A Modest Proposal for Lowering the Costs of Welfare

Rules:This debate is meant to be more humorous than anything else. The debate is set to two rounds, there is a 5,000 character limit, and each debater has 73 hours (3 days) to respond. Please avoid semantics. Your challenge as Con, should you chose to accept it, is negate the resolution.Resolution:Requiring that parents on welfare eat their children would serve as an effective way to lower the costs of the program in the United States, and would help those welfare recipients become more economically self-sufficient.Opening Arguments:Currently in the United States of America 4.1% of the population is on welfare, and this costs the United States $131.9 billion annually [1][2]. Like all freedom-lovin' Americans, this deeply troubles me. However, I have a modest proposal that I believe would help to bring both of these numbers down; a plan that would make some of the welfare recipients more economically self-sufficient, and that would lower the costs of the program. The United States should require welfare recipients to eat their children; requiring that parents on welfare eat their children would serve as an effective way to lower the costs of the program, and would help those welfare recipients become more economically self-sufficient. Consider the following:-90% of welfare parents are single mothers. [3]-59% of welfare recipients have more than 1 child. [3]-The majority of welfare recipients have recent work experience. [3]These statistics underline exactly why my proposal would be so effective at lowering costs and increasing self sufficiency; there are huge economic draw backs that come with having children which force parents to stay on welfare for an artificially longer period of time.Let's be brutally honest here; being a parent is a thankless 24 hour job. You have to be there to send them off to school, you have to pay for their food and recreation, and you have to go to those dreadfully boring and time consuming parent teacher conferences. Yes, it would appear that the only major benefit to having children is that you can indoctrinate them and turn them into a miniaturized version of yourself. The real cost of all this parenting is that you cannot devout this time to working, and thus lucrative and remunerative careers, such as an Alaskan crab fisher, are off limits because of the long hours and high risk of death or injury. Requiring that welfare recipients eat their children would be an excellent way to help out welfare recipients, as more of them would be able to take that minimum wage factory job where they would be working 15 hour shifts in sweltering conditions. In addition to this, I have heard from my acquaintance that not only is a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled, but that cannibalism can be both a spiritually and sexually gratifying experience.[4]Thanks for reading, Pro out.Sources:[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com...[2] $131.9 billion does not take into account food stamps or unemployment. http://www.statisticbrain.com...[3] http://www.utexas.edu...[4] http://tinyurl.com...