Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

162
93
Yeah, that's right Wait..., what? No!
Debate Score:255
Arguments:143
Total Votes:319
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yeah, that's right (93)
 
 Wait..., what? No! (50)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(39793) pic



The Constitution says, promote for the general welfare, not provide welfare

Yeah, that's right

Side Score: 162
VS.

Wait..., what? No!

Side Score: 93
4 points

Jessald seems to think that the welfare system goes ONLY to the handicapped and retarded.

In order to be eligible for welfare allowances, and to determine the extent of your benefits, there is a means-based test. There is a certain standard for the following things which the welfare allowance will attempt to pay for including: food, clothing, recreation, personal incidentals, fuel for heating, cooking and water heating, electricity for refrigeration and lights, household supplies, medical chest supplies and shelter.

The amount that will be paid varies greatly depending on location; geography, cost of living and employment/ educational opportunities will all be taken into account. An average amount of food stamps will give a family of four around $500. This amount is subject to alteration based on family size and also if there are any health conditions that must be addressed. On average, a single person household will recieve $200 monthly. Keep in mind though, this can all be very different depending on what state you live in.

Additionally you can expect a cash allowance for financial assistance which is based on several factors. A family of 4 should expect to receive up to $900. A single person's income will be around $300 for the TANF allowance.

These welfare benefits are considered seperate from other benefits such as child care, medical or utility assistance.

It points out that ADDITIONAL shit will be added if there are health issues.

So no, welfare goes to anyone who knows how to apply, not JUST the people who absolutely can't work.

Side: Yeah, that's right
jessald(1915) Disputed
2 points

It's good that you did some research, but why didn't you post a link to where you got that info? It makes me wonder if you aren't selectively quoting.

"Eligibility for a Welfare program depends on numerous factors. Eligibility is determined using gross and net income, size of the family, and any crisis situation such as medical emergencies, pregnancy, homelessness or unemployment. A case worker is assigned to those applying for aid. They will gather all the necessary information to determine the amount and type of benefits that an individual is eligible for.

The Federal government provides assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). TANF is a grant given to each state to run their own welfare program. To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits."

http://www.welfareinfo.org/

So you are right that it goes to more than those who strictly can't work, but you are wrong that it goes to "anyone who knows how to apply". It goes to those who can't work as well as to the unemployed (temporarily) and to those who don't make enough to support their families.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Side: Wait..., What? No!
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
3 points

I quoted the entire thing... forgot the site, just looked up welfare eligibility and came to a site that was answering on whether you're eligible for welfare.

and look at that, you even said I was right.

and yes, anyone who knows how to apply can get it. it's not well enforced, much like handicap placards and food stamps (well, that's part of welfare, and almost ANYONE can get that).

Take it from a Pirate, this shit is easy to get and is taken advantage USUALLY by those who don't need it at all. And taken advantage A LOT by those who technically aren't eligible.

Fact remains, welfare is taking my money and giving it to poor people. Not really how I like to spend my money. I'm all for charity, but it's usually to Make a Wish or Cancer Research. Not poor people.

Side: Yeah, that's right
TheTruth513(11) Disputed
2 points

What you do not realize is that more and more people fraud the welfare system each year. There are many way such as fake address, other peoples kids, and yes under the table jobs. So more or less anybody could get welfare if they really wanted. Except for the upper class but they are corrupt in other ways so...I think we need to do a better job at getting people off welfare and supporting themselves, once on welfare people become lazy.... therefore we are running out of money.

Side: Wait..., What? No!

Why can't we just force all welfare recipients to move to the location where they would get the least amount of support? This could save the tax payer a lot of money ;)

Side: Yeah, that's right
dacey(1039) Disputed
4 points

I am glad im NOT on welfare....But, after much insistance from my tax paying family, i was on welfare , twice. Some day ,anyone may suddenly need assistance..I do agree that there is a % of people, that abuse the system.The system shouldnt be removed, it just needs to be improved upon.

Side: Wait..., What? No!
TheTruth513(11) Disputed
2 points

I know that sounds good and might get them off their but and working, why have that kind of hatred for people on welfare. Some really do need welfare and cant work. What if you happen to be on welfare, what would you do if people thought that way about you?

Side: A stupid thought
4 points

Yeah the Constitution says promote not provide, but does that somehow translate into providing welfare, in the form of the current social and fiscal aid program run by the government? I don't find any logic in an argument against the welfare system using this phrase from the Constitution. I think this phrase does imply that the government will do what it can to aid the people it governs, so why would that not imply a similar or identical welfare system to aid those who need assistance.

The U.S. welfare system is not making any recipient rich. It is a survival thing. It is imperfect, in need or reform, but very necessary.

Side: Yeah, that's right
3 points

I would love to see him run for president. The left wing media wouldn't know what to do. "he's republican, get him!, -wait, he's black we can't get him.."

Side: Yeah, that's right
4 points

Perhaps in you own delusional idea of reality, but the real world he would be countered by economists and politicians who understand why providing for those who are unable, for some reason, to support themselves and their family is beneficial to society. In addition, you would hear numerous personal stories of people who worked numerous jobs, yet still needed a little help to feed their kids.

As people who don't need welfare it's easy to argue that those people who need welfare are just freeloaders, but in reality they are people who need a little help to get by.

Side: Wait..., What? No!
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
3 points

I'll skip how you didn't rebut his post to something more important:

Do all economists agree with your statement? Sure, there are economists and politicians who agree with you... but are you sure that ALL of them do? I mean, why else would you say "he would be countered by economists and politicians"... wow, great argument. And I guess to rebut your statement I would say "O YEAH, WELL... THEY WOULD BE COUNTERED BY ECONOMISTS AND POLITICIANS TOO, YO!"

I need a car to get to work and the hospital... can the government give me a car to provide me with necessary transportation that helps keep me alive? After all, the bus won't tend to emergencies like my car will. Or, should I work for that car?

Jesus Christ, you just made such an open ended statement with so many bases uncovered that I can't even think straight. God fuckin' damn it, I wanna attack you with SO MANY THINGS but it'll just leave you confused, and if you ever rebut this you'll surely forget (ignore) some of my points and probably just make another off-topic statement.

fuck. I just wasted my time.

Side: Yeah, that's right
JakeJ(3254) Disputed
2 points

In this specific post I wasn't talking about "economists", I was talking about the left wing media. And you ignored what I said. I think thats because it made you mad and you couldn't think of a rebuttal but had to say something, so you just changed the subject completely. ...

Wanna try again?

Side: Yeah, that's right
3 points

The above is what is in the constitution, however:

-

1) The statement may be translated to the effect of provision.

2) The constitution was made to be altered, as to accomidate for societal change over time. (some would say to perfection)

I have not yet formulated my structure for which welfare should work, so don't expect a solution from me. My opinions change often, and hinder me from taking a consistent perspective to build a plan from.

Welfare is needed. There are still peasants.

Side: Yeah, that's right

Well..., if you find a solution, I hope it is better than this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw&feature;=topvideos

;)

Side: Yeah, that's right
3 points

Actually, it says "promote the general welfare" NOT even "promote for the general welfare". Promote it, meaning more along the lines of: give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. TEACH a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime.

PROMOTE teaching people how to live the right way, being self-sufficient. not "providing" the general welfare. if a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat, that sort of thing. but that's just me. any "providing" for general welfare should be done by the churches/private sector (given that the individual works a tad for their compensation), NOT the government.

thats not teaching someone to fish, thats teaching them how sit on their rear and have someone give them the bait... and the fishing pole... tying the hook on, baiting the hook... reeling it in... cleaning it for them.

get the picture libs?

Side: Yeah, that's right
2 points

Yeah, thats true, the first part.

But to promote, you have to provide something, it shouldn't be BLANK of government control, but it shouldn't be infested with it like it is right now. Welfare should be changed somewhat.

Side: A stupid thought
2 points

I agree completly welfare in this country has gotten out of control

Side: Yeah, that's right

After 164 days and countless arguments (which I haven't read) to the contrary, I still chose this side ;)

Side: Yeah, that's right
2 points

I think poor people should find work. I know that sounds hard, especially in times like these, but you could get creative. You could be a forty year old man selling lemonade for all I care, but don't take the money from people who actually earned it, because it's theirs. And people will give the argument "I need it to support my family." Well, why are you having children if you can't afford them? I don't like being forced to pay for people who aren't diligent with their money. They should make it an option, like a charity. That way, people receiving our money would think of it as a gift instead of something in which they're entitled to.

Side: Wait..., What? No!
2 points

To promote welfare is to allow to make money. But to provide welfare is to give people money.

Side: Yeah, that's right

"There is a class warfare going on right now. You have a producing class and an entitlement class."

Now that is a man I would be proud to call, "My brother!" ;)

Side: Yeah, that's right
2 points

These efforts usually strive to improve the financial situation of people in need but may also strive to improve their employment chances and many other aspects of their lives including sometimes their mental health.

Supporting Evidence: 1z0-047 dumps (www.real-testking.com)
Side: Yeah, that's right
1 point

I say abolish welfare screw that collosal waste of money.

Side: Yeah, that's right
1 point

But, this is not what the government is doing, it is in fact the needs of many people waiting for the government to provide to them, but seems nothing is being rewarded by the said welfare.

Supporting Evidence: digital black and white copies (www.digiteksf.com)
Side: Yeah, that's right
-2 points
-3 points
3 points

He's complaining about the welfare we have here in America? What a joke. This "entitlement class" he speaks of consists of people who can't work: the handicapped, the elderly, and so on. Does anyone honestly have a better solution?

Side: Wait..., What? No!
JakeJ(3254) Disputed
4 points

"This "entitlement class" he speaks of consists of people who can't work: the handicapped, the elderly, and so on."

In a perfect world they would be the only ones to get welfare. But that's not the case.

My solution is that we make sure nobody that doesn't need welfare gets it.

Actually, in a more perfect world we wouldn't need government welfare because everyone would help each other. But that unfortunately wont happen.

Side: Yeah, that's right
3 points

I support you in that I agree that people who don't need welfare shouldn't get it. But I dispute you, as well, in that it isn't always so obviou as to who needs or does not need welfare. I worked through much of college at FedEx. There I met people who were working two or three jobs, simultaneously. Working the night shift at FedEx (~10PM-3AM), another job during the day, and for some, another on the weekend. And many still needed welfare because they couldn't afford to have a reasonable standard of living or support a family.

So how exactly do you calculate who "needs" welfare?

Side: Yeah, that's right
1 point

There is so many people on welfare that use there cash to by drugs and food stamps to buy candy and junk or they sell food stamps for cash. We spend to much money help people who could help their-selves but choose not to. We need to root these people out and get them on the right track. I think the human in general should have been giving classes to help learn great decision making skills...(government included). Great choices should have been made from the start of man kind, because not we where placed in a position to be hurt.

Side: Yeah, that's right
lawnman(1106) Disputed
3 points

Does anyone honestly have a better solution?

What is the problem? According to my observations the only problem being addressed in debates such as this is the problem of the welfare system. If the current welfare system is a solution to poverty then poverty as a problem is solved. But as self-evidently demonstrated by debates of this subject, poverty has not been solved by the welfare system. Moreover, the welfare system has become a problem in and of itself.

Now don’t misunderstand my position. The welfare system of the US is not a solution to poverty, but it certainly is a problem for the welfare of working Americans, i.e. the cost in income taxes. But, simultaneously I concede that charity is a necessary responsibility. My complaint is not predicated upon charity, my complaint is predicated upon some politician or bureaucrat deciding for both you and I how charitable we shall be this tax year and to whom we shall be charitable to this tax year. (I am digressing.)

Back to the question at-hand, how can any person argue that the welfare system is a solution when the welfare system only maintains poverty. The words “The maintenance of poverty” come to my mind when public welfare is mentioned. How can we be so cruel and yet so blind concerning welfare? Well, each man ought to answer that question for himself. What am I alluding to?

Firstly, no man has the right to determine when, how much, and to whom any man is charitable. Secondly, if some politicians or bureaucrats think that they have the authority to determine for myself and 300+million Americans why, when, how much and to whom we shall be charitable then I suggest that they pull their heads out of their asses and stop maintaining poverty. If we are going to suffer the burden of taxation for our charity, which is assumed and governed by politically motivated persons, then I suggest that they stop servicing poverty and start pulling the poor out of poverty. What?

Yes! If someone is dying of thirst shall you give them only enough water to stave off death, or shall you give them enough water so that they are made strong and healthy again so that they too can water not only themselves but other as well? If someone is starving of food, shall we prolong their starvation by bits of food? If someone is overcome by disease shall we nourish the disease or cause health to overcome?

The answers to those questions are not universally applicable to all of the problems that plague humanity. But they certainly hint at a better response to poverty than our current welfare system (problem). Consider the following example as an efficacious use of charity (taxation).

Thanks to the charity of the taxpayers, the federal government is the only employer who seems to be always hiring. Therefore tax dollars most certainly assure the prosperity of the federal government. Why don’t we assert our authority and insist that our charitable taxation dollars are spent for the purpose of pulling the impoverished out of poverty and into prosperity. And then those who are consequently prosperous can afford to pull the impoverished out of poverty and into prosperity as well.

(If anyone feels disposed to disagree then speak your mind.)

Side: Yeah, that's right

Up voted. I support you 100%. I couldn't have said it myself. But I'll bet you that your logic will fall on deaf lib ears ;)

Side: Yeah, that's right
Mahollinder(898) Disputed
2 points

I have a terminological disagreement. Though federal entitlement programs might appear (and might be "charitable"), they are not charities. To represent them as such, and to disagree with their utility as such, is to misrepresent an entitlement program. Federal apportioning of tax dollars isn't charity.

Side: Wait..., What? No!
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

You can argue that welfare perpetuates poverty and I will agree. And you know, if we chucked deformed babies off of cliffs like the Spartans did, that would be great for the economy.

What I'm saying is that we have to accept the downsides of a minimal level of welfare because no welfare at all is morally unacceptable. Like it or not, we will always have those who cannot provide for themselves or their children for various reasons. Leaving them to die is not an option. Basic welfare isn't supposed to eliminate poverty, it's just supposed to ensure everyone has at least a minimal quality of life.

Charity simply does not generate enough money, and it is naive to think it would. Do you honestly think the wealthiest Americans are going to voluntarily give up 30% of their income?

You suggest helping people help themselves, and this is exactly what American welfare does. We have programs that help people find work. Unemployment benefits require that people find work within a time limit. Longer term welfare require that people work a certain number of hours a week. What more do you want?

Finally, it should be stated that the excessive handouts we had in the past have been reformed to the minimal levels we have today.

Side: A minimal level of welfare is necessary
1 point

All I can say to that is, "Amen"! Oh how intelligent you are to liefs forever problem, but never to be found solution. I am impressed by your wise and calm dialectic response to the obvious cause to poverty, Oppression.

Side: Yeah, that's right
lawnman(1106) Disputed
3 points

Helping the poor live long enough to collect the next month's welfare check and consume next months food stamp purchases is nothing more than the tender mercies of cruelty.

Either give them prosperity or shut-down the current welfare system.

Funny, I despise taxation without representation, and yet I am arguing for the prosperity of paupers. Yet, the compassionate liberals insist that subsistence is good for me and the paupers.

Who's cruel and hard-hearted?

I think many people, like yourself, need to put away their antiquated devices for helping the impoverished and think outside of the box!

Side: Yeah, that's right
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

"Think outside the box", lol. What an excellent solution. Right up their with "shifting the paradigm" and "achieving greater synergy".

What do you mean by "give them prosperity"? We already have ways of pushing and pulling them into becoming productive members of society. Are you suggesting massive increases in welfare spending? Does that not give people a big incentive to sit on their ass and do nothing?

Eliminating welfare spending altogether is also not an option, for reasons I've outlined in my other arguments.

I do of course think real-world systems can always be improved upon, and welfare is no exception. I would welcome any productive, realistic adjustments to the system. But don't give this fantasy land nonsense.

Side: Wait..., What? No!
K1ll3r(52) Disputed
1 point

What point are you trying to make? None? How about you do what the GOP is doing, coming up with something that WASN'T made in prison. I'm talking about healthcare. Sorry if I am off topic.

Side: Yeah, that's right
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

What? Something about prison?

Coherent thoughts please.

...............................

Side: A minimal level of welfare is necessary
1 point

Welfare or welfare work consists of actions or procedures — especially on the part of governments and institutions — striving to promote the basic well-being of individuals in need.

Supporting Evidence: 1z0-007 latest dumps (www.real-testking.com)
Side: Wait..., What? No!
1 point

I think there family's, friends, or savings should support them. Anyone how hasn't saved for the future is ether a moron or an idiot, and deserves to be homeless. Don't you think it's worth all those hundreds of billions of dollars to have a few homeless moronic idiots?

Side: Yeah, that's right
monkeyboy142(76) Disputed
1 point

the familys of the handicaped or elderly can work for them.

Side: Yeah, that's right
monkeyboy142(76) Disputed
1 point

They can still use there minds .

Side: Yeah, that's right
2 points

There are two instances where "the general welfare" is added into the Constitution. The first instance is in the preamble, which is a declarative position of the people. It has no legal bearing beyond a kind of "moral" one.

In the legal documentation (the preamble does not constitute a legal or "Constitutional" position), the Constitution states, in Section 8 of Article 1, that "the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;....". So you're right and wrong. And I would add that I think that public health and the ability to survive has at least something to do with the general welfare of the nation. And if it doesn't, then there really isn't such a thing as "general welfare" at all.

I also find it humorous that the guy in the video is complaining about fighting against a tyrannical government while being able to practice his first amendment rights with no threat of government intervention. What kind of tyrannical regime does that?!

Side: Wait..., What? No!

Ah yes, more arguments from the mouths of the selfish. I fervently hope that you one day end up in a position where you need welfare. And then people like yourself will have eliminated and/or lessened it.

Side: Wait..., What? No!
bUP2000 Disputed
2 points

i wouldn't consider it the stereotypical selfish i believe you are referring to since i participate in benevolent church ministries and charitable organizations, giving time & money. none of what i have is mine anyway, i am a steward of what God has blessed me with.

i would be just as stereotypical in calling the recipients of welfare selfish because they choose to spend the money they receive on tattoos, cigarettes, and liquor instead of food, etc.

Side: Yeah, that's right

What are you talking about? Me? Need welfare? Hell! I'll flip burgers before that happens. ;)

Side: Yeah, that's right
2 points

Welfare is one of the simplest of economic policies. While you might not like it because it enables uneducated people to sit on their ass and make babies, stop being jealous it's not that big of a deal. Anyone who gets a welfare check spends that money immediately and generates revenue for whatever product they bought, and sales tax for the state they bought it in. It's not like they won the lotto and are getting a check in the mail and putting it in the bank.

Side: Wait..., What? No!

Well then..., why don't we give welfare to the rich instead? Think about it for a second. Not only will they spend that money immediately and generate revenue for whatever product they bought, and sales tax for the state they bought it in but they would also use that money to create jobs like hiring a gardner or maid, etc. which is more beneficial to the economy than simply buying a product. ;)

Side: Yeah, that's right
JBXXX(53) Disputed
3 points

Thats just flat out wrong. If you wrote that on an economics exam you would get a zero, this isn't an opinion issue. Giving welfare to the rich so they can become richer...is that a serious point? Then they buy a new speed boat or more stock in a company and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. You can't have uneducated people just starving to death rotting in the ghettos, welfare is meant to get them back on their feet, just like project housing. How they choose to use the money is up to them, if they don't want to better their lives and just sit on 10,000 dollars a year living in hell, so be it; thats just an imperfection of the system. Its not perfect but its better than ideas such as yours where the wealth isn't distributed and then people resort to crime or revolt. You can't just enslave the lower class and expect to live in a civil society.

Side: Wait..., What? No!

Promote the general welfare clause is a misinterpreted clause by liberals promoting the expansion of government by suggesting that general welfare means promoting the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder.

General welfare actually means promoting the freedom, free choice and responsibility of every American within the means of the law.

Side: Wait..., What? No!
1 point

Precisely the government exists to protect freedom and provide law and order nothing else.

Side: Wait..., What? No!