily burdened system, it does in fact support millions of people, a majority of which are laid off, can't find work and have children. It also supports illegal immigrants that come here and find themselves in a quandry from lack of work. However, it is not the reason this nation is in "a lot of debt."

Welfare is not free money on any level, it is a supplement until suitable employment may be found. It is not a permanent situation, and there are frequent evaluations to determine a client's continued need. I disagree that anyone becomes dependent on it, why would anyone want to? On a second thought consider that a majority of the welfare recipients actually supported the program while employed.

The government does not control the job availability of any company, therefore the government cannot make it easier to get a job. They can however relieve most companies from ridiculous tax proposals, but that is an ancient event and cannot be excused any longer, it is time to face our government and demand better management of the various systems in place as we debate.

Unemployment benefits are benefits that an individual earns, it is not something that everyone is entitled to. An employer must pay in for an employee to qualify and there are other factors that determine the eligibility of any individual. Unemployment benefits are a entitlement, quite a few do not qualify.

There are hundreds if not thousands of approaches to obtaining an education, and student loans rule many lives that have graduated college. They exist already so there is no reason anyone can't obtain an education, the Internet makes it very easy to get started.

The small percentage of "rich" people in our nation are often the direct result of a rich parent from whom they obtained their wealth. There are hundreds if not thousands of individuals that are self made millionaires, from hard work and such, but again a large percentage of those individuals inherited their wealth. That statement is irrelevant, "rich" people do not pay any more into a failing system than the average Joe, it just looks that way due the amount of monies owed due percentages. There is not a system in place that takes from the rich and gives to the poor, aside from that a majority of the rich have paid dearly to avoid such issues directly to and with the government.

And finally and again, welfare is short term and it is pitiful at best when a man that is accustomed to making thousands of dollars must stoop so low, but it happens and it is a Godsend that the program is in place. Do you know anyone that has had to address the issue on a personal level? I thought not.
Debate Round No. 1


The arguments you just stated are wrong. Let me rebut each argument you just made one by one.

You just stated that welfare is not the reason the nation is in a lot of debt. Well you're wrong. The government is spending over $400 billion on welfare. The amount of money being spent on welfare is part of the budget deficit. The larger the budget deficit is the more the debt is going to grow. So the amount of money being spent on welfare is part of the reason why the national debt is so high.

You said welfare is not free money, that's also wrong. The people who are on welfare get money because they are poor not because they work hard. Giving money to people just to help them out is giving free money. Welfare is free government handouts to people.

In regards to people getting dependent on welfare, People do get dependent on welfare because a lot of people on it either don't have a job or don't work a lot because they are already making money.

In regards to the government making it easier for people to get a job, The government is definitely capable of doing that because they are capable of fixing the economy. If they fix the economy then it will be easier for people to get a job. Like I said cutting taxes and regulations on businesses will result in businesses having more money and hiring more employees. If a business makes more money then why wouldn't they hire more employees. In order for them to expand they have to hire more employees.

You said that Unemployment benefits is not something everyone is entitled to. Well you're right about that but I never said that everyone is entitled to unemployment benefits. I said that unemployment benefits should be for people who are looking for a job.

In regards to student loans from the government, The government should gives more loans to poor people who cannot afford to go to college and once they get out of college they should be required to pay back their loans when they get a descent paying job. I never said that it was hard for people to get a student loan or to obtain an education.

You stated that some rich people get their wealth from their parents, Well that's true but the rich people that are self made lose a lot of the money they worked hard for in order for the government to fund welfare. In the argument about rich people you were being contradictory. First you said that a small percentage of rich people get their wealth from their parents, then you stated that a large percentage of self made millionaires inherited their wealth from their parents. Well then how are they self made millionaires if they inherited someone else's wealth? that doesn't make sense.

Finally, you stated that welfare is short term. Well that is also wrong because there are a lot of people who have been on welfare for a long time. If people are on it for a long time than it's long term welfare, not short term. Welfare should be short term only. Once the person is educated enough to get a descent paying job and finds a job, that person should be off welfare.


As I previously stated welfare is not inflicting the most damage on the economical system, welfare (social) programs are actually costing those of us that work a whopping fifty-nine billion as opposed to your stated four hundred billion (reference: The fact is corporate subsidies take more than any program in the budget. Do your research.

I beg to differ with you that welfare is free money, it is often the case that an individual has lost his/her job and must request assistance from our social/welfare programs. That means that at some point that individual did in fact work and did in fact pay payroll taxes which feed the various programs in the budget, therefore that individual is eligible for assistance. The mere fact that the individual paid taxes at some point in his/her life supports their request for assistance. I do NOT agree with the number of illegal immigrants on our welfare roles, I do not believe that any of those individuals should receive any assistance, but they do, they represent seventeen percent of the roles. Do you have any idea what a single individual gets when requesting assistance. I didn't think so, here's the drill...let's say a young man has lost his job and has exhausted his resources, he requests assistance and is ONLY entitled to food stamps, he gets on average a whopping two hundred dollars a month. It may feed him but only mildly, the average human being consumes approximately seventy-five to one hundred dollars a week in food. My reference is weak at best but here it is...

I affirm that the majority of individuals on welfare seek other modes of support, like a job. I do agree that for the most part young women that continue to birth children to the population do become dependent on a variety of welfare programs, ie. Medicaid for the children only (Obama changed that, the Moms NO LONGER receive medical care for free). They also become dependent on food stamps and free housing, but I commit and affirm that they are the only ones whom become dependent on the system and do in fact commit to long term dependency, but that lasts ONLY five years post the age of the youngest child, that is why they continue to birth children they cannot afford. In my world young moms with no physical form of support would be reformed, they would not be allowed to continue to birth children that they cannot and will not support.

Again the government has absolutely no input as to the ease of getting a job. If you want to work, there are a variety of methods to do so. It is typical that companies refrain from their own responsibility in creating jobs, often blaming it on the government and the taxes imposed by the government. But the truth is, companies realize that having Joe Blow mopping floors at minimum wage is an expense that they can eliminate, therefore Joe Blow joins the welfare lines. What else is he do? The expansion of any company depends on the management of funds coming into the company. If Boss Hog thinks that he deserves a seven digit salary, hiring employees is not a part of the equation, he will simply work those he has in his employ a bit harder to achieve the same goal.

Unemployment benefits are an entitlement, if you've never held a job you won't get Unemployment Benefits, it's that simple. And if you're a flounderer then having funds in the appropriate quarters as mandated by Unemployment Laws is a risk that you chose to take by moving from one job to the next, therefore presenting a issue in the appropriation of funds on a quarterly basis. Unemployment Benefits are not long term, there is a dead line and searching and securing work is mandated by law, you must be actively looking for a job. The Unemployment Benefits will eventually exhaust themselves and are secured by those looking for a job.

The government offers a variety of loans and funding for anyone to attend college. The Pell Grant is a very popular resource for those that live at poverty level and is basically easy to secure. In addition to that there are a variety of student loans that anyone can achieve, it takes effort but the benefits are there. The government provides the resources, it is up to you to locate and secure them. And you will repay any and all student loans. There are at this very moment millions of young people whom just graduated and cannot find a job with student loans lingering in their minds, imagine the frustrations.

What I said about "rich" people is that they often inherit their wealth from parents whom worked hard and left their legacy. Those people make up seventy-five percent of the wealthiest Americans in our nation, reference (but not a very good one..YOU MUST READ IT ALL)... If your statement were true that alot of "rich" people lose their money to taxes, then it would also be true that they eventually come to live at the poverty level, and that is not happening. There are a considerable number of self made millionaires, look at Donald Trump, but the truth is that seventy-five percent of the wealthiest people in America inherited their wealth, they did not earn it.

I've covered your opinion on long term welfare, it cannot be long term, it was not and is not operated in that manner. There are guidelines, rules and earnest attempts to move beyond the meager welfare expended to someone that is hungry, aside from the young Mothers whom believe that having a baby will keep them from working, and they are the only ones that become dependent long term and that can only be five years. Please read the laws.
Debate Round No. 2


The government shouldn't eliminate welfare, they should reform it. They should keep child support for parents who have many children. The government should make sure that people get an education, get a good paying job and get off welfare. If that happens then welfare spending will significantly decrease, that's how the government should cut spending on welfare. Like I said, right now the government is spending over $400 billion on welfare. Since welfare is costing people who work $59 billion all together, it's hurting the economy. The more money the government takes away from people the less money people are going to spend. So therefore the large spending on welfare is hurting the economy.

You just stated that the government has no input on making it easier for people to get a job. Well you're wrong because businesses pay high corporate taxes. It costs businesses a lot of money to follow all the regulations on them. Those taxes and regulations were put in place by the government, so therefore it is the government's fault that businesses are not improving. China has a lot less regulations on businesses than the U.S. and their economy is excellent. There should be some regulations on businesses to make sure people are safe but right now there are too many regulations on businesses. The U.S. also has a high corporate tax rate. The corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 35%. It has one of the highest corporate tax rate in the world. All the taxes and regulations that are currently in place cost businesses a lot of money. Therefore they should reduce the taxes and regulations on them. If a business makes more money than they will hire more employees to make their business bigger. Small businesses will definitely hire more employees to make their business big. You're right, businesses do need to manage their funds their making in order to expand but if small businesses pay less taxes and have less regulations on them than they will have more money. In order for those small businesses to expand, the owners of the small businesses cannot take most of the profit. If small business owners want their business to expand than they shouldn't take most of the profit. Business owners need to use some of the money their business makes to buy things for the business. Small business owners don't make a seven digit salary. In regards to big businesses, they should also get their taxes and regulations cut so that they will sell their products for a cheaper price and at least some big businesses will hire more employees. Cutting taxes and regulations on businesses will also make it more affordable for companies to manufacture products in the United States. The government does have the ability to improve businesses because right now the government is burdening them with high taxes and excessive regulations. They need to cut taxes and regulations on them and let them keep most of their money. The government should also cut taxes on people including the wealthy so they will spend more money. The more money people spend the better it is for the economy.

In regards to rich people, they lose a good amount of money from taxes, but I never said that they lose enough money to be in poverty. The rich people that inherit their wealth should keep most of their money so they could spend a lot money. The more the government taxes people the less money people will spend. There should be some taxes so that the government will have some money but if there's high taxes than businesses won't do well. High taxes and a lot of regulations on businesses causes people to lose their job and be on welfare.

In regards to Unemployment Benefits, the government should keep it but people should not be on it for a long time. Obama made it last longer for people. He made it last for over two years for people who are unemployed. If unemployment benefits last for a long time for people than people won't get a job quickly. The government should limit unemployment benefits once businesses start to hire more employees.

The reason that unemployment is high is because businesses can't afford to have as many employees as they use to have. Helping businesses is the key to fixing the economy. Helping businesses will also help people because businesses hire people to work for them. People having jobs is better for them than being on welfare. Welfare doesn't decrease poverty because the benefits are small. The government can't afford to increase welfare benefits. So therefore the government should help people get a job instead of giving them free money for a long time.



The welfare programs available to the American population are antiquated at best. When you consider welfare as a whole you must include the employees that the government has determined it will take to manage the various programs. Those individuals are often paid exorbitant salaries to push pencils all day long and currently to learn new programs on a computer that they should know how to operate from day one. We have been using technology in all of our systems for some time; any individuals employed with the social welfare facilities nationwide should have the education to at least operate a computer, most do not. That said, when I referenced the $59 billion in the previous round I was using only the programs that you speak of, food stamps and the like. There are a great many programs available to individuals that far exceed those we were initially debating. The elderly are a tremendous burden on the taxpayers, they currently represent 12.9% of the general population ( Furthermore we must consider disabled Americans, people whom cannot work or perhaps those that can but won"t, they represent 19% of the roles ( The total welfare deficit against the national debt is more like $800 billion when you consider everything ( The "large" spending on welfare is due to antiquated programs, young women being allowed to have more children than they can support, people claiming disabilities when there are none, the list is endless and long. Child support is a joke and a far cry from proper management, men or women whom are required to pay $20 per week are burdening this system to no end.

The government has no particular control on how businesses operate, they do however control what a business is taxed, but in all honesty most businesses outsource employment therefore taxes become an issue of fraud. The majority of businesses that make money do in fact provide their employees with proper support, the businesses that feel the burden of tax laws are often operating within the laws of government, but the truth is this, the companies that laid off and initiated the unemployment lines did so due to the fact that if they kept the workers on their great income would be affected. It really had nothing to do with neither taxes nor government. You reference all of the regulations that companies live under, truth is DEREGULATION was a major campaign issue, companies have been allowed to run amuck due deregulation, and the workforce has suffered for it. Regulation went out the window with Bush and has continued to affect the American People.

Again, I differ with you; "rich" people suffer very little. They often pay accountants tens of thousands of dollars to deflect huge tax impositions. In fact "rich" people pay on average the very same percentage rate that you and I do, and while that is a substantial amount of dollars, isn"t it fair since we pay the same thing on very little? And madam, rich people do spend a lot of money. One of their favorite expenditures is yachts, that didn"t save Hatteras Yachts.

There are very strict limits on the length of time that an individual may receive unemployment; the Bush administration actually set the extensions because he saw what was coming. The sad thing is that unemployment benefits barely cover what the individual"s expenses were prior to becoming unemployed, which is what leads them to the welfare lines. People have to eat.

Businesses like government need to help themselves, the six figure salaries that owners and GOVERNMENT believe that they deserve would be an ideal place to begin expense cuts. Consider that every PRIOR President continues to receive a salary, and then ask yourself why? When you and I become retired Americans we will receive a pension, because we paid for it, these men aren"t retired. The cuts in government need to begin in the White House, there are billions wasted right there.
Debate Round No. 3


When I stated how much money the government is spending on welfare, I did not include the amount of money spent on other social programs. The government is spending over $400 billion on just welfare. The only social program we're debating about is welfare.

In regards to taxes on businesses, The high taxes on businesses made it less affordable for businesses to keep all their employees or pay them a good salary. If there were low taxes on businesses before the recession then businesses would have not laid off a lot employees. Bush should have cut taxes on businesses when the economy was heading towards a recession.

In regards to regulations on businesses. the deregulation of businesses did not cause the recession. The housing market collapse was the main part of the recession. The housing market collapsed because the government forced the banks to lend loans to people who didn't have a lot of money and does people couldn't afford to pay the loans back. ( Click on this link to read all about what the government did to cause the housing market collapse.

In regards to taxes on the rich, a lot of rich people pay low taxes because of the tax breaks and the low capital gains tax. The rich people that own a business get tax breaks and the ones that make investments pay a 15% capital gains tax. The ones that pay high taxes spend less than the ones that pay low taxes. Like I said, The higher taxes are the less money people will spend. The reason why the economy is not good even with a lot of rich people paying low taxes is because of the excessive taxation and regulations on businesses. Although rich people are doing fine, businesses are not doing fine.

In regards to government spending, the government should cut spending on the white house but that is not enough balance the budget. They need to cut spending by a lot to balance the budget especially if they are going cut taxes. They are going have to cut spending on things like entitlement programs because of the massive debt. Right now the nation is $16.3 trillion in debt. The budget deficit is currently $1.3 trillion. If they don't balance the budget then the deficit will continue getting larger and larger. They should balance the budget by significantly cutting spending without raising taxes. One of the Entitlement programs the government should definitely cut spending on is Welfare because they are currently too much money on it.

It was a pleasure debating with you. You have one last chance to make strong arguments.
Good Luck.


Welfare is all inclusive, it is not a mix of segregated programs, therefore all social programs are included, that is welfare. The government is spending well over $800 billion dollars on just welfare, which includes nutrition, health and medical efforts, and support for needy families, it would be difficult to surmise that any of these would not be included in welfare.

Again, most businesses pay accountants tens of thousands of dollars to avoid paying appropriate taxes, and a good majority of companies outsource labor positions in that taxes may be minimized, the best reference of course would be Apple, look at what that company is making in revenues annually yet a majority of the work lies in other countries, wonder how much that company avoids in tax payments?

I absolutely disagree that deregulation was not a significant part of businesses running amuck and thus a recession began, when our government gave reins to big businesses and did not regulate what transpired within those businesses, the employees of those businesses were not protected, they were doomed.

I do agree that the housing market collapsed for precisely the reason that you state, however the housing market has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

I do not understand how you can state in one sentence, "a lot of rich people pay low taxes because of the tax breaks and the low capital gains tax," and then state that rich people pay too much in taxes. I am confused. However, I offer you this, "rich" people often become greedy people and decide that to have Joe Blow mopping the floor is an expense that they can live without, therefore Joe Blow becomes a victim of the welfare lines and/or unemployment lines and the rest is history.

As I stated before, if the entire budget for salaries on The Hill were scrutinized there is not one doubt that a tremendous burden would be lifted off of the national debt. I see no valid reason why any former President should be paid a salary until he passes, it makes absolutely no sense. As we debate there are at least four former Presidents still breathing and I see absolutely no reason to constitute over one million dollars annually being spent on them. I see absolutely no reason why any member of The Hill should receive any "extra" funding over a prescribed salary but if you'll take a look at the Secret Service (especially their salaries) you'd see where cuts could be justified. You and I don't walk around with a bulk of body guards surrounding us and we pay taxes too. The spending on The Hill is exorbitant and absolutely out of control. When a man pays $200 for a hair cut, a typical everyday hair cut, the world has gone crazy. The national debt is well over sixteen trillion and climbing, cuts could be afforded in a great many places across the board, but knocking on the door of welfare is a shame. Obama did in fact change the program, he did not gut it as some believe, but made it easier for those less fortunate than us to eat, that is all.

I reciprocate, it was a great pleasure debating with you, finally a smart young person, imagine that.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pros argument against welfare was that too many people become dependent on it, it causes a lot of debt, and that the governemt could just give them jobs. Con though demolished these arguments and showed how welfare doesnt make people dependent, that the government cannot simply create jobs for them, and that welfare doesnt cost nearly as much as other programs do. Towards the end of the debate pro's arguments ebcame self contradictory and pretty hard to understand (like the $400 billion number) so I give arguments to the con. Con also used sources very well and even showed how some of pro's claims were erroneous.................. Entertaining debate, I give it 3 out of 4 stars.