A Modest Proposal for Lowering the Costs of Welfare

Response:While I admire my opponent's creativity and the clear compassion for the poor that he has shown, I fear his response to my most modest proposal would do little to actually lower the cost of welfare, or assist its recipients. In the previous round my opponent perscribed:All parents of children on welfare are to hunt and eat the children of parents NOT on welfare, then immediately offer their condolences and replace those children with their own and an agreed adoption plan... Which only requires consent of the great president.. Mr. Ballack Seminigga Obama Bin Fartin...By allowing parents on welfare to eat privileged children and by enforcing an adoption program for many of these poor, uneducated lazy fart's children to be adopted we officially enable a super mode because just like when your mother sees my cock after many nights with your dad's, when these children see the privileged world, they will appreciate it SO MUCH MORE. So thus, they will inevitably be motivated to work their not-so-lazy-anymore-a$$es off and thus shall ultimately solve any and all welfare issues.The first major problem with my opponent's proposal is the huge opportunity cost associated with it; the more time that welfare parents spend hunting down the priveldged children of America the less time that they have to try and find a job where they can mindlessly labour and become removed from the fact that they are not, and will never be, the person that they imagned they would be as a child, and that with each and everyday their vitality is slipping away as death lumes closer and closer, ready to take them from a life that was never as satisfying as it could and should have been. This, of course, is counter-productive as the more time welfare recipients spend on the dole, the more it costs the taxpayers.The second problem with your proposal is that it would drastically reduce the population of the United States. This, in and of itself, is not problematic, however it becomes so when you consider the fact that population size is a key determinate of economic demand. "The larger the population, the greater is the demand for all goods and services; the smaller the population, the smaller is the demand for all goods and services."[1] My opponent's plan would certainly depress economic activity in the United States, a truly dasterdly crime; consider the immortal words of Robert F. Kennedy: ...the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or [and] the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or [and] the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or [and] the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor [and] our courage; neither our wisdom nor [and] our learning; neither our compassion nor [and] our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except [and] why we are proud that we are Americans.The only way that this effect could be mitigated would be to heavily invest in the perfection of human cloning techniques; however, there would be such huge costs associated with such an initiative that it is doubtful that such efforts would ever pay off. There is also the fact that human cloning to too morally ambigous for any rational person to condone. Alas, requiring that parents on welfare eat their children would serve as an effective way to lower the costs of the program in the United States, and would help those welfare recipients become more economically self-sufficient. My opponent openly admits to this, but offers his own alternative to the problematic costs of welfare in the United States. As I have shown that his alternative pales in comparison to my own, every freedom loving [insert your nationality here] should vote Pro in this debate.Stay golden Ponyboy, Pro out.Sources:[1] Parkin, Michael, and Robin Bade. Microeconomics: Canada in the Global Environment. Toronto: Pearson Addison Wesley, 2006. Print.