Welfare and entitlements have gone too far.

I will therefore, only recap. I will begin by listing the areas in which PRO and I agree: We agree that many assistance programs are very necessary. We agree that policies that promote the welfare of children are worthwhile. This includes SNAP, discounted school lunches, infant nutrition and healthcare, and relevant tax credits. We agree that the need for these programs is critical, and that millions of working Americans rely on them. We agree that welfare reform efforts can improve the system, such as the ones that were initated under Clinton, and which largely remain in effect. For example, most state governments require that recipients of jobless benefits actively look for a job, and maintain written proof of their job search. [1] Many of these sates also require that recipients be able to start work immediately, and not turn down any job offers in order to maintain benefits. The remaining assertions that remain unresolved at the end of this debateAlthough the number of concessions collected thus far are impressive, there are a few minor differences. PRO asserts that 10% of all recipients are “abusing the system,” but gives no details. Which 10%? Are these abusers Social Security recipients? Injured soldiers in the VA? How did we reach the 10% figure? PRO asserts that many recipients are using assistance money to buy drugs. In fact, states that have drug tested recipients have found fewer than 3% that have failed a mandated drug test. States that have begun forcing the poor and jobless to submit to these medical exams in order to maintain assistance were unable to find significant numbers of failed drug tests. [2] PRO argues that that welfare has become unaffordable, and an unsustainable burden to states. However, welfare makes up a small portion of state budgets. Many welfare programs return more money to state economies than they cost. Importantly, unemployment benefits in particular generate $1.10 in revenue and increased commerce for every dollar that they spend. [3] Recapping our arguments PRO: Welfare programs are unaffordable, and are often abused. Therefore, welfare and entitlements programs have gone too far. CON: The term “welfare” is misleading, and necessarily includes many programs that are critical to the economic health of the nation. These programs are, by definition, justified. Justification for CON:It is non-sequitur to assert that the programs in question themselves have "gone too far," because they might have been abused, or are expensive. A bit like saying that an organge is orange in color, and therefore tastes bad. If these abuses are occuring it is the benefit recipients that have gone too far - not the programs. Even if we remove any group of welfare programs that have debatable benefit to the country, it still remains that the generic term “welfare” is misleading, and necessarily overbroad. The broad, umbrella nature of the term requires us to include programs such as the United States Marine Corp as an “Entitlement program” that serves the nation alongside Social Security. This is obviously a distortion of what we intend to discuss. Therefore, we cannot summarily dismiss all of the economic and social support programs as “welfare that only helps the poor. ” Most welfare programs do not benefit the poor, or the unemployed, as I demonstrated. Most programs benefit workers, the disabled, and retirees. Moreover, PRO never demonstrated that any widespread abuse is occurring, a necessary requirement for his argument. The unsupported assertions cannot be properly evaluated. Conclusion: PRO concedes that many, if not all, public assistance programs are needed. Although reforms can be useful, and can add to the effectiveness of “welfare” programs, each of the proposed reforms that PRO lists have already been implemented. Stating that assistance programs can evolve, improve and expand is not tantamount to suggesting that they have “gone too far. ” These improvements require us to agree that they have not “gone far enough. ” PRO also agrees that the need for these programs is critical, citing the millions of American workers who rely on them. [1] . http://jobsearch.about.com... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://thehill.com...