Welfare and entitlements have gone too far.

What is the Social Safety Net in the United States? A few facts: 1) The Social Safety Net (SSN) includes discounted school lunches, nutrition assistance (food stamps), the GI Bill (which provides qualifying military servicemen and women with housing and education grants), Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, Pell Grants and other scholarship programs, and the FDIC [1] 2) SSN programs provide a critical insurance policy for the Middle Class in America. This insurance policy protects families and workers from starvation, homelessness, and inter-generational poverty… at an incredibly low cost per taxpayer 3) 9 out of 10 beneficiaries of SSN programs are seniors, disabled persons and working households [2] Are SSN Programs Absolutely Necessary? Most Americans benefit from some form of “welfare,” mostly in the form of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Many millions of Americans also qualify for the Child Tax Credit, or the Earned Income Tax Credit, or reduced price lunches. These programs provide a stable base for the American economy, below which we cannot fall. In the United States, because of our strong safety net policies, there is no fear of mass starvation, mass epidemics, or civilizational chronic poverty. However, these are real threats. As the chart below illustrates, most Americans have little to no financial wealth. Without a strong Social Safety Net system, our nation would almost instantly lose its Middle Class, as well as the Consumer Base. Without these populations, it is difficult to imagine how we would continue to maintain our way of life. Note: the bottom 80% of Americans possesses only 5% of the nation’s financial wealth. Most of these citizens do not own any financial wealth at all, and the bottom quintile actually has a negative net wealth. [3] Who Receives Welfare? 9 out of 10 beneficiaries of SSN programs are workers, the elderly and the disabled. This fact alone shatters the myth that those receiving public assistance are lazy, or not looking for a job; most of them have jobs, or have spent a lifetime working. Conclusion Considering the immense need for these programs, conceded by CON, these programs are indispensable if we are to prevent widespread poverty and starvation in the United States. CON agrees that this is not an acceptable outcome. Further, these safety net programs provide a critical insurance policy for the Middle Class and for American workers, who have a reasonable need to manage risk. Rebuttals: I carefully removed the excess verbiage from the R2 presentation by CON, and located the following argument, which concludes (presumably) that the welfare system in the US has “gone too far,” and that an unsustainable number of Americans are abusing it. To save space, I have simply included my observations in bold. CONs thoughts are in italics. P1: People are on welfare who are not trying to find work – Granted, however misuse is a normal part of any large system. CON will need to demonstrate how these few abusers justify removing the system from those not abusing the system. Later, he states that it is his position that the social safety net should not be removed altogether. This begs the question: “Why not simply deny benefits to those guilty of abusing the system? P2: 69% of Americans “see a problem. ” – Sources needed. P3: Many people are on welfare – Demonstrating the need for a strong safety net P4: $131.9 billion spent on entitlements – Irrelevant P5: CON makes $24,000/year, chooses to work for a living and not be rewarded for doing nothing – Common among the nearly-poor is this attitude that they no longer need poverty insurance P6: 4.1% of the population is on welfare (4,300,000 claim to be on welfare, 46,000,700 claim to be on food stamps 5,600,000 claim to be unemployed. ) – Again demonstrating the critical need for these programs. It is unreasonable to assume that so many millions of Americans are being lazy, or abusing the system. Whenever children are involved I have no problem with it because they should be having shelter, food, and clothing. This is an important concession. But, I feel as being on the welfare program their should be a reform that requires you to get within a certain amount of time instead of just handing things to people that make them more dependent. I am not sure what this means. If it is a call for time limits, or dollar limits, these conditions already exist. I ask PRO to please clarify. Other Arguments P1A: One problem that has been associated with welfare states is the difficulty in creating an efficient system -Irrelevant P2A: The rationing of goods and services also becomes a problem when too many people depend on the welfare state to provide for their basic needs. -Irrelevant P3A: Another problem is that many people who are capable of providing for themselves have no motivation to improve their lives because they can rely on the government to provide for them. -Irrelevant;This assertion does not help us to determine the strength of the resolution, which is to decide whether or not offering welfare in America has gone too far, or if a critical mass of people are abusing the system, rendering it unsustainable. P4A: This often breeds resentment by people who do work and are taxed more heavily to pay for the support of people who do not work. -Again, this may be a valid complaint to be analyzed in another debate, but it holds little relevance in this discussion. Resentful persons are not abusing the welfare system, and do not represent an example of the social safety net system “going too far. ” [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.cbpp.org... [3] . http://www2.ucsc.edu...