Welfare

I think a point must be made that I, absolutely, agree with Con that the success of a nation should be measured by how few people are under welfare. I agree. To not have people on welfare is indicative of a thriving and healthy economy. I ask my opponent though, if he does not believe welfare should be abolished, then what is he arguing? I made an argument that reform can take place to better reduce poverty, increase mobility, and catch people better during economic hardships. In that sense, we both seem to agree. However, I've stated what purposes welfare presently serves, and have cited areas in which it needs work (such as the speediness of response to recessions). If my opponent is with me on this, then why does he demonize the system while acknowledging that it reduces poverty at the same time? Why does he call it a leech, and think that a rover on Mars is a better-vested project than feeding our hungry? Why does he demonize those who fall under the umbrella safety of welfare as “welfare queens”? This isn't behavior and rhetoric indicative of support for the program, with reforms needed. This is rhetoric commonly used by advocates of abolishing the program. Sir, welfare is not a leech on the economy. I'll gladly sacrifice pennies of my taxpayer dollar so that no child in this country ever goes hungry. In citing welfare laws, my opponent has unintentionally sided with me on the need for strengthening the program. He is accurate in that children are incapable of applying for welfare. That's a problem! I support legislation which lowers the application age to that of 15 to support teen-mothers through hardships. By disagreeing, you not only punish the victims of poverty and circumstance, you punish their children. Con, the goal is to fix poverty. I absolutely agree. However, it takes more than just one area of government to fix poverty, such as fair-taxation laws, consumer protection laws, minimum wage laws, etc. There's more areas than just welfare as a means to reducing poverty. However, in attacking my point, he neglects the third purpose of welfare which I stated earlier. Welfare acts as a safety net. I posted a table earlier in my photo-albums which displayed the effects of welfare on reducing the relative poverty rate. [1] However, I think Con would agree with me that the state can't be there to micromanage all actions of the individual. Welfare is there to catch those who fall into poverty, not keep them from falling into poverty. To rebut my opponent's final fact, he states that the welfare state has increased by 19% under Obama's administration. He attempts to use this as ammunition indicating that Obama is, somehow, pro-welfare. I'd like to remind Con that President Obama came into office as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression hit. The best thing in the world Obama could do for those effected by the crisis is create jobs, strengthen the safety net, and create upward mobility. It seems we've reached an impasse. My opponent has made no new arguments available, and I have rebutted all arguments he's made. The only new substance he's brought to the table is pointless ad hominem attacks on those who need welfare to get by. Calling people welfare queens because they've fallen under hard times is not a point of contention. It's petty and childish. I ask that my opponent withdraw his remarks, as they are insensitive, and bring nothing new to the debate. We can be civil, sir. In closing, I've properly rebutted my opponent's assertions. I've provided evidence and sources which indicate that the welfare system is, in fact, working. I've provided evidence which indicates that it works to reduce poverty, create mobility [2], and act as a safety net. I've provided evidence which supports my assertion that the welfare system needs reformation through strength. It needs better response time during recessions [3]. It needs to be expanded to support children. I've made all of these points to support my brothers and sisters who have fallen under hard times as a result of this world-wide financial crisis. My opponent has done little more than slander those who need it with ad hominem attacks, and provided quotes out-of-context about welfare. I urge you to vote pro. [1]. http://debate.org... [2]. http://stats.oecd.org... [3]. http://www.irp.wisc.edu...