The US government should end welfare

I will begin by rebutting my opponent's arguments and then move on to defend my own (if I have enough characters left) R1 I believe my opponents argument can be summarized as thus "Welfare is designed to help children and eliminating it would put children through unnecessary suffering" I would agree with this if my opponent could tell me what this money goes towards. Is it going to food? No, there are already food stamp programs in place that have almost all of the costs of food borne by the government . In addition schools will provide free breakfast and lunch to students whose parent's qualify, so the only meal they need to worry about is dinner to which I refer you to the food stamps [1] Is it going to housing? No, The federal government already has programs in place that help people with housing assistance in fact the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) their stated mission is "HUD's mission is to create ....and quality affordable homes for all." So this money is not going to helping house the people in need[2][3] Is it going to pay bills? No, Various agency already have programs in place to help people in paying their bills one example is this website http://www.pseg.com... it lists a multitude of different programs for paying the heating bills alone. Is it helping pay medical Care for Children? No, there is already a program in place to help pay for the medical care of children State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP also known as CHIP) provides medical coverage for children in need. In addition our lovely President Barack Hussein Obama recently passed his wonderfully wonderful universal health care program that will end all of our health care ills by making sure everyone has insurance, so it isn't going to health care.[4] So where does this welfare money go, we are already covering Food, Housing, Bills, and Health Care so where does this money go? What else is needed in order to continue to live, or is our money just going for them to have fun with? If it is then that makes me a little bit upset that I am being forced to give money, that I earned and wanted to use, to other people simply so they can have fun. R2: I will be rebutting my opponent's second contention in two parts the first part here and the second part in defense of my first point. Now most of the space of con's second contention seems to be that it is wrong to subsidize businesses and that we shouldn't end welfare if we continue to have subsidized business. First off this is a red herring fallacy[6] it is completely irrelevant and government subsidies of business is completely irrelevant and off topic it has nothing to do with the debate. Secondly I think we should end business subsidies as well in fact my first point says so. In conclusion most of this argument is completely irrelevant. R3 Con's third argument seems to be able to be summarized thus "Abolishing welfare would lead to a dramatic increase in crime rates." I say that although it may cause a slight increase in crime my opponent must prove it will cause a dramatic rise in crime. Also I have several statistics that say otherwise, for example if you compare the Crime Index in California (the highest level of welfare) to that of Utah the California crime index was significantly higher than that of Utah's. In addition in 1993 when 5.5% of the US population received TANF benefits there was a higher crime rate (14,144,800 total crimes) than in 1997 when only 3.9% received TANF benefits (13,194,571 total crimes in 97) If my opponent would like to start a statistics war then let us start a statistics war that will avail neither side anything for figures can lie and liars can figure[7][8] D1 I have broken Con's attack on my first contention in to 2 parts a)It is not the equivalent of robbery and part b)Even if it is it is worse to end welfare then rob. I will address each of these separately but before I do I would like to clear a few things up Justice is the quality of conforming to the law in this cause natural law and natural rights. Morality is a set of beliefs about right and wrong. Most of the time when my opponent says something is unjust it is not unjust but immoral. I would agree it is immoral to allow some people to live like kings well others starve to death, however it is just for people to keep what they have worked to earn and it is unjust to take it from them. With that in mind let us continue a)Now during the first part of Con's contention (hehe) he shows his ignorance of the significance of the American Revolution. The American revolution was not significant because it established a representative government, those had been established before in Greece and Rome,it was the fact that the United States was the first country to recognize that government's are created to protect the rights of individuals. These rights are Life, Liberty, and Property* for a fuller explanation of these and a reiteration of my first contention. http://www.youtube.com... Con claims that the governments have a right to take from one person and give to another this is untrue this would violate another's property and as such would violate people's natural rights which causes the government to violate natural law making it unjust and tyrannical and Tyranny = Bad b)Secondly br17 states that even if welfare and robbery are morally equivalent that it is more unjust to allow certain people to be poor then it is to rob from someone who already has money. Now as we have stated before it is not unjust but immoral. Following that line of thought, if we accept that the government has the job of ensuring that all people behave morally whose morality shall we use. Should we use the 9/11 hijackers morality because according to them it is okay to fly planes into buildings, or maybe DACTMO's morality that would sure make this site a lot more interesting, or should we use my morality that says anyone who votes against me shall be sent to Nebraska and must become corn farmers. The problem's of allowing the government to regulate morality quickly become apparent. In conclusion my opponent has failed to effectively refute my argument D2 a)My opponent's response to my argument that welfare is driving up the deficit and debt seems to be that, there are other places we could cut spending and the problem is that we aren't making enough money. Now first off I would like to point out that just the type of welfare we are discussing (not including things like Medicaid or Social Security) alone costs almost a 6th of all taxes that are collected federally and as such represent a significant portion of the budget. Also yes I would agree that we don't have enough money right now but first we need to cut spending before raising taxes because government will always find a way to spend what they make.[9] b)In this attack my opponent marginalizes how much welfare helps people saying it only provides 300 dollars a month and says it is for a limited time this directly contradicts his 1st and 3rd contentions which say that it provides enough assistance to help a child throughout all childhood and keep them from sinking in to poverty and that it dramatically reduces the crime rate. So this means that he must drop his first and third points in order for this to be effective In Finality My opponent's claims have been successfully rejected, or proved to be off topic, whereas I have successfully defended mine from his accusations [1]http://www.ssa.gov... [2]http://www.ehow.com... [3]http://portal.hud.gov... [4]http://www.schip-info.org... [6]http://www.unc.edu... [7]http://www.disastercenter.com... [8]http://www.faqs.org... [9]http://www.usdebtclock.org...#