CreateDebate


Debate Info

24
45
Yes! No!
Debate Score:69
Arguments:60
Total Votes:90
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes! (15)
 
 No! (25)

Debate Creator

sayyad99(773) pic



Should welfare programs be eliminated?

Welfare programs have often been accused of harming the economy more than benefitting it. Proponents of these programs have argued that it provides a stepping stones for families to become socially independent. Opponenents have argued that these programs encourage 'laziness" of many beneficients and at the same time, also promotes unemployment and complete reliance on the government for support. Opponments have also argued the low level of accountability within the welfare system has resulted in many abusing the system including employees themselves. What is your opinion on this matter? Should we abolish these programs? 

Yes!

Side Score: 24
VS.

No!

Side Score: 45
1 point

Yes, definitely!!! There are lazy people on these programs who don't even try to get jobs!!! And if they are truly so desperate, join the army!!!

Side: Yes!
sayyad99(773) Disputed
1 point

I am assuming by lazy people, you are referring to everyone on the program with absolute certainty. Such a broad and unsupported generalization. Don't you think?

Side: No!
markmcd9929(47) Disputed
1 point

Wel, yes. Single parents aren't lazy, but most people on it are, if not go join the army!

Side: Yes!
1 point

you ga damn idiot....thats why "they" crashed the economy....so young people would have no choice but to join the war machine. sure, some people are lazy...but whats the point of getting/working some crap job 5 days a week that barely pays more than the unemployment? usa has a lot of problems...welfare/lazy people are not the main cause. 50 years ago a family could survive on one income....the man would work, the woman could raise the kids. not anymore...unless your lucky/skilled enough to have one of the good jobs. just look at price increases compared to wage increases...years ago i was a temp for some huge warehouse...the people that were hired on started at like $8hr...and had to wait 4 years for a 50 cent raise...can you believe that chit? the rich people that run this country need to be eliminated, not welfare

Side: No!
1 point

I am going to say yes to the extent eliminated would mean completely transformed at a minimum. To me the issue isn't giving public assistance, but to what degree are you required to "earn" it of have it be considered a "loan" that gets paid back. Therefore you either "banked" the credits you use or you pay off the "loan" you received. Why couldn't welfare be subtracted from your retirement social security benefit thus making sure you get your act together and be sure you will have a minimum level of benefits for your future.

I just don't know why these programs don't have "strings" attached.

Side: Yes!
Jace(4706) Disputed
2 points

I agree that the system needs considerable overhaul, but I do not agree with your vision for it. I think that we are on the same page as far as promoting responsibility and not rewarding negligence or irresponsibility, however the sheer magnitude of unexpected (and expensive) events in peoples lives is not something that can always be readily accounted for with the scheme(s) you suggest. Furthermore, it is often enough the case that a person's situation is a consequence of events outside of their control (e.g. medical expenses, etc.) and it seems illogical to penalize some people with debt when they have not acted any less responsibly than those who did not encounter the same circumstances (and who may have actually acted more responsibly).

My point is that I do not think welfare or other forms of social support should be something individuals have to pay into in advance or pay back in retrospect. The former assumes financial stability to begin with and the latter burdens someone with debt when personal finance is precisely the obstacle they are struggling with. I think that there should be a better mechanism devised for weeding out those who are in their situation because of irresponsibility or laziness, but I also think that a significant part of the reason society exists is to take up the uneven distribution of chance burdens. There is a value (personal, social, and economic) to having a guaranteed safety net that protects against unexpected events. There is also value in connecting welfare programs to other programs that teach financial planning and empower individuals. I think that those should be the strings attached; not re-payment.

Side: No!
addltd(5108) Disputed
1 point

I get what you are saying, but if you look at unemployment benefits, it works exactly that way. You get so much based on your past work history. If you didn't work as much or for as much money you get less. Also, that same information if used to calculate your social security benefit.

I am not saying penalize anyone who is in trouble medically or something out of their control, but what is stopping someone from going to work at McDonalds when they have job openings...I know why! It is because welfare pays too well and there is no incentive to get the person working.

Side: Yes!
2 points

Welfare programs are a necessity. They were established during the Great Depression to prevent people dying from exposure of scurvy. Yes, there are some lazy people on these programs, but the solution is reform, not scrapping the entire system.

Side: No!
Scout143(651) Clarified
3 points

Scurvy? During the 1930's? Where did you hear about that?

Side: Yes!
markmcd9929(47) Disputed
2 points

How are they a necessity!?!?!? I don't see that at all!!!

Side: Yes!
kozlov(1753) Disputed
2 points

It is better than starving to death! Food is a necessity!

Side: No!
sayyad99(773) Disputed
1 point

Welfare programs are a necessity depending on the context of the situation. Let's not forget there are single parent families who struggle to prepare their meals every day while they try their best to find employment and provide for their families. For these people, these programs are necessary to prevent them from being homeless or going by without a meal. I believe your definition of necessity is quite different from how the affected person would define such a concept.

Side: No!
2 points

It's more a problem of the people. The people who abuse the privileges should be weeded out and not given the easy life, while the program itself should continue to exist to help those who really suffer in poverty.

Side: No!
nummi(1435) Clarified
1 point

And why does poverty exist? What causes it?

Side: Yes!
Quocalimar(6470) Clarified
3 points

Poverty exist because of scarcity. It is caused by a lack of available resources, jobs, and sometimes bad situations. Such as if a person were to get hurt.

Welfare helps people get out of tough situations or help those stuck in them to manage.

Side: Yes!
2 points

Of course it shouldn't be. It may hurt the economy, but so what? Is that not better than having people on the streets everywhere? It all comes down to one simple question, are you left, or right?

Side: No!
2 points

Without welfare, I would be screwed. I am disabled and I cannot afford my medications that cost about $1200.00 a month. If you eliminate welfare, be prepared to pay my medical bills unless you want me to die.

Side: No!
GuitaristDog(2546) Clarified
1 point

What disability do you have? How did you get it?

Side: Yes!
Sitara(11088) Clarified
1 point

That is none of your business .

Side: Yes!
1 point

Welfare programs can be problematic when they are mismanaged, but this does not make them inherently problematic. A well-managed program provides a financial security net for those who have planned and acted responsibly but nevertheless face unexpected difficulties through no real fault of their own. Such a program is not seen as a long term support system (thus addressing the free rider problem and not enabling personal irresponsibility) but rather as a safety net that gives people an opportunity to get their feet under them again. It should be coupled with additional programs that give instruction in personal finance and which provide other opportunities for self-improvement. A financial safety net is an asset to society because it affords a greater degree of financial stability for the individual and greater economic strength for the overall economy.

Side: No!
sayyad99(773) Clarified
2 points

So lets assume you were in charge of modifying certain elements of the program to make it more effective; what recommendations would you make to ensure that these programs are not mismanaged?

Side: Yes!
Jace(4706) Clarified
3 points

Also, well hosted debate. I appreciate the debate creator who moderates and prompts further discussion. So thank you.

Side: Yes!
Jace(4706) Clarified
2 points

Well, as I mentioned before, I think that welfare and entitlement programs should be more closely integrated into empowerment and self-advancement programs. Currently, there is very little support given to those who are accessing programs such as these. Any attempts at support beyond the distribution of money is quite superficial (think unemployment benefits). The programs are frequently created and even implemented by people who have no idea what it is like to actually be in a situation that necessitates accessing a financial security net. Programs should be restructured using input from those who have actually experienced the situations, and with greater input from experienced sociologists. There should also be greater dialogue and cooperation with existing support networks and programs (governmental and NGO).

In general, I think we need to stop viewing welfare as an isolated program but as a vital but temporary component to a larger solution that would also include revised approaches to homelessness, the prison system, minimum wage, the health care system, etc. I could elaborate but then that's not really just welfare anymore; it's bordering on a total overhaul.

Side: Yes!

it wont be long before they are....and all the poor, less fortunate peasants are steered more quickly into the prison system. sure, most single moms take advantage of the handouts...but eliminating the welfare is not the solution. unfit parents/pregnancies should be targeted/regulated instead. if you look at where our tax dollars go, welfare barely puts a dent in it. israel gets more american tax handouts than the poor needy americans do. the american government wants the poor to remian in need. as long as we are worrying about bills, we wont pay attention to what the war machine is doing. just look at walmart and all the funding/support they get from the government. the majority of their employees are on welfare due to low wages...but the government loves them and helps them multiply like weeds...they come into a town and shut down stores creating more dependant slaves.

Side: No!
1 point

Anyone can throw out any fancy theories they want. The fact is that in the politically stable democratic industrialized world almost unanimously success in employment, education, economic stability, health, and many more categories measured by the Few available Index run hand in hand with strong social programs. Sweeden, Holland, Germany, the list goes on and on. Unfortunately education and militarism seems to be inverse so military first world nations might want to hold off on the books until they get off war economies.

Side: No!