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)
Just want to point out that this negative association is based on racist dog whistles like the, "welfare queen," which were propagated by right-wingers to convince low-income whites to hate the programs designed to help them.
Yep. Never use a ten dollar word when a 50 cent one does the job better. The left wing needs to dump it's highbrow (and cringe celebrity endorsements) and use the language of the common people in simple terms that cannot be demonised (or would sound insane to try).
Also, this is a prime example of how demonising words, especially buzzwords, is the strategy they use to make it lose all rationality with the public... the notion of being "woke" originally a good thing, welfare a good thing, etc...
Did the study define the kinds of assistance at all or was it simply the choice of terms?
“Welfare” is defined and had a lot of baggage with it. Opinion about welfare can be wildly different individually and demographically.
“Assistance” isn’t defined, people can place their own restrictions on what that hypothetical assistance is, who gets it based on their own prejudices, needs, and ideology.
Nah, see, you're falling into the trap. "Welfare" has baggage only because conservatives have attached baggage to it via their relentless propaganda campaigns. In practice, welfare is literally just assistance. In practice, the two words are synonymous. The fact that you perceive a difference in them is evidence that the conservative propaganda is working.
The issue is entirely a media problem. Can you tell yet?
FREEDOM DIVIDEND 🦅🇺🇸
UBI is pretty naive unless there are checks in place to prevent landlords and consumer goods from increasing costs by the same amount.
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.
Do parapelegics require "temporary support"? There are some people who need continual support and they're always going to exist in any society. Disabled people. And they aren't a "systemic problem".
If you have to continually support a part of the population then you have a systemic problem.
To a point, maybe, but populations are always going to have disabled persons or people with chronic illnesses that require continual assistance to live a dignified life. Be careful not to write those people off with sweeping generalizations like this.
You are right.
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?
Just curious, how can UBI be implemented in a way that doesn’t result in hyperinflation?
I don't know - and we're never going to find out, in the United States at least. I may support UBI but that doesn't mean it's not the biggest pipe dream in the history of pipe dreams.
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?
If it's the particular words that are the issue you have a bigger problem than just helping the poor, which is a laudable goal. Hups, I just used an obscure word and alienated the dummies.
A favourite cognitive bias is the role of emotions in persuasion and decision making. Arguments are much more persuasive if they make us feel good, regardless of the evidence.
It's interesting to watch an AI reason these issues because we're reasonably sure it doesn't have feelings and should be immune to the pitfalls of having an ego.
AI reason
Any researcher will tell you that these programs do not reason
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?
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
IIRC "ACA" and "Obamacare" had similar divides. Propaganda is a helluva drug.
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.