CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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?
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?
No, I do not. But here's another thing to remember: this country was founded on the believe that people have the right to make their own decisions. And the welfare programs' money comes from taxes. Taxes are paid by people. And if people do not want to support poor people, then why should they not have that choice? Maybe the taxes should stay the same for them, but why should the money not be put into a deserving thing, like the army(I know it seems like I'm obsessed with that, but bear with me), or the debt?
I agree that this country was founded on individuality as it relates to decision making but there is an extent to which that decision making is allowed. I agree that welfare programs' money comes from taxes but such spending is allocated towards programs which have been proven to benefit society in the deviance, economic and educational sectors. You are arguing that spending should be allocated towards the military when in fact, reports show that in 2011, 20% of the budget equivalent to 718 billion USD was allocated towards the military and other international security defense measures. There needs to be a balance within society where the different sectors are financially funded accordingly or else the social issues that will be created can create havoc within society thus increasing more government spending than would be required to spend on welfare programs.
Also, no one is supporting or paying for poor people. The taxes you pay is actually an investment into your own future in cases of old age or disability. No one on welfare is taking away that benefit from you because in the end, you will still enjoy the benefits of your payment. You seem to think that tax spending goes towards welfare programs when in fact, the larger amount of that goes towards so many sectors. Societal balance should involve adequate consideration to all sectors because as a nation we strive for economic development and welfare programs provides the stepping stone for such accomplishment. Maybe it does not work for all but it works for most.
Tax payers pay money towards the maintenance of prisons and that also harms the economy so is it logical to say we should eliminate funding towards prisons then? Because without welfare programs, the prison population will double or triple as we are already seeing.
How does me requesting statistics from you in support of your argument makes me a recruiter? Do you even understand the nature of my argument? The standards of the army is irrelevant when compared to the standards of society and welfare programs. And joining the army is not plain black and white as you may see it.
It was just a rhetorical question based on the fact that you kept saying "join the army!!!"
I think I understand the nature of your argument, You were saying that Welfare is bad because it allows people to be lazy, am I right?
My rebuttal, aside from the poor joke, Is that not all people on welfare are abusing the system. Some people actually need it and they have no other option, and can't do in the army maybe because of an accident.
Others me use welfare simply as a means to survive because their job doesn't pay enough.
Again, my apologies for the poor joke No intention to offend.
I am sorry. I believe you meant to respond to markmcd9929 but you accidentally responded to my argument. That user outlined the points you are referring to which I offer rebuttal points as well. I sincerely apologize for the confusion but I am on your side so my bad.
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
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.
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.
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.
My argument was primarily against what you were advocating (a pay-in or pay-back system), and so let me clarify that I consider abuse of the system to be as problematic as you do. I think, though, that your proposed solution has the unintended and undesirable consequence of penalizing those who have not acted irresponsibly and is in their situation by no fault of their own (regardless of intentions).
My solution to the free-rider problem is to place limits upon the duration for which a person can be on those benefits (as occurs with unemployment), assess whether they are taking steps to improve their conditions (as occurs with unemployment - you are forced to apply to positions and if you get a job but turn it down you no longer qualify), and more adequately integrate the welfare program with other programs and support systems.
I am not disputing developing a system that check in on people, but the system needs the balance of help those who need it (even if long term), vs. those who are capable just not going and working.
I am not sure I understand your most recent post, but I think perhaps that we are largely in agreement merely disagreeing over the means for checking abuses of the system. Does that sound correct?
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.
It reflects poorly on a nation if their working class is starving to death or suffering mal-nutrition.
It reflects poorly on a society that forcefully takes money from people and then gives it away to others. This is called theft.
I have heard of them. I support them; however, they do not meet the need that is growing because wages are not meeting basic needs.
Of course, its wages, it couldn't possibly that inflation, taxes, regulation and other economic factors that are responsible for giving workers less bang for their buck.
There is one thing that I want you to realize, Society>The individual.
When Society is healthy, the individual benefits. It is not the other way around.
"Society" is made up of individuals. If individuals are healthy than "society" is healthy.
"Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism." - Ayn Rand
"Society" is made up of individuals. If individuals are healthy than "society" is healthy.
The definition of individual health is not the same as societal health. What's good for the individual is not always good for society, the environment, etc.
The definition of individual health is not the same as societal health. What's good for the individual is not always good for society, the environment, etc.
For society to be healthy individuals have to be healthy considering the a society is made up of individuals.
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.
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.
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.
Poverty is when someone doesn't have enough resources to live a decent life.
Poverty is not caused by a lack of available resources or jobs or because of bad situations. It is caused by the lack of money. It's present times we are talking about, as a lack of resources could and did only occur in the past, way back. If someone doesn't have money they cannot buy the necessary resources. Even though there's mass production of pretty much everything and instead of there being too little of resources there's now so much that a huge amount of them goes to waste. It goes to waste without even regarding those who could very much need those resources, because the general mentality is "if you ain't got the money you ain't getting this product". Isn't it just messed up?
Since money is the cause of poverty but there's enough resources for anyone, how do you think poverty could be solved?
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?
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.
I am not demanding personal information. I kindly asked. Now you are basing your argument on your disability, if we don't know what it is or how you got it your argument is invalid. That is all.
You are wrong. I do not have to give out personal information for my argument to be valid. You are not entitled to my personal information. Talk about an entitlement mentality.
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.
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?
Thank you. For me, a discussion should be a learning experience for both parties. My discussion with you has been a valuable and a learning experience.
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.
I actually agree with you. I think if welfare programs are combined with self-advancement and empowerment programs, it helps equip beneficients with the tools they need to improve themselves economically which in turn can create an economically beneficial cycle that is passed on from one generation to the next. This will also help to ensure there is an increased level of accountability within the system. The implementation of these programs should involved various dialogues shared among governments, communities, leaders, sociologists, NGOs as you mentioned and careful analysis of the failures and successes of previous systems and protocols relating to these programs.
Like you, I think the welfare program should be modified but not eliminated because it impacts every sector of society. Without any welfare program, the prison population increases which increases government spending towards the maintenance of prisons and jails, increased health diseases due to lack of medications and nutrition thus also increasing healthcare spending. Unfortunately, welfare programs are often view through political lens by people who barely have any understanding of such system.
I agree completely, and I do think it is very unfortunate that partisan politics has affected the discussion around welfare. It is not a simple issue of having it or not having it, but a complicated matter of how it should be implemented.
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.
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.
