Welfare

Here are my final rebuttals and refutes. First of all, GOVERNMENT SPENDING DOES NOT CAUSE INFLATION. There is no correlation, therefore, one can conclude that government spending does not cause inflation. Here is two charts of government spending and percent inflation (combined). If there is any correlation between the two, I must have gone cross eyed.Chart #1: http://imgur.com... (I made this chart) There is absolutely no correlation (inflation actually fell in 2009, -0.4% to be exact, so don't mind the weird layout). This also means that this statement is wrong: "Putting in a stricter applicant policy would require far more work on the government's behalf. This means the government would have to spend more money, inflating the currency more, and ultimately destroying jobs." I have stated that welfare puts money back into the economy while helping people. This creates jobs. That is why welfare is needed. Because inflation and government spending have no correlation, there is no relation, therefore, government spending does not cause inflation, therefore your whole argument falls apart. THEREFORE, GOVERNMENT SPENDING DOES NOT AFFECT INFLATION BECAUSE THERE IS NO CORRELATION. THEREFORE YOUR STATEMENT THAT "welfare causes inflation, which devalues the currency, which destroys jobs, which causes people to need welfare in the first place." IS WRONG. WELFARE DOES NOT CAUSE INFLATION, AND THEREFORE, THE REST OF YOUR TOWER COLLAPSES. Here is two more charts of welfare spending and inflation. Chart #2: http://imgur.com...Chart #3: http://imgur.com... (I made these charts and could find no other way to get the chart to be linked here other than this site, so do not tell me it is a flawed source.)SOURCES (For Charts)http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us...http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...http://inflationdata.com... SUMMARY:(UPDATED) - Welfare keeps the poor alive and well while contributing 3 percent to the GDP. (via the market) -Your Rebuttal to this is that it hurts the economy because of inflation, I disproved this with the charts. -This allows business to hire. -If people are barely making 20,000, $10,000 in welfare means a lot to them. If they don't get the money they need to live, they will commit crime.-Your argument to this is that eliminating welfare will create jobs because there is inflation, (disproven by the charts). Also, people who are too lazy to work will still commit crime. - There are 10 million crimes committed a year, and 800,000 police officers (12.5 crimes per officer) - If more crimes are added, while spending is cut to police departments, then officers would have 15+ crimes to deal with each. - Contention 2 uses an invalid source (blog) - The article is written by a hypocrite. - Welfare has a strict applicant policy. (Therefore, Illegal immigrants have an extremely difficult time to actually get approved for federal welfare, maybe they got approved for state welfare, which would be Governor Rick Perry's Fault) - Instead of getting rid of welfare completely, why not make an even more strict applicant policy?- Again, the charts disprove your argument on this. - People worked hard, paid taxes and deserve to get support when the slip into poverty in the non-hiring economy (most of these people).All my points still stand. I rest my case.VOTERS:Take into account that my opponent has the final word, and I cannot refute anything he says, because there is no more rounds in this debate.