Welfare

I’d like to thank my opponent and state, with the hopes of not sounding condescendingly paternalistic, that this was very well done, no doubt suggesting a great deal of effort went into your research and arguments. That being said, I look forward to this debate and hope voters take the time to read the arguments presented. I will begin with an opening statement: Welfare, when applied appropriately, contributes to the over-all well-being of society. I must point out that this does seem to contradict your resolution of welfare being detrimental to the United States. Welfare in the United States has become a deeply divisive point in which the Republican Party has adamantly challenged as an affront to the American individualist identity. In doing so, have brandished the 4 million Americans currently on welfare as “takers” “dependents” and “moochers”. Understandably, it is quite easy to conceive why tax paying citizens would have an issue with the government seizing any portion of their income for any reason whatsoever. Consequently, this is the reason why this particular message has been so effective in its vitriolic intent. However, the true nature of this issue is far more complex than partisan chicanery and could potentially have disastrous consequences if abandoned. WELFARE AS A RESPONSE It should come as no surprise, to anyone, at this point that that United States is in the midst of a recession; one unlike any other in American history. In 2008 there was roughly $40 billion being spent on unemployment insurance and from there a quite noticeable spike in government social benefits occurs. (1) Unemployment insurance rose to approximately $160 billion in 2010, the reason for this was the 2008 credit crisis. (1) I will return to this subject to discuss the repercussions of not implementing an income replacement service. THE SOCIOECONOMIC PREMISE OF WELFARE The notion has greater significance than the obvious rhetoric of ensuring the most vulnerable citizens in society don’t wallow in poverty, essentially markets need consumers. To briefly explain the cyclical phenomena, corporations need to make money and this is accomplished by consumers purchasing their products or services. Consumers can only purchase these items if they have some level of disposable capital/income; by ensuring that individuals in the middle and lower class have a “safety-net” to aid them, they can continue to consume and the market can continue to operate. This is the principle of capitalism and the modern day society, which of course would allow these individuals the freedom to spend their money any way they please. MISLEADING TACTICS Peter Lindert published an article in The Nation in April of 2012 highlighting some of the deceitful and deceptive manners in which politicians and media personalities present their “evidence” against welfare state economics. Stating that the general misconception is that governments recklessly spend money on welfare programs during periods of economic uncertainty, this is of course false. (2) During recessionary periods unemployment will invariably rise, resulting in higher costs for social welfare programs. As I stated earlier these social “safety-net” programs increase overall spending; which reduces economic exposure. (2) CONSEQUENCES OF ABANDONING WELFARE With this recent global recession we have been given a unique glimpse into the economic strategies of other nations; notably Ireland and Greece. Surely, their struggles are common knowledge; however, few realize how very similar Ireland and the US crisis truly are. Both stem from a burst mortgage bubble and highly leveraged credit, their differences are in their Net Income Replacement in the Initial Period after Job Loss. The United States’ Net benefit / Net earnings in employment (%) was 60%, compared to Ireland at 49% and ranking the lowest was Greece at 41%. (1) This effect on their GDP can be quite easily observed: the annual growth for the United States in 2011 was 1.7%, for Ireland 0.7% and Greece suffered a loss of 7.1%. (3) It cannot be disregarded that the nations that achieved the highest annual growth in GDP were the same nations who contributed to social welfare programs. Thus indicating that not only is welfare not a detriment to US society but an economic benefit, one in which their economic woes would only increase without. There were several points that my opponent made in which I feel I should point out: $1 Trillion comes from tax payers and goes to those who apply to welfare through the government. I’m not entirely sure where this figure came from but it is highly inaccurate; the Final Monthly Treasury Statement from the US Government, states that the prior fiscal year to date contribution towards the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or more commonly referred to as welfare, was approximately $17 billion.(4) This figure is nowhere near $1 trillion. […] not because the theory behind it is astray, but because of how it is put through the system. $.09 of tax dollars go to welfare […] This figure was taken from a blog, in which the author admits to making an error in calculation: “I made a slight math error (subtracting 3 cents instead of adding it) in the original calculation. For consistancy, in case you are a returning reader, I left the original numbers intact [sic]”. (5) This of course renders Con’s argument to be without adequate evidence. I remind you that when I mean nothing, I am referring to those who are capable of working, or have landed themselves in these situations by dumb decisions. This statement is entirely speculatory; neither I nor Con have any understanding of the circumstances in which 4 million Americans have required the aid of TANF. Certainly not to the point of being able to refer to these circumstances as “dumb decisions”; according to Con, a “dumb” decision would be a woman having pre-marital sex while living in an area where birth control and abortion are not readily available. This situation is further aggravated by the great likelihood that had she sought out an abortion, she could have been ostracized by her community; given the current climate on abortion in the United States. As for welfare fraud, quite simply there is nothing that Con has presented that suggests that this is a serious issue. 4.3% of Americans are on welfare (according to Con’s sources); if welfare fraud does exist it is quite likely that only a fraction of a percentile are guilty of this fraud. Thus a much less significant issue than the fraud committed during the 2008 credit crisis. Sources: (1): http://www.businessinsider.com... (2): PETER H. LINDERT: SLANDERING THE WELFARE STATE, The Nation. April 9, 2012. (3):http://data.worldbank.org... (4): http://www.fms.treas.gov... (5): http://myesoteric.hubpages.com...