Progressive Politics

Reminds me of how many people were really against Obamacare, but loved the Affordable Care Act.

I get the critical comments here, but I think there's a basic association of the word "welfare" with the CURRENT system of assistance which leaves too many people out. Democrats have made the current apparati too hard to qualify for with their means-testing. If they were sincere in working for the masses, they would push more universal programs, but at least on the national level, they are bought out by the same corporations as the Republicans.

Related Links:

1. June 16, 2025 | https://apnorc.org/projects/few-want-spending-on-federal-benefit-programs-reduced/ | https://archive.ph/EuDrn
2. Feb 14, 2025 | https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/where-u-s-adults-think-the-government-is-spending-too-much-and-too-little-according-to-ap-norc-poll
3. February 14, 2025 | https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/us-government-overspending-foreign-aid-poll/3674663/
4. February 14, 2025 | https://apnews.com/article/ap-poll-government-spending-social-security-medicare-8a8ddb0e721355a4e9585da4147efe1a
5. Feb. 17, 2025 | https://www.thegazette.com/federal-government/poll-u-s-spends-too-much-but-not-on-social-security/

Psychological damage is present.

Reagan's smear campaign on welfare is still paying dividends

• 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"?

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.

Meanwhile EU saying fuck all the disabled to appease a convicted rapist/felon. Sickening.

https://truthout.org/articles/europe-puts-social-programs-on-chopping-block-to-appease-trump-on-nato-funding/