Welfare

I'm very greatful that Con cited a speech from an individual as transformative as Ronald Reagan. However, his citation was intellectually dishonest, and only reinforces my assertion that it needs to be strengthened. What Ronald Reagan meant was that the system worked to provide upward mobility, and thus, reduce the need for a safety net. I agree 100% with Reagan. However, for less people to be on welare, we need a healthier economy which makes opportunity and mobility available. As I said earlier, welfare exits to reduce poverty, act as a safety bet, and provide mobility. In his assertion that welfare isn't helping people be successful or contributng to the country, my opponent has created a strawman. I already provided a means of contribution purely through spending powers. That's also not to mention that there, once again, exists a work requirement to be on welfare. I'd also like to point out the other contextual error my opponent makes. When he cites my quotation of the Constitution, I'd prefer he understand the context. When I cited the Constitution as a means to "promote the general welfare", that wasn't indicitive of my supporting a full welfare state. I think the country has a duty to her people to reduce poverty for her people. It's one of the powers allowed by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and it's what ultimately led to the creation of Social Security, which lifted millions of seniors out of poverty in dire times. Once again, that's the federal government using its powers to promote the general welfare. I'd also like to remind my opponent that we're not debating reproductive rights. I ask that he remain on topic. I do not intend to humor him with pointless back-and-forths of a completely different topic. When my opponent makes the claim that the welfare system is a leech to our economy, he stigmitizes the system with a subjective claim. Facts are, roughly 50 million Americans live in poverty, and most of them are children. [1] Something must be done. $181 billion is a drop in the bucket when examined as spending as a percentage of GDP (almost $16 trillion dollars). To say that building robots which examine dirt on Mars is a worthwhile trade to our brothers, sisters, and children going hungry is not only socially Darwinistic, it's ethically dubious. My opponent, once again, does a fly-away argument to something not related to welfare in the United States. We're not discussing taxes, sir. That's an argument for another day. If he's trying to make a wager that our tax payer dollars shouldn't go to support the less fortunate, than a further argument can be made about all aspects of government. We don't make these arguments, however, because they're ad absurdum. I'm very grateful that my opponent has acknowledged the work requirement doing a lot to reduce dependence on welfare. What I'm unsatisfied with is that he, once again, fails to differentiate correlation with causation. People didn't leave welfare just to come back to it. Within the decade of 1996, the dot-com bubble burst, plunging the United States into another recession. People fall under social safety nets during recession all the time. It's not because of welfare. It's because of free-market crashes. The government is catching them. The only problem which exists is that government response can be too slow during recessions! [2] This reinforces the need to strengthen the system as a means of providing mobility for those who fall into the social safety net. Don't cut it. Fix it. Maybe my opponent isn't aware of recent history, but in 2008, a stock-market crashed essentially plunged the entire world economy into an economic crisis. The United States was hit hard, and the after effects of this crisis raised unemployment to 10%, bankrupted America's financial districts, and bankrupted America's autmobile industry. That's the causation of the recession, not President Obama's fiscal policy. Fact is, his policy has had a lot to do with helping Americans, such as using TARP funds to bail-out the failing autmobile industry, saving several hundred thousand jobs, and creating nearly a million more. The Recovery and Reinvestments Act added 2.5 million jobs to the market, according to the Congressional Budget Office. I'd go on, but we're not talking about President Obama's performance. We're talking about the viability of welfare. And to my final point, I'd like to correct another contextual error my opponent makes. I never claimed welfare fixed poverty. I claimed welfare reduces poverty. Child poverty levels are so high in the United States because we fail to provide educational opportunities which meet the demands of today's markets, in addition to failing to provide a living wage standard for minimum wage, which correlates with inflation. In closing, my opponent fails to make a case for why he's against welfare. He says it reduces poverty, but expects it to make people successful. He makes the claim that it needs to be reformed, but fails to elaborate a fix. My opponent makes the assertion that it's a waste of taxpayer dollars, but fails to provide a meaningful method of aiding the growing impoverish and homeless. My arguments have provided reasons that welfare can reduce poverty, provde mobility, and act as a safety net. This country is not run by Ayn Rand, and we don't live in Somalia. Our brothers and sisters should never go to bed hungry. Vote America, by all means. Vote Pro.[1]http://washington.cbslocal.com...[2]http://www.irp.wisc.edu...