They got me! I have to admit, "welfare" leaves a bad taste in my mouth where "helping the poor" sounds fair enough. I grew up under Reagan, heard the bullshit, know it's bullshit, I get it.

And you know damned well what those words really mean. Welfare = black, poor people = whites. (That's from a GenX perspective.)

"Think of how stupid the average person is, then realize that half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin

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.

People are emotional creatures.

Someone was joking in another thread, but maybe we should seriously consider just taking socialism and calling it, like, americanism.

Could you share the source for the graph please?

The timeline is this. The 1950s boomed and created the middle class. Why? FDR decided subsidizing the American people, instead of the robber Baron class, was the way. This subsidy approach to the working class had never happened before in American history.

A middle class cannot happen organically in a capitalist society. It requires government subsidy.

The 50s were built on the backs of women, forcibly ejecting them from workplaces to be housewives, and excluded people who were not white. But the American middle class was born due to these subsidies.

And so it went.

Then, in the 80s. The concept of the evil welfare queen was touted on the national level, and our government decided subsidizing corporate instead of a middle class was the way.

This doesn’t happen overnight, but they begin chipping away at subsidies for Middle Class America and flip those subsidies to corporate America. The belief is, or at least the sales pitch is, subsidizing corporate America is more fiscally efficient than subsidizing the middle class and will ultimately benefit everyone to create a booming, thriving nation.

And so it goes for 40 yrs. Both parties, in tandem.

The chipping away to go back to the subsidizing of a middle class started in the oddest of places. 2020. After the massive destruction of the middle class, and abject proof of how disastrous to the working class subsidizing corporate America is, absolutely squeezing everyone making less than $300k/yr, by the numbers, it was that old man’s admin that tried to shift back on the disaster. Infrastructure, junk fees, internet as an essential utility, student loan forgiveness, etc

The breadth of the problem cannot be fixed in 4 yrs. Or even 8 yrs. Consider how long it took from the 80s to truly feel the oppressive shift of the subsidy change. (I’m old. I mark ~2012-2014 when things started to feel squeezed.)

Also note that you can’t mention Reagan or trickle down economics in this or you lose people.

Kinda like ACA/Obamacare.

I'm of the opinion Americans want help and want to help others, but get lost in political rhetoric and a culture war designed to ensure no one gets anything.

Americans, what a bunch of morons

Having briefed a number of senior American bureaucrats and military officers I find it best to use:

1. words of one syllable or less.
2. no more than three primary colours.
3. no numbers larger than 5.

Fox News: "Write that down. WRITE THAT DOWN!"

Soon there will be a critical mass of people who have nothing left to lose

• 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"?

Americans are one of the most gullible populations on Earth. Russians are worse...but Americans are not far behind.