Welfare

I must ask my opponent to leave a comment if does not understand the points I am making, he clearly showed this in his response. "his citation was intellectually dishonest, and only reinforces myassertion that it needs to be strengthened. What Ronald Reagan meant was thatthe system worked to provide upward mobility, and thus, reduce the need for asafety net. "What my opponent "thinks" Ronald Reagan meant in his quote is irrelevant to the discussion. All Reagan said was that people should be getting off welfare, not getting on it. Now, Reagan understood that welfare could not be entirely abolished because this would create total chaos. He also understand that in order to promote the welfare of our country, citizens need to work. Which in the long run is a better gift from the government then being paid for by the government. I hope my opponent has not misunderstood my true stance on welfare, I do believe that it should not be abolished, but serious reform needs to take place, and currently, this reform isn't happening under the Obama administration. "I think the country has a duty to her people to reduce poverty for herpeople. It's one of the powers allowed by Article 1, Section 8 of theConstitution, and it's what ultimately led to the creation of Social Security. "While our government is obligated to do this, the debate is whether or not the government is dealing with poverty correctly. Welfare in its current state is not the right answer. "I'd also like to remind my opponent that we're not debating reproductiverights. I ask that he remain on topic. I do not intend to humor him withpointless back-and-forths of a completely different topic. "If my opponent refuses to "humor my arguments," then I am not obligated to humor his misunderstanding of the argument. Here's what I mean: If my opponent makes an assertion that the government has a right, I will give an example of how our rights system is flawed, like I do so by giving the example of how abortion is a flawed right. The government has never been perfect, under any administration. I would love to debate Roe v. Wade with my opponent in the near future. "system with a subjective claim. Facts are, roughly 50 million Americanslive in poverty, and most of them are children. "If my opponent wishes to assume that the reason welfare is put into effect is for the children, I must politely correct him. Children cannot apply directly for welfare, the parents do. So if instead of using children as an excuse to keep welfare in its current state, my opponent realized that on average, the highest percentage of welfare recipients are mothers, then I could take his claims to mean something more. My opponent takes the original liberal claim that "they do what they do for the children. " Please. Ever heard of the welfare queen? " but we're not talking about President Obama's performance"If Obama's performance in office relates to welfare, then yes we are discussing Obama's performance, I will gladly debate you on that on a later date. "I never claimed welfare fixed poverty. I claimed welfare reducespoverty. " The goal is to fix poverty pro, not reduce it. So if it is only reducing it, then we aren't making progress. A final fact, the welfare state has increased by 19% just under Obama's administration. The total cost of everything welfare related is not at $1 trillion. . http://cnsnews.com...- almost-1-trillion-year That is not fixing the welfare state pro, that is making it worse.