Welfare

Thank you Debateme. First, I shall state my rebuttals, and then my main point, as I did not have a chance to do so in the first round. Rebuttal to contention 1: Welfare does not hurt the poor. People pay taxes, and when they are in need we support them with welfare, giving them money to spend in our economic system, therefore it is like a direct cash flow for the businesses, and at the same time keeps the poor alive and well. When businesses succeed, jobs open up. But some rich greedy businesses refuse to hire, therefore slowing the economy. The 2011 budget totaled to 3.8 trillion [1], 13% of that is 500 billion. There are currently 46 million Americans below the poverty line [2]. The average amount that a jobless American in poverty receives is $10,000. The average citizen spends 80% of the money they do not pay taxes with in the free market. That means that each person would spend $8,000 in the free market, multiply that by 46 million, and that is 368 billion dollars. That's 3 percent of the GDP. Welfare relocates money to the hands of the people. Also, even if a person makes 20,000 a year for a family, they would lose 1/3 of their value if welfare was taken away. How would you feel if you lost 1/3 of your income? What would you do? The poor would begin to steal. Let's say only 15 million (1/3) of the Americans in poverty resort to crime (dealing drugs, smuggling, theft). Because after all, they need money to survive. In 2010, 10 million crimes were documented [3]. If 15 million, or even minimally, 5 million, people were added to this crime rate, it would be disastrous. There are approximately 800,000 police officers in the US. That means that each officer arrested 12.5 people in 2010. One officer, 12 crimes. That's a lot. Rebuttal to contention 2: This is an invalid source as it is a blog, but I will take it on anyway. This is Texas, the state governed by Rick Perry. All he cares about is gays in the military and children praying in school (states this in his ad titled "strong"). I clicked on the author's name, and interestingly enough, this woman wrote an article in SUPPORT of Rick Perry. Hypocrite? Attacking him, or supporting him? Also, Welfare has a strong applicant policy, that could be made even stronger, instead of getting rid of welfare. Rebuttal to contention 3: Many people actually cannot work, or are not being hired, because no business is hiring now. People simply cannot get jobs, and start to slip into poverty. These are good hard working people, that apply for jobs, but get refused or laid off. Google had a record of 75,000 job applicants for 6000 job openings [4]. Only some of these people are actually lazy. You should check out this website: http://progressivetoo.com... SUMMARY: - Welfare keeps the poor alive and well while contributing 3 percent to the GDP. (via the market) -This allows business to hire. -If people are barely making 20,000, $10,000 in welfare means a lot to them. If they don't get the money they need to live, they will commit crime. - There are 10 million crimes committed a year, and 800,000 police officers (12.5 crimes per officer) - If more crimes are added, while spending is cut to police departments, then officers would have 15+ crimes to deal with each. - Contention 2 uses an invalid source (blog) - The article is written by a hypocrite. - Welfare has a strict applicant policy. - Instead of getting rid of welfare completely, why not make an even more strict applicant policy? - People worked hard, paid taxes and deserve to get support when the slip into poverty in the non-hiring economy (most of these people). Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.pbs.org... [3] http://www.disastercenter.com... [4] http://www.welfareinfo.org... I look forward to your criticism debateme.