The US government should end welfare

Yes, maybe the title should be different. I would change it, but I don't believe that's possible, so it will have to stay how it is. Just so it's clear, we are talking about TANF, not all social welfare programs. C1: Pro contends that welfare is morally equivalent to robbery, and because people do not have a right to rob each other, they do not have a right to create welfare programs through their representatives. I disagree. There is a very big difference between welfare and robbery. One is consensual and the other is not. When someone robs another person, they are taking from that person without that persons consent. When a government taxes and provides welfare, it does so with the consent of its citizens. For this reason, Pro's first contention is false. Welfare and robbery are not morally equal. One is based on consent and the other is not. As I've explained, I don't agree that welfare and theft are morally equal, but even if they were, it is not a good reason to get rid of welfare. In my opinion, it's also unjust to let people go without food, clothing and shelter because they have less wealth than others. That, I believe, is much more unjust than taking a few dollars from someone who already has more than they need to survive. This is another reason why pro's first contention is false. Even if we believe that welfare is unjust, it does not follow that it should be ended. Ending it could be more unjust than continuing it. C2a: Pro contends that welfare is expensive, and that it contributes to the budget deficit. He claims that we need to get rid of it, because countries which have large deficits and debts end up like Greece. I disagree that welfare is the cause of our budget problems. Spending on welfare has actually been decreasing while the deficit has been getting larger. There were more than 12 million welfare recipients in 1996. By 2007, that number had declined to less than 4 million.[1] TANF was created in 1996 under the Clinton Administration.[2] If you look at a chart of the national debt, you'll see that it actually decreases in the first four years of TANF's existence, from 1996 to 2000. It was not until 2000, when George Bush came into power, that the deficit and debt began to grow again.[3] This happened because Bush and republicans repeatedly cut taxes without also cutting spending.[4] So, the problem is a lack of tax revenue. Not too much spending on welfare. C2b: Pro contends that welfare reduces the incentive to work, so he fears that it could create a permanent welfare class which lives off government support. This fear is unfounded for a number of different reasons. The first reason is that welfare payments are extremely small. The average payment is about $300 a month for one person.[5] That is far below minimum wage. A person with a full time minimum wage job earns about $1000 a month. No one would quit their job to receive welfare. Not even someone on minimum wage. The payments are just too small for people to want to do that. The second reason is that people are limited to 60 months of benefits in a lifetime.[1] After 60 months, they are kicked off welfare and it's illegal for them to receive any more. The third reason is that people have to be looking for work to be on welfare.[1] If they do not find work after two years, their benefits will be cut off. These are the reasons why welfare does not reduce the incentive to work, and the reasons why there is no danger of a permanent welfare class. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.acf.hhs.gov... 3. http://zfacts.com... 4. http://www.cato.org... 5. http://www.welfareinfo.org...