Welfare Should be Abolished

Thanks for a speedy response. Costs_____________________ You have highlighed in round 2 the high cost of welfare, giving an (estimated) figure of $400 billion per annum, to reduce poverty by only a small percentage. You do indeed highlight an issue, but I believe you are looking at it from the wrong aspect. I ask you to consider that 1 in 7 people in the USA live below the poverty line. [http://www.nonukes.org...] This is something that has to be addressed. As I previously gave example of, welfare in many states goes as far as to halve the poverty level. Simply because currently it is not acheiving such results in the USA does not mean to go to such extremes as to abandon it entirely to the private sphere. It is by nature something that the government must be accountable for. It may currently cost a great deal, but if you take into considerations the amounts spent on weapons, (the amount spent on nuclear itself reaches $40 billion per annum). When you think of it in this respect, it is little price to pay to improve the lives of 2.1% of the population. 2.1% of the American population is approximately 644,713 people. I'm sure you will agree that is not a completely insignficant number of people. Indeed, American welfare is underperforming compared to in other states. But to excuse abolishing it entirely, you must provide futther proof that without it/or by putting it into the private sphere you will go further to 1) provide accountability 2) decrease the poverty level 3) promote social mobility 'Welfare in the US and abroad is nothing but Socialism' This is an argument I find particularly frustrating. As a politics student I watched with interest and alarm as the healthcare reforms proposed in the US (though not to get into a seperate debate) were hounded by critics as being 'socialist'. You used the example of 'is it societies fault that someone fails to complete high school'. Well, in some cases - yes. If you have the luck to be born into affluence, are afforded a good education and have plethora of opportunities then all is well and good. However social mobility does not exist for everyone. There is a divide. There is discrimination. And there is not eqal opportunity for all. The age old 'American dream' is far more acheivable for some than others - even if both work hard. It is - in my opinion - the states obligation to provide equal opportunity at only a most basic level. And that level comes in part through welfare. This is not downright socialism as you might have it. This is merely facilitating capitalism. 'As a "free" society we should not be taxed to death in order to provide for the less fortunate.' This is indeed a seflishness which appears rampant. Your definition of "free" may somehow differ from my definition. In a perfect world everyone would have the opportunity to simply work hard and acheive success. Its a lovely idea, but not creditable - especially in a world where we both must accept that 1/7 Americans live below the poverty line. We both agree on the capitalist model it seems, but with one major difference. I believe that the capitalist model can only be implemented above the poverty line, and when ease of social mobility has been acheived. I question whether a government who would be so gung-ho as to take away all responsibility for social welfare could really consider themselves to be part of a civilised society. Capitalism is an inherently selfish system, and it is necessary to regulate it - even if some may take advantage. My final question you to you (though if you do not have space in your closing statement then don't worry) is: Who becomes accountable for poverty levels in a society where social welfare is not the responsibility of the government?