I Should Stop Working and Go on Welfare

Thank you for your argument Con. Following is my rebuttal:Con's 1st Argument"It is no secret that if someone intends to become a success -- as success is conventionally understood -- they need to 'work hard'"I completely agree. Success requires time, effort, resources, all the things that when put together, make up work as we know it. I wish though, that you had provided a more concrete definition of "success." This is where I believe your argument begins to be flawed. You describe success as something that is "conventionally understood." But there is no blanket standard for what defines success, is there Con? No, success varies from person to person, and the only way to measure success is to examine whether one's objectives are fulfilled or not. As failure is the opposite of success, the lack of fulfilled objectives is the opposite of fulfilled ones.However, objectives are not always one-time finish lines either, they can be ongoing processes. If my objective is to have a family and spend time with them while making sure that have plenty to live well on, then it is something I am constantly involved with, so long as I have the family."The only way one can earn enough money to secure a mortgage and raise a family within a comfortable environment, is if they work. Pro has outlined a desire to get married, raise children, etc. but these things require a continual income -- one that has to be greater than the income that welfare would provide."This is not accurate. First off, securing a mortgage is not necessary to raising a family or to doing well financially, making that an irrelevant point. Secondly, it is not only possible to provide for a family very well on public assistance, but several have done it. The reason for this is that the more dependents you have, the greater amount of welfare benefits you qualify for. This can range from food stamps, housing assistance, earned income tax credit, and all sorts of other things! You can get social security early if you can show that you are disabled (inconsistent work habits can qualify, in certain situations), as well as health insurance paid for by the state, etc. Welfare can pay a decent sum of money, plenty for one person or an entire family, as many of the benefits are proportional."Pro states that prior to discontinuing working, he would 'save' some funds for a few years"Actually, what I said is I would save money to live on during the application period, in between working and qualifying for welfare. As for earning a side income, you can earn a income on the side that, as long as it is not too large, will not affect benefits. Again, what this amount is is proportional to how many dependents you have, and varies per program, but for a single man on disability, it is $850/month. It is very worthwhile to earn this extra money, assuming you can do so in a way that won't defeat the purpose of having extra time to spend with your family.Source: https://www.disabilitysecrets.com...Your example is correct, only if the earned income goes above the limit. And you don't lose all your benefits immediately if you earn too much, it is a gradual loss of benefits, and varies per program. This is an added benefit when trying to earn passive income. As your income stream grows, you can afford to let go of benefits, and ultimately get off welfare.Again, your question assumes that success cannot be had without a high income, which is assuming success is defined as having a high income. In my (Pro's) case, success is defined as having a comfortable income that can provide the needs of myself and family while freeing up our time. If welfare can do that, then success is obtained. And I would like to remind Con, welfare can take sacrifice and patience. Patience to wait on qualifying for benefits. The sacrifice of living differently than the "average Joe", and feeling like the odd one out as a result. But these sacrifices are a small price to pay for time that can be used to improve one's own position, and the position of your loved ones.Con goes on to make a suggestion that I would be better off spending time and money investing in a business. Having had some experience in owning a business, and coming from a family that has owned and ran their own business as a primary source of income, I would like to point out that this is a potentially dangerous solution. Businesses can take years to get established, and provide an income, and often requires large amounts of capital to begin. While this is fine if you have a support system in place, it is rarely a responsible move if you have a wife and kids to support. Added to this that a business's growth potential is throttled if you are constantly having to use profits to live off of, instead of reinvesting it, and the problems will only keep piling up.A far more prudent option would be to start a business while on welfare, and switch over to that for a primary means of income once it becomes profitable. However, even then, unless it is to the point where it can run itself for the most part without your constant oversight, this is again a huge liability on one's time. And if the business is at the point where it can run itself, than it would be passive income, which is my whole plan to start with!Con's 2nd Argument"I realize that Pro would utilize his time whilst receiving welfare and that he would not necessarily fit the definition of "idle", but what God wishes people to do should resonate with Pro with respect to this issue."That is correct. As a Christian, what God would have me do is of utmost importance. Con is also correct in pointing out that I would not be idle while on welfare. I would be spending time looking after my health, the health of my family, and doing personal projects, including building a passive income to climb out of welfare with.Con quotes 1 Timothy 5:8. However, if you look at the context of the passage where the verse is taken from, you can see that it referring to family members being responsible for one another's needs, in context of a widow's offspring providing for their mother and grandmother, who is not able to care for herself. This is not referring to working a job to provide for your family versus receiving assistance from social programs. Indeed, it is not even related. Understanding the context of the Bible is of utmost importance in its application.In the context of the quote from 2 Thessalonians 3:10, the context of this passage is referring to a command towards members of a community that were idle, disruptive and "busybodies". This is, again, used in a different context. Paul even says that when he was there, and didn't accept food without paying for it, that "We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate." (2 Thessalonians 3:9) Also take note of the sentence "settle down and earn the food they eat." This implies the issue is not that that they are not earning their food, but are being troublesome and a nuisance, thus the command to "settle down." One could ponder that they may have been commanded this because they needed something productive to do to fill their time so they wouldn't cause trouble, but that is open to speculation. In any event, this appears to be a far different context than what we are discussing here in this debate.Con's 3rd ArgumentCon references a few sources showing the benefits of being active and staying busy--in the context of working (professionally speaking). However, I do not believe I need to refute these sources, because Con followed them up with a very nice interpretation and application.Con is correct in his assertion that I would not only remain active while on welfare, but would also find identity in being a father and a husband. However, the assertion that by not providing for my family financially, I could have a low sense of self-esteem and "sense of self" is not accurate, for reasons I will point out. First of all, I would argue I am providing financially for my family. I am receiving benefits, yes, but benefits paid for in part with money I paid into the system over the course of several years. This is comparable to a senior providing for her grandchild while receiving Social Security retirement benefits. Secondly, providing for one's family goes far beyond financial provision. I am tasked with providing love, protection, discipline, spiritual guidance, and many more things. I have much to find identity in. I am a lover, a guard, a teacher, a manager, an assistant, a cook, a janitor, a babysitter, but most of all, a father and a husband. I am a creator, a learner, an innovator, a writer, so many things. Things which I could not be, or not be as well, if my time was taken up elsewhere, as I slaved away for income.As for squandered potential, my potential would be far from squandered. One can always take part in the mechanics of business, and creating a product one is satisfied with, without profit or obligation being one's main motive. And with having a creative side and a yearning to meaningfully contribute to the world, this would be a natural action, not a forced one.As for investing in my children's futures, I would like to point out first off that university is neither necessary for all people, nor the best option in some cases. However, should all my children desire to attend a university, there are plenty of programs to help pay for it, some of which are open to all citizens, not just welfare recipients. Even now, I am paying for my own college in this manner, using an educational grant.As for children following in their parents footsteps, in actuality, children are three times as likely to have a career unrelated to their parents, research shows.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...ConclusionI believe I have properly refuted Con's points. I look forward to Con's rebuttals of my arguments.