Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Saturday June 02 2018, @05:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the was-not-expecting-that dept.

White Americans' fear of losing their socioeconomic standing in the face of demographic change may be driving opposition to welfare programs, even though whites are major beneficiaries of government poverty assistance, according to new research from the University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford University.

While social scientists have long posited that racial resentment fuels opposition to such anti-poverty programs as food stamps, Medicaid and Temporary Aid to Needy Families, this is the first study to show the correlation experimentally, demonstrating a causal relationship between attitudes to welfare and threatened racial status.

"With policymakers proposing cuts to the social safety net, it's important to understand the dynamics that drive the welfare backlash," said study lead author Rachel Wetts, a Ph.D. student in sociology at UC Berkeley. "This research suggests that when whites fear their status is on the decline, they increase opposition to programs intended to benefit poorer members of all racial groups."

The findings, to be published May 30 in the journal Social Forces, highlight a welfare backlash that swelled around the 2008 Great Recession and election of Barack Obama.

Notably, the study found anti-welfare sentiment to be selective insofar as threats to whites' standing led whites to oppose government assistance programs they believed largely benefit minorities, while not affecting their views of programs they thought were more likely to advantage whites.

"Our findings suggest that these threats lead whites to oppose programs they perceive as primarily benefiting racial minorities," said study senior author Robb Willer, a professor of sociology and social psychology at Stanford University.

[...] "Overall, these results suggest whites' perceptions of rising minority power and influence lead them to oppose welfare programs," Wetts said.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @01:51PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @01:51PM (#687667)

    Sounds like Angela Merkel was right: we (in Europe) can't depend on the USA anymore [theguardian.com].

    Since they probably believe [wikipedia.org] we're all outbred by niqab-wearing gay commie sharia following abortionists, the feeling I'm sure is mutual.

  • (Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 02 2018, @02:08PM (8 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02 2018, @02:08PM (#687672) Journal

    Europe can no longer completely rely on its longstanding British and US allies, Angela Merkel has warned

    Stupid bitch - the EU isn't old enough to have any "longstanding" allies. Israel is a newly minted country, and it's a few times older than the EU.

    “The times in which we could completely depend on others are, to a certain extent, over,”

    Wake up and smell the coffee. TANSTAAFL You pay your way. Ass, gas, or grass - no one rides for free.

    At the Nato summit in Brussels on Thursday, Trump repeated past accusations that other members of the alliance were failing to match America’s military spending commitment of 2% of GDP, saying this was “not fair” on US taxpayers.

    It's about time someone understood that, and did something about it. The US and UK pretty much fought the Cold War for Europe, after all. The US fought Vietnam for the French.

    He failed to endorse the pact’s article five mutual defence clause – an omission seen as especially striking as he was unveiling a memorial to those killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the US, the only time it has been triggered.

    Merkel continues to harbor hostiles from Islam, and she wants mutual defence? It isn't mutual defense if she's giving her country away, and expects us to defend her country. How retarded can she get?

    Your heroine, Merkel, needs to get out into the slums, and meet some of her "asylum seekers".

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @03:12PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @03:12PM (#687703)

      Says the US guy who lives on the sticks and doesnt even really know his own country. Turn off the propaganda machine!

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by janrinok on Saturday June 02 2018, @03:19PM (6 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02 2018, @03:19PM (#687706) Journal

      Europe can no longer completely rely on its longstanding British and US allies, Angela Merkel has warned

      Stupid bitch - the EU isn't old enough to have any "longstanding" allies. Israel is a newly minted country, and it's a few times older than the EU.

      She didn't say the EU - she said Europe. Many Americans originated here. Now how could they have done that if Europe is 'new'. Try to follow what is being said.

      At the Nato summit in Brussels on Thursday (2017), Trump repeated past accusations that other members of the alliance were failing to match America’s military spending commitment of 2% of GDP, saying this was “not fair” on US taxpayers.

      It's about time someone understood that, and did something about it. The US and UK pretty much fought the Cold War for Europe, after all. The US fought Vietnam for the French.

      So are you suggesting that the other European nations did nothing during the Cold War? I happen to have served in 4 of them during that period. Oh, yes, you seem to have forgotten that Germany was divided. Perhaps your knowledge of history is a little lacking? And Western Germany and Eastern Germany were full of foreign military bases - the war was going to be fought initially on their soil - not yours. How about Norway, and Turkey, and the other countries that actually border onto Russia, or as it was then the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. They were just sat around playing at being holiday destinations or tourist attractions in your view were they?

      And the Russians must be laughing themselves silly nowadays. After all, the US does not support its allies (ignored them regarding climate change, Iran and has now imposed trade tariffs on its 'friends'. If the US is going to stand by its NATO commitments just as it has done with many others recently, Russia will have achieved the breakup of NATO by sitting by and letting the US administration make their dreams come true for them.

      The US fought Vietnam for the French.

      ... and lost, so I wouldn't go claiming that as a US success story. Not saying that it was the military's fault, but the US cannot claim that as being a win. Over 10% of the French Forces who fought in Vietnam lost their lives. Which nation stood alongside the US in the Gulf, Bosnia, and more recently in Syria? France, one the 5 permanent members of the security council. Your disdain for the French is fortunately not mirrored by their willingness to fight alongside you when necessary. And die just like Americans do.

      Merkel continues to harbor hostiles from Islam

      And there we have it - in your eyes a religion is now a terrorist organisation. So is Christianity, and pretty much every other religion along with atheists and agnostics, if you want to use your logic.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 02 2018, @03:31PM (4 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02 2018, @03:31PM (#687711) Journal

        It is you who is missing the point. The US has been paying for Europe's defense for decades. No country on earth spends as much as the US on "defense". None. The USSR tried to compete, and bankrupted itself. Repeat after me: No country on earth spends as much on "defense" as the US of A. It would be difficult to find a block of nations - such as the EU - that spends as much as the US on our supposed "defense". In point of fact, the US funds huge portions of the world's defense forces.

        It's all well and good for Europeans to point east, and tell us that the big bad wolf is lurking. WTF do they expect us to pay for their defense? I'm a good neighbor, and all, but if they won't invest in a shotgun of their own, I'm not willing to guard their chickens for the rest of my life.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Saturday June 02 2018, @05:40PM (2 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 02 2018, @05:40PM (#687757) Journal

          Well, the quoted piece was dated 2017 - and as a result several NATO nations have upped their defence spending. And all the NATO nations have committed significant forces too, although you seem to be ignoring that. Of course the US contributes more than anyone else - but compare it with the size of the country and its wealth and it is not as far ahead as you might think. Furthermore, the US would rather fight on someone else's territory rather than its own.

          Secondly, the fact that US forces are allocated to NATO doesn't mean that they don't also serve US interests elsewhere. Do you really think that your forces would shrink significantly if NATO went away? You would still have to protect the US, and would you rather fight that war in Europe or on your own soil? But without NATO you would also lose significant mobility. You would lose access to numerous military logistical and operational facilities that the US currently relies upon. You wouldn't be able to stage your aircraft through Europe on the way to the Middle East or elsewhere. You would lose access to numerous intelligence collection locations. Where would you base your existing air and land assets? Do you think that they could all be ship borne? The logistical tail would be a nightmare without access to European bases. Or are you expecting to leave NATO and the defence commitment, and then rely on our good will to give you what you want? You would be increasingly blind to existing terrorist threats which you would find difficult to disrupt until they arrive in your own, limited, area of influence.

          And on that thought, where would the 6th Fleet be based? Ah yes, Naples. Another NATO ally, so you could well lose that facility too. Or, of course, pay whatever the Italians want to have in return for your presence. So, you might not be saving money at all. But you would be losing influence and force projection. Of course, the rest of the Med is bordered by other NATO allies, potential enemies, or perhaps you might want to throw your hand in with a North African country. That will probably be cheaper than staying in NATO, but will cost you $billions in building new facilities. Quite a saving you imagine?

          Many of your existing assets would be next to worthless as a defensive capability if withdrawn to the CONUS. What would your artillery assets, your tanks, your infantry be targetting? All of your forces, or the great majority, would have to be converted to air deliverable - not just transportable - but deliverable to the battlefield. Remember, you have already sacrificed your numerous bases in Europe and you would be waiting for the enemy to be landing on your shores - by which time they will probably have already trampled through Europe anyway so you will be on your own. Good Luck!

          Alternatively, you can just isolate the US back on its own soil. I can think of several nations that would love to see that happen. That would surely but making America great again. Great with all the influence of a third world state because you could not project your forces without the cooperation of other nations. But why would they help you after seeing how you deserted your previous allies? Could you do it? Well, if you ever could it will be with the current administration or one similar to it. But I also think that you would soon rue the day that you made that decision.

          Your understanding is superficial at best - although that seems to be a common trait in the US administration at present. You are very good at the 'Rah Rah Rah US is Best!' but you haven't thought of how the world would look if you continue to alienate your friends and allies. As I have already said, the Russians must be loving this sort of 'thinking'. By all means, put the US first but don't think that by turning your back on Europe you will have an easier - or better - life. You should be thinking several moves ahead - not what is the best thing to get votes for the next election. Your best bet is to stop any war long before it reaches your shores. Perhaps we should create an Alliance with countries that can all help each other? Never - what a silly idea!

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 03 2018, @12:17AM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03 2018, @12:17AM (#687855) Journal

            Read below what #faketrump has posted.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Sunday June 03 2018, @04:07AM

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03 2018, @04:07AM (#687924) Journal

              I rarely read what FakeTrump writes,,, but I will make an exception.

              And as I expected, it is concentrating purely on the financial aspect. You are missing the point by a wide margin. The US benefits by having greater influence in the world by being able to project force and political influence. It avoids having wars fought on its own territory but rather several thousand miles away from home. It has access to facilities and bases in a region that is vitally important to it. You are using the same shallow thinking as your current administration - and FakeTrump. Of course we are grateful, for the time being, for all that it brings to us too, but being led by someone who doesn't understand geopolitics is causing you all to think in purely financial terms.

              Well, go ahead. It is your chosen government. But when the latest trade tariffs start to ruin our own industries do not expect your friends to remain as helpful to you then as they are now. And when you gain steel jobs but lose many more manufacturing jobs then remember what you have started. When you think that the only benefits should be viewed by looking at the bottom line then the US will become a mirror of all those big businesses that we - and you - spend so much time criticising here on this site. And when you start threatening the only organisation that has kept us all - you included - from another war be prepared for what you will reap.

        • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday June 02 2018, @10:02PM

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Saturday June 02 2018, @10:02PM (#687822) Homepage Journal

          NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share. We’re spending the biggest, the lion share’s paid for by us. They pay virtually nothing, most of them. NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe, but we’re spending a lot of money. Number one, I think the distribution of costs has to be changed. You have countries in NATO, I think it’s 28 countries -- you have countries in NATO that are getting a free ride and it’s unfair, it’s very unfair. If they can’t pay their bills, they’ve got to go!!!!

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 04 2018, @01:51PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 04 2018, @01:51PM (#688344) Journal

        She didn't say the EU - she said Europe.

        She doesn't speak for Europe. This would be far from the first time that a politician has presented their self-interests as belonging to a larger group. I see also in that story that she had in that speech excluded the UK and Russia from her label of "Europeans". Who else will be excluded in the future from "Europe"?

        The chancellor told a 2,500-strong crowd in the Bavarian capital that Germany and Europe would naturally strive to remain on good terms with the US, Britain and other countries, “even with Russia”, but added: “We have to know that we must fight for our future on our own, for our destiny as Europeans.”

        One also has to keep in mind that Merkel is one of the more significant destabilizing influences presently in the EU. While I don't see Syrian refugees economic or otherwise as a significant threat to the EU, it remains that Merkel nakedly pursued a policy of demographic replenishment of Germany at the consequence of increasing anti-immigration sentiment throughout the EU. In particular, Brexit was a very near thing. Even if Merkel merely paid lip service to immigration concerns at the time, that might have tipped the balance in favor of the EU.