Don’t forget the racist connotation of who they think would be on “welfare”.I sort of get the welfare v. assistance thing. The perception of welfare recipients is that they're single women with several kids by different fathers, strung out on drugs, and smoke several packs of cigarettes a day. The perception of a "poor person" is someone who's struggling, might be homeless, is dirty, lacks clothes, etc.
Crazy to me how much semantic differences can flip entire perceptions of key issues. Such as, roughly 60% of Americans supporting "medicare for all", but less than 30% supporting a "government takeover of healthcare", meanwhile they are both the same.I sort of get the welfare v. assistance thing. The perception of welfare recipients is that they're single women with several kids by different fathers, strung out on drugs, and smoke several packs of cigarettes a day. The perception of a "poor person" is someone who's struggling, might be homeless, is dirty, lacks clothes, etc.
I know there's a racial component in urban areas, but in rural areas where welfare is probably more heavily relied on, most of the recipients are white. In the town I live in, it's 95% white with Native Americans being the second highest group at like 3%. I'd be interested to see the welfare breakdown here though, but I know the only store (a Dollar General) has quite a few people using SNAP cards to buy groceries.Don’t forget the racist connotation of who they think would be on “welfare”.
For sure. The weirdest thing is when an older person goes on and on about how evil "socialized medicine" is but then they're happy to use Medicare whenever they feel like it.Crazy to me how much semantic differences can flip entire perceptions of key issues. Such as, roughly 60% of Americans supporting "medicare for all", but less than 30% supporting a "government takeover of healthcare", meanwhile they are both the same.
You're right and it's a weird thing. The GOP has crafted and really perfected this kind of professionalized "electioning" discipline (not the same thing as electioneering) which revolves almost entirely around the Democratic party, rather than intrinsically around issues. The job isn't to govern, the job is to win elections or even simply deprive democrats of winning elections. Meanwhile the Democrats seem more interested in actual policy*. I'm overgeneralizing here, of course.I think it's one of the Democrats' biggest weaknesses and one of the Republicans' biggest strengths. The Republicans know how to craft language to get people to believe something and then brand it so they can fundraise off of it. Democrats don't do any of that.
The Republicans know how to craft language to get people to believe something and then brand it so they can fundraise off of it. Democrats don't do any of that.
The GOP has crafted and really perfected this kind of professionalized "electioning" discipline (not the same thing as electioneering) which revolves almost entirely around the Democratic party, rather than intrinsically around issues.
Sadly, it's the same in the UK too. It's down to how a subject gets 'framed' and i think its media-led rather than politian-led, although politians are more than happy to run with that rhetoric too as it provides nice little sound-bites for them to bat around.I sort of get the welfare v. assistance thing. The perception of welfare recipients is that they're single women with several kids by different fathers, strung out on drugs, and smoke several packs of cigarettes a day. The perception of a "poor person" is someone who's struggling, might be homeless, is dirty, lacks clothes, etc.