Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
Words matter.
You aren't writing an academic paper. Always use simple direct language.
Don't use complex words.
The issue is entirely a media problem. Can you tell yet?
Assistance implies that it is temporary, that it is help to help themselves.
Welfare implies that it is continuous.
If you have to continually support a part of the population then you have a systemic problem. The correct solution would be to change the system. People who support the continuation of the current system either profit from it or don't see an advantage in a change.
Assistance implies that it is temporary,
Not it does not. Ever heard of "aim assist"? "Assisted living"? "assistive touch" (the iOS feature)? I don't see how any of these are temporary.
But yeah the correct solution is indeed to change the system. There will always be naysayers who argue that "no one system can suit everybody" so I guess we'll need a system of systems.
Also, "assistance" is something that is given out of the kindness of your (or the government's) heart and that the recipient should feel gratitude (and/or have to grovel) for. "Welfare" is seen as something the recipient is entitled to as a right. FWIW I support a UBI that is adequate for food and shelter and the necessities of life - as an entitlement for everybody.
Hey, a UBI supporter! Just curious, how can UBI be implemented in a way that doesn't result in hyperinflation? If a society was to ration out food/shelter/necessities directly, I understand how that would work. But if it's done through the intermediary of money, what would prevent the economy from entering an arms race where the producers raise prices to adapt to the new purchasing power of the population, and the government raises the UBI to keep up with the rising prices?
A buyers market. Let competition drive down prices, or cooperation from people with UBI who don't need the profits.
That's for basic goods. It's good that other prices rise so that people are motivated to work.
But it doesn't have to be the same group in the population. Probably a portion is the same but the larger picture is all those you help up again so they can help support the community/country/state, and the price is helping the group that otherwise make the community unsafe so they in large can ... act decently to others and live a life without violence
helping the group that otherwise make the community unsafe
Why does such a group have to exist?
Why the downvotes. I cannot think of a group that is inherently unsafe. Who do you have in mind that you consider it an insult?
One of the main reasons why USAID was the first part of the government targeted was because of things like this.
If you frame their work as "Assistance to disasters" or other variations, plus the context of it being under 1% of the Federal budget, Americans were find with it. If you call it "giving taxpayer money to foreigners" then it's wildly unpopular.
Which is to say that the lesson is that most people are idiots and have no idea what's going on in the world. Framing a narrative can get the same individual to simultaneously support and hate literally the same thing. It can get people to support policies and actions that directly harm them.
I wonder what the general opinion of USAID would have been if it had been described as "feeding poor people so their rulers can buy US weapons instead".
Which is to say that the lesson is that most people are idiots and have no idea what's going on in the world.
Not that the information channels that inform them blast high-octane corporate-friendly propaganda since childhood, leaving no attention for any other perspectives?
IIRC "ACA" and "Obamacare" had similar divides. Propaganda is a helluva drug.
Could you share the source for the graph please?
Its listed, UChicago NORC. I can only find raw data from NORC from 1973 to 2014 when I search though.
Excel
because welfare has been propagandized as used by "lazy and homeless, and poors, and blacks" its usually based on racism as well, the true welfare queens are Conservative voters.
Oh the TRUE welfare queens are billionaires, corporations get more assistance than people
Oh this definitely
Americans, what a bunch of morons
Soon there will be a critical mass of people who have nothing left to lose
And cheetolini will instruct the military to fire upon them to the cheers of his constituents
Good. If anything is to change, they must fear for their lives and/or lose their lives.
Ah, ~40% of Americans are complete fucking morons, that sounds about right.
~40% of Americans also read and write at an elementary school level or worse, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
... I think we've found the mythical 'independent, median voter'.
54% of Americans read at below a grade 6 level.
Welfare is may litterally just mean 'moocher' to an American who has been drowned in propaganda their whole life.
I read about that and i'm not sure what to make of it. My nephew is in second grade soon, and he can read pretty well. He doesn't like it, because it's still hard for him. But i'm sure in 2 or 3 years he can read well enough to become president of the united states and not be a nazi. So i'm not sure if the reading level is the problem.
Fox News: "Write that down. WRITE THAT DOWN!"
They knew.
The probably caused it. The Murdoch news organization has been using it as a slur for many decades.
- Help the poor
- Healthcare for everyone
- Good treatment at work.
I like the idea, but I don't think those are very well phrased.
Take "help the poor". When you say "the poor" it sounds like you're talking about a certain group of people who are born poor and die poor. Often the characterization is "the poor" are that way because of personal failings, like that they're lazy. Nobody wants to think of themselves as poor, and they definitely don't want to consider themselves part of "the poor". So, even poor people are going to have a bad reaction to being told that we should "help the poor".
IMO, a better slogan would be something like "Help people who fall on hard times." because it makes it more clear it's temporary help, and that it's not their fault. I think poverty should be eliminated, and billionaires should be, ahem "eliminated", but I think the average American would be much more likely to accept a social safety net rather than expected to continuously help "the poor".
For "healthcare for everyone", I think the issue is that it sounds like people are imagining high-end luxury healthcare for everyone at no cost. Something like "basic healthcare for everyone" is something more Americans would accept, and is more likely the kind of improvement you could actually get from American voters. Those of us who live in developed countries are used to the idea of "equal healthcare for everyone", but I don't think you could get that past the average American voter.
As for "good treatment at work", what American actually thinks that they'll get good treatment from their employer? Americans are used to thinking that it's a doggy dog world out there, and don't expect loyalty or love from an employer. What's reasonable is fairness, so why not "fair treatment at work" or "fair treatment for workers"?
People are emotional creatures.
Someone was joking in another thread, but maybe we should seriously consider just taking socialism and calling it, like, americanism.
