ANY government handout is freeloading.

The reason I have a particular interest in this subject is that I do a lot of work to help people who have been left homeless and starving as a result of being wrongly denied the support to which they have been entitled. This includes people with serious diseases such as terminal cancer, children and the elderly. In this debate, the burden of proof is on Pro to prove that anyone receiving any kind of Government assistance is a "freeloader". As Pro has failed to define what he means by "freeloader" and our views may be different, I will provide some definitions here which hopefully all Voters can agree sum up "freeloader": Definition 1: " A person who takes advantage of others' generosity without giving anything in return." - From the Oxford English Dictionary [1] Definition 2: "slang, a person who habitually depends on the charity of others for food, shelter, etc" - From WordReference.com [2] We can see then that overall, credible sources seem to agree that to be a Freeloader, is to be someone who takes advantage of others, living of their resources without paying anything back, or having the intention of doing so. To move onto my case, I would like to point out the flaws with Pro's case for stating that ANY government handout is freeloading... I would like to start by addressing the points made by Pro, and putting my case for why these points are incorrect. 1) "Taking another man's earned income by Government force..." Any type of social security / welfare / benefits are NOT another person's earned income. The great majority of people who find themselves in the unfortunate circumstances of having to claim Government assistance have themselves paid taxes for a number of years. As such, they are entitled to help when they need it. The tax paid by that individual while they were working is supposed to act as a kind of 'insurance', so that if that person is ever out of work, they can get assistance until they find another job.The amount claimed by the person whilst unemployed is also usually only a tiny fraction of what the person has previously paid in tax. As such, this in no way can be described as "freeloading", as defined above. It is also worth noting that if all forms of Goverment assistance were ended, taxpayers would not as a result pay any less tax. The tax collected would simply be spent elsewhere by the Goverment. 2) "Government is not for meeting peoples needs.Government is to enforce contract law and to protect a persons right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". In order for the Government to protect the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is necessary to ensure that people have a civilised society in which to live. The provision of a safety net upon which people can rely during unfortunate times of unemployment is essential to ensuring that Western societies do not become like third world countries. This allows the maximum potential for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all citizens. 3)"... those who make choices that produce poverty, there are charities for that." I find it disturbing that Pro seems to believe that everyone who is impoverished has ended up in those circumstances due to their own 'bad choices'. This shows great ignorance on Pro's part, and I can only assume that Pro has lived a very privileged life. Most people however are working class, and rely solely on the ability to work in order to provide for even the most basic needs. Most people do not have any access to financial help from friends or family. Most people also do not have any control personally over macro factors such as the national or international economy, which at any time can lead to the closure of many workplaces and a very small number of available jobs. In addition to this, currently there are many graduates and others who have certainly made all of the "right choices" in their lives up until now, who are having to survive on unemployment benefits, through no fault of their own. Again, this is more an issue of politics over which normal people have no control, rather than anyone making "bad choices". If being impoverished or rich was merely a matter of making the correct choices in life, then everyone would be a millionaire by now. It is also worth mentioning in regards to disability (as Pro asserts that ANY Government handout is freeloading so this would include the welfare payments to people who are unable to work), that disability and serious illness is certainly NOT a choice or 'bad decision'. Many people are either born disabled or later develop an illness or disability after already having worked for many years or even decades. In a lot of cases, the illness or disability have been acquired as a result of the type of work previously undertaken by the claimant. To assert that people who are very ill, in some cases terminally, are "freeloading" is I hope everyone will agree, quite disgusting. Pro goes on to assert that certain people will vote for a particular political candidate based solely on how many "freebies" and "handouts" they can get. This does not need to be debunked as it is clearly just a ridiculous generalisation. Pro also asserts that there are charities to help people who are impoverished. To the best of my knowledge there are not charities enough to pay all of someone's living costs such as rent, bills, food as well as pay this for EVERY unemployed person in any given country. To assert that this is a realistic option is simply nonsense. Having addressed Pro's points, I would now like to move on to a few of my own, which I believe should be considered by Voters on this debate. 1) More welfare recipients than ever are actually WORKING PEOPLE. Due to economic factors which have caused the cost of living to be higher than ever, more working families than ever have been forced to claim some kind of Government assistance. These people can certainly not be described as Freeloaders. 2) Disabled and terminally ill people deserve the right to live, and the pursuit of happiness just like everyone else. If Pro asserts otherwise then that has worrying connotations of the Nazi variety. In order for disabled people to have these rights, there must be a way of providing an income and ensuring that their basic living costs are met. If a person is disabled to the extent that they cannot work, then why shouldn't they receive Govt assistance? To deny them this would be to infringe on their basic rights. As most disabled people (especially those who became ill or disabled at a later stage) would like to work, and wish they could work and indeed often do some work when they are able to, this is one group of people who certainly can not be described as Freeloaders. 3) Getting rid of 'handouts' would lead to more freeloading as well as more crime. The safety net exists in order that the basic living costs of people may be met whilst they search for a new job. Without this safety net people would be forced to turn to friends relatives or crime in order to have basic necessities for survival such as food or shelter. Clearly this would lead to people being unemployed for a longer time, as they would have to concentrate on survival rather than looking for jobs. The safety net therefore, is of benefit to everyone i society, not simply the unemployed. I could add more, however I do not have a lot of spare time right now. As I previously said, the burden of proof is on my opponant to prove his case that ALL Goverment 'handouts' can be described as 'freeloading' by the people who claim them. So far I do not believe that my opponent has managed to do this, and I have addressed above some of the reason why the points he has made are not only inaccurate but frankly ignorant of reality. I look forward to my opponents reply. Sources: [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.wordreference.com...