Welfare

Introduction I'm limiting my rebuttals to 5,000 characters for fairness and we'll move on to 10,000 characters. Starting with my opponent's turn. 1. Poverty decreases ability of nation to respond to market drops. In this section my opponent actually plays right into one of my contentions. Welfare is being used as a means to compensate for a failing economic system. Instead of trying to compensate for a failing economic system we should implement a superior economic system (what type of system is beyond the scope of this debate). Besides being a tool, used to prop up a failing economic system. It gets much worse. Putting a family on welfare actually makes them extremely dependent on it. It also encourages 1 parent households and discourages 2 parent families. As my argument showed. Kids that come from single parent homes (particularly single parent poor homes), are more likely to be poor, drop out of school, and commit violent crimes. It's nice that we're trying to help people out, but as the saying goes. "The road to hell, is paved with good intentions". Creating a welfare state actually does poor people and by extension society a great disservice. 2. Poverty is a hindrance to economic growth My opponent's argument here is nullified by the fact that, I've shown that welfare programs don't eliminate poverty. They in fact encourage poverty. They create conditions that are conducive to escalating poverty rates. Welfare hasn't been shown to affect the rate of poverty at all. http://www.cato.org... Throwing money at the problem is no way to solve it. This is the problem with government, they think money solves everything. Kids are doing poorly in school "throw money at it". We want a more powerful military "throw money at it". Instead of trying to fix poverty by "throwing money at it", let's look at the root causes of poverty and fix that. Root causes would include things like education level, economic system, broken homes, and IQ. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... These are things not solved by a welfare program of any sort and as my arguments have shown. Welfare actually contributes to many of these root causes. 3. Poverty is an Increase in Crime and Disease My opponent has proven with the title of each section that he is arguing against poverty. I think he believes me to be arguing in favor of poverty. This isn't a pro poverty vs anti poverty debate. You probably won't ever find that debate on DDO. Obviously we're both against poverty. The evidence I've provided shows that welfare increases the amount of single family homes. I've given numbers to show that an increase in single family homes is an increase in poverty and crime. If my opponent is against poverty or crime, than by extension he should be against welfare. Seeing as how welfare contributes to some of the underlying causes of poverty and crime. Welfare increases the number of single family homes. Children coming from single family homes are more likely to be poor, uneducated and criminals. 4. Child Support "My opponent states that welfare has lead to increasing divorce rates. Where is the evidence for this?" I've never stated that. My argument is being misinterpreted, possibly intentionally so. I've stated that welfare leads to an increase in single family homes. I've gathered the information from a widely available study done by The Cato Institute. The reasons for the affect on single parent households, is because women consider the loss of some of the benefits, when getting into relationships and considering marriage. The term "live in boyfriend", just doesn't do as much as "husband" to keep a man sticking around. 5. Welfare aids economic growth. " 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." Not true. The data I've shown has proven that people that partake in the welfare program are more likely to actually drop out of school. So welfare actually hurts a child's chance at receiving a quality education. Many of my opponents arguments in this section revolve around WIC. However an official WIC information page gives specifically states that WIC isn't a welfare program. So any argument my opponent uses about WIC simply doesn't apply. "Many people incorrectly view WIC as a welfare program because participants must be members of a low-income family. In fact, over 50 percent of the women and children on WIC in California are members of a family where one or both parents work outside the home." http://www.cdph.ca.gov... Conclusion I'm out of space because I want to limit my rebuttals to 5,000 words. My opponent should use up to 10,000 words on his turn, if he chooses so.