> Is everyone currently clamoring to elect politicians that want to increase welfare and other "Great Society" programs?
People aren't clamoring to increase welfare because the people whom it's perceived to benefit aren't the ones who actually have the largest voting power.
People absolutely do reward politicians for securing funding for their constituents, usually in the form of earmarks, targeted tax breaks (e.g. disaster relief, geographically targeted bailouts), and stipends. In fact, it's one of the strongest predictors of support for politicians representing smaller districts.
Only at the national level (ie, when running for president) does it become problematic to be perceived as having spent Congressional funds on your own district, because the new constituency includes people who had their money "taken away" in order to provide those earmarks.
I don't think richer people would think that the government giving $1000 a month to everyone would see that as benefitting themselves, there's your opposition to increasing BI or having it at all. And I don't disagree with those last two points.
> I don't think richer people would think that the government giving $1000 a month to everyone would see that as benefitting themselves, there's your opposition to increasing BI or having it at all.
Huh? No, the point isn't what the richest people would think - they have an incentive to oppose either welfare or cash handouts. The point is that currently, welfare only targets the people with the lowest voting power, because they're both a very small bloc and also a bloc that doesn't vote very consistently in the first place. So there isn't a huge political incentive to increasing welfare.
As soon as you make that a handout that targets everyone (or appears to target everyone), you've suddenly put the largest voting bloc - those who are neither very wealthy nor on welfare - in a position where they will start to clamor to increase it more and more, because they'll see that as money flowing towards themselves.
Also I don't think it's hard to see how this thought would come about (not saying I'm advocating it). But there are plenty of ideas that would help society in general (lower college tuition) that many Americans are against whether rationally or irrationally.
If you fail to see how the American public would have a negative reaction to some kind of redistribution of wealth I think you should think about the average American's reaction to the idea of a socialist politician.
> If you fail to see how the American public would have a negative reaction to some kind of redistribution of wealth I think you should think about the average American's reaction to the idea of a socialist politician.
That's not it - I'm not saying that the American public wouldn't have a negative reaction to "redistribution of wealth". I'm saying that the American public has a negative reaction to "redistribution of wealth" when they don't think it benefits them. In other words, they're generally fine with wealth being redistributed from other people to them, which is most evidenced by people of all income levels usually (though not always) being on board with federal money coming in to their district. This generally takes the form of federally-funded infrastructure projects or targeted subsidies.
I'm using that to explain why people in between welfare-level poverty and comfortable wealth would have a different reaction to a stipend that (they think) is coming out of other people's tax dollars than they would to current welfare programs (which [as they perceive] don't benefit them).
People aren't clamoring to increase welfare because the people whom it's perceived to benefit aren't the ones who actually have the largest voting power.
People absolutely do reward politicians for securing funding for their constituents, usually in the form of earmarks, targeted tax breaks (e.g. disaster relief, geographically targeted bailouts), and stipends. In fact, it's one of the strongest predictors of support for politicians representing smaller districts.
Only at the national level (ie, when running for president) does it become problematic to be perceived as having spent Congressional funds on your own district, because the new constituency includes people who had their money "taken away" in order to provide those earmarks.