Welfare

Thank you for debating this topic with me. I will start with some opening arguments, then I will address my opponent's arguments.The constitution is a living document, to be interpreted by the judicial system. It gave the federal government duties for the welfare of the nation. This welfare meant well being. Historically the constitution was reinterpreted during the New Deal era to allow for social welfare programs. For the well being of a country, the government has a duty to make every citizen have the opportunity to contribute to the nation's success. If the citizen is not contributing then they are a hindrance.Welfare is for the impoverished. There are abuses of this system, as will pointed out in latter rounds. buta call for reform is not a call to abolish social welfare programs. The impoverished are those that do not have the means to afford basic living expenses. This can be extended to those that are living pay-check to pay-check and without welfare, would be unable to sustain living expenses. This accounts for one third of the nation.I will argue this round that the lives that are impoverished, left unaided, are a greater hazard to the nation.What factors make helping the poor beneficial to the entire nation?1. Poverty decreases ability of nation to respond to market drops.Welfare's history begins around the time of the depression.[1] In a global market (different than the kind our fore fathers had), when people were let off from work with no disposable income, the rest of the local market would quickly follow. In many cases this market could have been kept alive long enough to make it through crisis. Money is no good to the nation if it sits unused. It is the transfer of money for goods that drives an economy. Even in short recessions as of 2010, the US has suffered more then higher welfare spending peer nations.[2] Becuase a third of the nation already struggling was unable to subsist till better times.2. Poverty is a hindrance to economic growthEconomic growth has been shown to trickle down from top to bottom so that even the lowest fifth of society advances. However this has shown to be a poor measure. In that if everyone gains 1% growth there is really no advancement. The reverse however is that poverty is a road block to economic success that holds every one back.[3] If the poor are givent he means to better education, health, and reform they will be able to contribute to society and eventually aquire work and create a cycle of economic growth.[4] This is a clear situation in which investing in the American people, will return the investment in increased economic growth.[5] When the economic inequality between a countries population was reduced by just 10% the length of time for the economic gain was an increase of 50%![6] Due to a global economy and trade many countries may share in a good spell of wealth but those with lowered poverty were able to ride these good spells out for 50% longer.[1]http://www.ssa.gov...[2]http://www.epi.org...[3]http://ejournal.narotama.ac.id...[4]http://www.irp.wisc.edu...[5]http://www.ukcpr.org...[6]http://www.imf.org...3. Poverty is an Increase in Crime and DiseaseAn increase in crime means an increase in spending for prisons and law enforcement. Crime can strike anyone and cause irreplaceable damage or loss of life. The impoverished are a disease vector. Contagions do not stop spreading because someone makes 20 dollars an hour. It effects everyone. Given that the poverty line can be between 1 fifth and 1 third. We can safely say that coming into contact with 10 strangers is enough to rise cross contamination.No one refutes since 1968 Crime increases with a direct correlation to the increase of impoverished people.[7][8] Communicable diseases that we have medical treatments for stay prevalent in the poor ready to spread. Some of these diseases are chronic, costing quality of life and medical expenses.[9] Those above the poverty line are not immune to these diseases. Leishmaniasis becomes a threat to women and children, costing more harm to society than necessary.[10][7]http://mtbi.asu.edu...[8]http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com...[9]http://www.who.int...[10]http://www.cell.com...4. Child SupportMy opponent states that welfare has lead to increasing divorce rates. Where is the evidence for this? Most people cite "irreconcilable differences" and "adultery" as reasons for their divorce. Divorce is a terrible event that has a negative social and economic impact in most cases. This is not to say that divorces are unfounded. Just that their impact should be examined and properly attended to. One of the welfare plans, Child Support, was created with the goal of saving federal money, from the increase of single parent homes. "Congress began the child support program to reimburse benefits paid by the government’s welfare programs"[11] Custodial parents were being left to care for children with out aid from the other parent. So the Child Support program gives these struggling parents a way to legally and in controlled manner get support from the other responsible party. There by saving the government money it would normally be paying to aid in the support of these children.[11]http://www.acf.hhs.gov...5. Welfare aids economic growth.My opponent is under the impression that Welfare is a kind of free lunch kind. Let us investigate Free Lunch programs and Women, Infant, and Child (WIC).The sad thing here is that out of those eligible, only 54% participate. Like most welfare programs those that really are in need of them do not partake. These programs mean children can concentrate on schooling and therefore rise above their current situations. This of course, only adds to the nation's strength instead of being a weakness or detriment as outlined in previous points. "Increasing the use of SNAP, child nutrition and WIC programs not only directly addresses the hunger and food hardship facing many people living in rural America, but just as importantly provides good jobs in their communities and helps strengthen the educational outcomes so critical to long-term economic opportunity"[12] These programs have been measured to directly increase the economic strengths of rural America. [13] If these programs were not in effect many more problems would arise from unhealthy, ill educated adults. Such as the crime and disease cited earlier. [14][12]http://frac.org...[13]http://www.google.com...[14]http://futureofchildren.org...RebuttalsMy opponent has stated in the first round that I am open to advocate for welfare in the United States in any way he chooses. That Con is to be against any welfare. This is not a debate whether welfare should be reformed or not. It is if welfare should be implemented at all.Con's C1R2: Welfare Makes People Dependent on the Government.He cites states where welfare pays more than minimum wage. I think this is an argument for reform not that welfare should be abolished. Given time I can not address all states. At the top of the list is Hawaii. 26% of Hawaii is tourist and tip driven economy. When Tourist season is over with many people are let go, till it starts again. I suspect one reason the welfare is so high is because it is representative of people making tips in addition with minimum wage. The cost of living in Hawaii is higher because nearly everything is shipped in. So food, like milk and raw materials all cost more to aquire in Hawaii. All these factors at least make the case for Hawaii more understandable.C2R2: Welfare Discourages 2 Parent Households.Honestly. I see no chain of logic to support this. I assert that welfare plans like Child Support are in reaction to the declining 2 parent households. Not a cause.C3R2: It violates the Role of Government.Most of this was addressed before. The role of government for the well being of the nation includes: guarding against the health, economic, and crime arising from poverty. And to aid the next generation (children) into becoming contributing members. My opponent says, "All individuals should be treated equally in the eyes of the government, but in the case of implementing a welfare program it actually gives preferential treatment to the poor." But this is not the state of affairs. The rich and corporations collect more money from government than the impoverished.Millionaires collect unemployment checks because they elect not work. [15] They get grants to keep up their properties and more, all through welfare programs.[16] I consider this a call for reform, but it does establish the error in my opponents assertion.[15]http://thehill.com...[16]http://www.coburn.senate.gov...http://nypost.com...C4R2 It Helps Perpetuate a Failing Economic System.I have shown evidence to the contrary.