The United States Government distributes welfare in an unfair matter.

I can see a point to be made here, and please understand that I am not accusing you of being a racist or bigot, however I do believe the foundation of your argument veered more towards a divisive culture than it does an answer the the original question. I found issue with that, your statement seemed to bring up the idea that welfare was mistreating some vs others for votes, and that people who receive government assistance are inclined to sit and not do anything. Your most recent post brought up Davy Crockett who I respect very much, however the economic, social, and average quality of life is much different from than to now. A fact that people often tend to forget when quoting people dead for hundreds of years. My argument is that they distribute in an unfair manner, but that is ok and in fact the attempt at "fairness" is so subjective that it can only make the system even more unfair. So, unfairness is not the issue, you are chasing a red herring. Sir, we live in a country of 300 plus million people, we have a bureaucracy that is muddled, that is convoluted, we spend as a country hundreds of millions on workers to help figure out where to send money to people in need, the personnel infrastructure needed to keep things "fair" has become a huge issue to the unfairness of it. So, my argument. Stop talking about fairness, this debate rages over and over, yet the end result of an argument over unfairness at best is for someone to agree, and at worse the argument continues, however, either way it ends with words and a victory only of belief. I propose (though against Crockett) is a redistribution of purpose, and a welfare of jobs and money. This was done during the New Deal under FDR, and while people make disagree and in the benefits of it bringing the country out of the great depression, it did help to provide people with work and the country with a lot of infrastructure. So my argument would be still a con towards you, but in a sense that your position isn't just wrong but the debate about hurts the very discussion we are trying to have. Ideas such as a New Deal, or ways to bring jobs/money/business to impoverished areas are hampered by this ideological debate stemming from century old socio-economic and racial tension that will not be solved by conflict but rather by increase in education, decrease in poverty, and a understanding of action vs just words. So to clarify my position, yes I am against your initial argument, not in an attack on just the argument, but also an attack on what that argument brings to the table, the benefits of winning such a debate in any situation are far worse than the lack of this argument and rather on the debate of how do we distribute more, or how do we give more jobs, how do we increase total welfare, redefine how to give welfare ex... The welfare doesn't have to be just money, and to invoke the idea of social contract that humans "should" is a hard endeavor especially when most people at this point in time simply cannot give or organize as much as the government with it huge infrastructure and ability (concluded as it might be). As well as asking this of the average citizen when the economy is so weak, yet we have a few people that could afford to fix it all.