Welfare

They, like other Americans need to feed their families, but the money they make in their businesses goes partially to welfare. The very same system my opponent says helps keep these businesses above water. So if the money that goes into the businesses is partially be taken out to go back to those paying for the product, how is this helping the business? I don't quite understand this statement but corporations, small businesses, and individuals are required to pay taxes. They do not have the option to choose which services they would like to pay and which services they would not. As I mentioned earlier, with regard to Peter Lindert’s article, social programs increase overall consumer spending. This means that, in the case of Con’s hypothetical business, unemployed Americans are still able to be consumers; which helps that specific business during a time when it is also suffering financial difficulties. Instead of having millions of unemployed Americans receiving no income and spending no money, TANF provides them with a basic level of financial support allowing them the opportunity to purchase necessary items. Without the worker making any money, the owner of the store is basically giving their product to the consumer, seeing as how it was the store owners money that is being used to purchase his own items. I am not quite sure I understand why it is that the worker would not be making any money; if said “worker” were employed, his employer would be required to compensate him. If the “worker” is in reference to an individual on TANF, then it is simply false to equate corporate and business taxes as being on par with TANF contributions. This argument presented by Con suggests that no individual, corporation, or small business should have to contribute to any citizen's income who may in turn purchase their products or services. The compensation of military personnel, elected representatives, and other government employees would then qualify under this same broad generalization. WELFARE ECONOMICS This particular economic theory utilizes the perspectives of microeconomics, as is generally the case, it can be adopted on a macroeconomic scaled but it operates at greater efficiency at the state level. (1) Within the United States, this theory evokes a great degree of contention, welfare economics is one of many forms of wealth redistribution. The individualistic, free-market capitalist ideals that many Americans cling to, objects to this very concept; despite the empirical evidence compiled by economists indicating that greater states of overall social well-being are achieved by redistributing incomes in the economy. (1) My opponent believes that any increase in the United States GDP comes from investments in welfare programs. My opponent did not provide evidence that welfare was the cause of the increase, merely that our GDP increased while we had investments put into welfare. This is certainly not my belief or my argument, I provided context reinforced by empirical evidence. The evidence concluded that the OECD countries who suffered the greatest losses were those that did not have an adequate social “safety-net” program in place. Surely, Con is not suggesting that the European nations that adopted austerity measures would experience the same or worse economic volatility had they implemented social spending policies. If every man [...] in the United States decided [...], "Hell, I'm not going to work, I could be paid $10 bucks an hour to do nothing." Then our country would fail, [...] and I'm grateful that every night [...] that there are still men and women who work to pay for those who don't. This seems a strange statement, I will refer Con back to my statement that the United States is in the midst of a recession. Businesses were forced to, substantially, reduce expenses in order to mitigate risk; this was accomplished by a series of large-scale layoff’s within the US. There is no evidence to suggest that American’s are sitting at home saying to themselves: “Hell, I’m not going to work”. Who complain, but still pay their money to those people so they can sit at home and cheer on Obama for being their hero. Please tell me that's not wrong. Con’s statement categorizes Obama as the individual to blame for the increased costs of social benefits, though evidence I have provided refutes this believe, and that unemployed Americans are willingly unemployed. This is, again, an argument guilty of speculation, as there is no evidence to suggest that TANF recipients have no desire to find work. OBAMA’S WELFARE REFORM To contradict my opponent who argues that individuals have no intention of seeking employment because of Obama and the TANF. Firstly, under Obama’s policy, states now have the ability to seek a federal waiver requiring welfare recipients to engage in specific “work activities”, such as job training. (2) In exchange, individual states would provide “more efficient or effective means to promote employment”. Secondly, states must also submit performance measures and evaluation plans. (2) There is no subversive plot to transform the USA into communist Russia or to create a society of unemployed dependents. Obama’s reform went even further; no other American President has ever imposed lifetime limits on welfare. (2) TANF recipients can receive financial assistance for no longer, than 5 years, and after 2 years on TANF, the legal guardian in the household must be engaged in work activities. (2) The reform also required that states ensure that 50% of all families receiving financial assistance to be participating in work activities. $1 TRILLION FOR THE TANF – FACT OR FICTION The article, in question, was purposely ambiguous concerning the “federal means-tested welfare programs”, which was comprised of 83 different federal programs. (3) 52% of the $1 trillion is related to medical assistance (Medicaid etc.), 9% related to food aid (WIC, TEFAP), 6.5% housing, energy, and utilities assistance (LIHEAP); 2.5% to child development and child care (CCDBG), 1.1% to community development (CDBG), and 5% towards targeted education spending for low-income persons and communities. (4) 76% of the stated $1 trillion dollars has absolutely no funding to the TANF, of the remaining 24%; 21.5% was split between SSI, EITC, ACTC, and finally TANF. The remaining 2.5% was also split, between social services (SSBG, TANF, and CSBG) and jobs and job training (WIA, WIAOGY, TANF, Job Corps). (4) As we can see the US government does not spend anywhere near $1 trillion on welfare, in fact, during the last 15 years the federal government and states have only spent $406 billion on the TANF program. (2) My opponent provided no evidence that there is only a fraction of the population guilty of fraud. Since the government is not efficient at stopping those people from doing it before they have done some real damage […] On Con’s first charge, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to prove that welfare fraud exists and is occurring to the extent that the United States will suffer some noticeable degree of economic downturn. Con’s second argument is in reference to an article on a website that primarily handles internet security, specifically e-mail spam. In which only four examples of welfare fraud were provided, all of which took place between 1972 and 1981. This is not adequate proof to suggest that welfare fraud is a prevalent, legitimate, and widespread issue. Con has provided several arguments littered with bare assertions, none of which were able to withstand scrutiny. There has been nothing presented to suggest that welfare is detrimental to the US. (1): http://www.investopedia.com... (2): http://factcheck.org...(3): http://dailycaller.com... (4): Rector, Robert. Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare.pdf