The USFG should ensure the welfare of families living in poverty

Thank you for accepting my challenge. ::DEFINITIONS:: RE D2: --I assure my opponent that I will not be making arguments based on the moral aspects. The social aspects I will refer to are things like crime, etc. RE D3: --As my opponent suspects, I am indeed referring to helping families get at least this bare minimum - a healthy diet and a place to live - but not helping them past that. RE D4: --For a family of four, poverty guidelines for 2008 set the poverty line at $21,200 annual income. This is for people living within the 48 contiguous states. http://aspe.hhs.gov... ::OBSERVATIONS:: O1: Things unrelated to this welfare policy do not necessarily have to be the status quo. For example, my opponent cannot argue that since the current tax system is unfair and this policy will require tax money, therefore this policy promotes unfairness. This policy could work under any tax system, so the unfairness of the tax system could be removed without changing my plan at all. ::PROBLEMS:: P1: Crime Crime is a problem, especially among those in poverty. Not only do those with the least have very little to lose, but they have the most to gain; stealing, for instance, can mean the difference between starving/suffering and not. P2: Low Productivity Productivity is probably the most important economic factor for a country. More productivity means higher real GDP. Higher real GDP means more economic influence in the world, a higher average standard of living, and many other economic bonuses. Those in poverty are usually very unproductive, and this is a problem my plan seeks to fix. P3: Resentment The poor currently resent the middle and upper classes because of how much the poor suffer. Under most welfare plans, the middle and upper classes resent the poor because of how much assistance the poor currently get for being lazy, wasteful, etc. My plan seeks to fix the first issue without causing this second form of resentment. ::SOLUTION/Plan:: S1: Economic Advice The USFG will utilize the expertise of economic advisors to help the families living in poverty to make a proper budget. These families will be required to meet once every 2-3 months with a budget advisor to make sure superfluous spending is extremely low. The advisor will help the family to use the most of the money they already have. If the family can do well enough on this alone [afford a good diet, afford an acceptable place to live], there is no help past that. Here is an example of some budget cuts a hypothetical family could make: Let's say I make 800 a month. That's 9600 a year, which is under the poverty line of 10,400 for families of one member. Let's say my expenses are as follows: OLD BUDGET Rent [includes electricity, water, internet, cable]: $535/month Gas [~25 miles per day, ~30 miles per gallon, ~$4 per gallon]: $100/month Car Insurance [Liability coverage]: $50/month Maintenance [Average cost per month of car repairs, etc]: $50/month Food [Crappy diet, 5 bucks a day]: $150/month Total: 885 I'd get some changes like the following: Rent, other bills [Another roommate]: $350/month Gas: same $100/month Car Insurance: same $50/month Maintenance: same $50/month Food [Good diet, 10 bucks a day]: $300/month Total: $850 Ouch! Now, I'm obviously not a budgeting expert, one could almost certainly have cut costs further, but I wanted to make the point that sometimes people will still be in need of assistance. Also, in cases where people are already rather frugal, the end result budget might actually be higher than the former one, due to food increasing in cost. This is all the help the "Economic Advice" will do us. S2: Getting the extra cash For the example budget I gave above, I make $800 a month and should be spending $850. Once I moved into my new apartment, that is. At that point, the Government would give me $50 in a kind of food stamps. The current food stamps system would probably suffice. This would allow me to have a balanced budget, have an adequate roof over my head, and get a good diet. In the rare cases when these [modified?] food stamps aren't enough to make a balanced budget, the government would use cash. There is a limitation on how long these systems can be used by an individual. The food stamps system would have a limitation of 7-10 years reliance. The government would only give cash to a family past the food stamps for a maximum of 2-3 years. The budget system could be used as long as someone wants to use it. Families that no longer qualify to receive the food stamps would not be given as high quality of diets on the budget, unless they can actually afford it. Further, people will only qualify for these systems if they are working or are verifiably looking for work. S3: Diet Advice People in the program would receive either emails or real mails with healthy eating advice - what foods to buy, healthy recipes, etc. This would ensure that people would be able to eat healthy with little to no knowledge of culinary arts. ::HOW IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL:: H1: How it would reduce crime By making the lives of the poor easier, they have less incentive to commit crime. Families will not be struggling to put food on the table, so they will have much less incentive to commit crime than they would with no welfare system. H2: How it would increase productivity It is a well-known fact that healthy workers are more productive than unhealthy workers. This is why many companies pay their workers efficiency wages. Here are two reasons this plan raises productivity: Avoiding Shirking: The cost of losing your job is bigger [since the jobless are not given the same benefits], so people work hard to make sure they don't lose their job. Sociological and Nutritional theories: People will have higher morale than if they did not receive welfare, and will be better workers. They will also be healthier, due to a better diet, and will be less likely to get sick or be too ill-bodied to work well. These are two of the benefits of efficiency wages, which many companies have. The problem with efficiency wages are that they create unemployment by limiting the number of people a company can hire. This is not an issue with my plan, since companies still pay the same wages [since the benefits are given by the government, not the company]. Overall productivity rises as a result. H3: How it would reduce resentment The poor would not have such a large gap between themselves and the middle class. The size of this gap is largely the size of the resentment. Too much difference in the placement of wealth causes people to become more and more unhappy. At the extremes, it can even cause mass uprisings by the poor against the middle and upper classes. My plan reduces the wealth gap, so it reduces resentment. However, the poor are still forced to live uncomfortable lives, due to strict personal budget cuts that would occur. Thus, the middle and upper classes do not have much reason to feel resentment. The resentment itself is a problem my plan fixes/lessens, as is the possibility of revolt. And that'll be all for this round. Thanks again to my opponent for accepting this challenge. I hope it's a good debate for both of us.