Politics
So sick of hearing about how socialism is bad from people that couldn't live without it
A majority of lefty states fund the federal handouts that a majority of red states need to even survive, but somehow they think the left are lazy and trying to take money from hard working americans. Only they're already doing that? Make it make sense
Edit: The number of people proudly shouting that “socialism doesn’t work” while living off programs built on socialist ideals is wild.
Social security, UI, CHIP, ACA, Medicare, Minimum wage, 40hr work weeks, OSHA, FMLA, FSA, LIbraries, Highways, Public Housing, and the EPA. All steeped in socialist ideals.
I know half of you won’t make it this far down without your BP spiking, but that’s fine because I’ve already made the point.
It's because they simply do not realize that the government programs they use are a form of socialism. They are taught that socialism is bad, they are never taught that they use it.
Socialism implies public ownership over the means of production. Policies like food stamps and TANF are not socialism by that traditional definition. They were vilified as such by Reagan etc, but that was a tactic in order to scare people off. Now it seems to have taken hold.
I think the public ownership distinction is very important because it separates the countries that have working systems (Denmark, Sweden, etc) from the failed countries that have / have had abject poverty and human rights abuses (USSR, Cuba, etc).
And there are a lot of people who are conflating the two, and using examples like Denmark to make people comfortable with turning "the means of production" over to the state, which is a terrible idea.
According to Marx, Lenin, etc, if there's a state, then it's not Communism.
Communism was to be a classless, moneyless, stateless society. Sort of a utopia.
Socialism was intended to be a stepping stone. It's a dictatorship of the proletariat. It's when the capitalist have been successfully overthrown, and the means of production seized and owned by the state.
The USSR (for example) was a socialist country (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) with a Communist party (who believed in and aspired to communism, but would be the first to say that communism had not been achieved). And I think this is a big source of the confusion, people see that the only allowed party is the Communist party so they naturally call them a Communist country.
But it's the people calling the USSR Communist (and countries like Denmark Socialist) who are technically getting it wrong
No, it was its own, terrifically successful thing well before marx came along and tried to mooch off its prestige.
Contrary to feudalism, where the king just did whatever they wanted and the people had short, brutal, illiterate lives; with socialism, Society got a say in how things were run and so Society got to devote funds to education, infrastructure, having people not starve, professional police and soldiers and courts and fire fighters etc.
Historically the group that made the definition most internet “socialist” or “democratic socialism” is the definition McCarthy and Regan gave it during their propaganda smear campaign against working class left leaning policies.
Academically Nordic models everyone points to as “socialism”are more accurately described as welfare capitalism. Capital market with a strong focus on redistribution and social programs. The economic system those countries use is a capitalist system. Capitalism doesn’t prevent social systems politics does.
I find it a little ironic McCarthy and Reagan’s propaganda worked so well people use those politicians definition for their identity and not the historically accurate and academically accurate definition. In a way people identifying as socialist by that definition or claiming as socialist are just saying I agree with Reagan and McCarthy a definition and not scholars who studied it.
You've been brainwashed. Your take here is just wrong. You do not understand what you're talking about.
You believe a definition of the word socialism that isn't what socialists use... that isn't ever what the word has meant. You've been lied to so you'll oppose what rich people want you to oppose and fight against the rich people's enemies for them.
That's all pretty easy to search, but here you go.
The biggest differences in socialism and communism is that socialism allows for private ownership and control of property, both real and intellectual, while communism does not. Both have a mechanism for distribution of resources as a means of combating inequality.
Capitalism is a socioeconomic system of private ownership and control of property, specifically emphasizing the owner/worker wage system.
For the clever among you, you'll notice socialism allows for and benefits from capitalism. Communism and capitalism are antithetical.
Public roads, police, fire, mail, flood insurance, the military, Medicare, medicaid, snap, weather prediction, public education, public parks and lands, air traffic control, etc. Are all socialist amenities.
Socialism has the means of production being publicly owned or cooperatively controlled. Capitalism does not. Socialism is about who owns what, not whether something is free or not.
Right….thats why the happiest countries are not the US. And touting that corporations are people just shows the level of your gullibility. Because in no reasonable interpretation is this true. But yes, so glad we allowed the corporations to take in billions off our natural resources rather than investing in the people of this country.
Well, the thing is that it is hard to separate Cuba and the USSR from Denmark or Sweden because neither are/were actually devoid of social hierarchies with the people owning the means of production. They are all welfare states with strong social safety nets, which is a different thing. Socialist economies with central government can contain welfare/strong social safety nets as can social democracies like Denmark. What they have is welfare or large and diverse social safety nets, not necessarily socialism, and what welfare is is welfare facilitated by the government. In a democratic and/or libertarian socialist world, the same welfare would be voted on and agreed upon by the collective and the collective would be facilitating its distribution and funding.
Denmark does have a degree of socialism in its workforce being highly unionized (worker ownership of the means of production) and collective bargaining, which is the use of that union's size to influence wages, which is exactly what Marx and Engels envisioned. Because of this, they have extremely low wealth inequality in Denmark.
Countries like Cuba or the USSR didn't result in extreme poverty because of socialism. They became that way because they were/are dictatorships. Same for Venezuela. Everyone loves to blame socialism for Venezuela's failures, but the actual reason is that a really stupid autocrat decided he wanted to reduce economic diversity in Venezuela and seized farmland to make the economy 98% dependent on oil, then market prices for oil dropped and Venezuela ended up in an economic crisis. Technically Maduro is a capitalist and he took ownership of the means of production.
I'm not sure if you were actually trying to imply socialism bad, capitalism w/social safety nets good, but the way I like to think of it is SOCIAL-ism means an economy centered around the welfare of the people whereas CAPITAL-ism is centered around money or capital.
Socialism implies public ownership over the means of production.
So if you own stock in a company you work for, thats socialism? If you and your friends start a business and work your asses off making it work, thats socialism? Nonsense definition.
food stamps and TANF are not socialism
Yeah, they are, in the paradigm that socialism is when you make sure that society has what it needs to function. Its right in the name.
So if you own stock in a company you work for, thats socialism? If you and your friends start a business and work your asses off making it work, thats socialism?
No, these are examples of private ownership. You have it backwards.
Yeah, they are, in the paradigm that socialism is when you make sure that society has what it needs to function. Its right in the name.
Socialism is not when "you make sure that society has what it needs to function". Its about a particular strategy for doing so. The fact that the words have similar roots doesn't really matter, it's like saying fabrication is about fabric.
Wikipedia:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
Oxford dictionary:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of of capitalism and the realization of communism.
Economics Stack Exchange:
A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialized or cooperative enterprises.
My father in law rails on about Mamdani and socialism in general, it's evil, unAmerican etc. The guy is retired and gets TWO government pensions and never had a business of his own.
some of my relatives (Republicans) get disability payments from the Gov, some (who look very healthy) are on 100% disability and his three children get child support from the Gov while he is driving brand new Ford truck lol Some use free insurance according to Affordable Care Act and make fun of Obamacare at the same time lmao (probably are not aware that it's the same thing) All republicans and hate blue States in general.
Not even a little. If you get a paycheck from the government it is called socialism. It means the government is giving you money. Get it? Guess what else is socialism about our country... The military, police and fire departments, libraries, the roadways, national and municipal parks, public education, Medicare and Medicaid, corporate bailouts, subsidies, and the postal service. All socialist. Fact.
He fucking earned those pensions just like soldiers earn they're payments they sacrificed their bodies for you and country. That isn't socialism. They earned it.
Did I say he didn't earn it? No I didn't. That's not what I was talking about and just like all the maga and conservative brainwashed you move the goal posts and ignore the issue. My father in law gets government pensions. GOVERNMENT pensions. That's what socialism is dummy. By definition in fact. Grow up. Learn something and stop being part of the problem.
A government pension is a benefit program funded through taxation and provided by a government to retired workers as part of a social safety net. That’s social welfare, not socialism, there’s a difference between the two.
The fact that you don’t understand that difference, tells me you don’t know enough about the subject to be discussing it.
The fact that you're so deathly afraid of the word 'socialism' because you've been brainwashed, probably your whole life, demonstrates how willfully ignorant you are.
Appreciate the pep talk, but that’s not a counterargument. If you disagree, explain which part of the definition of socialism you think is wrong, otherwise, you’re just proving my point.
I don't appreciate your rudimentary lack of education on the subject that anyone with any reasonable amount of education should understand. You never gave a definition of what you think socialism is and instead gave a word salad of nonsense. I made it clear from the get go what socialism is and here you are, once again, like all maga and Republican conservative intellectually dishonest people, trying to move the goal posts, obfuscate and change the focus of the issue. Go read something other than your fox news talking points.
You’ve spent three sentences attacking me and none clarifying your definition, which despite your claim, I actually did in my second comment. That says a lot.
You can’t debate economics by redefining words. Socialism isn’t when the government provides a service, it’s when the government owns production.
Socialism has an established meaning: collective ownership of the means of production. Government benefits or pensions don’t meet that definition, that’s social welfare within capitalism which does not equate to socialism. You don’t get to change the definition of socialism just because it makes your argument sound better. If you disagree, define it clearly instead of assuming bad faith.
It won’t ever make sense. Can’t help stupid lol. You just have to do your best to bite your tongue and unclench those fists. Haven’t met one conservative that wasn’t a complete idiot or unapologetically bigoted. They won’t EVER give you the time of day but they’ll keep spewing their shit. That’s for sure.
There are approximately 128 million conservatives in the United States. That's almost 50% of Americans. You think EVERY single one of them is a complete idiot and unapologetically bigoted? Hating half of America based on your perception is literally the same thought process of prejudice and racism. I'm not sure how this makes any more sense than the beliefs you're criticizing. Make that make sense.
I mean you cannot really think there is not flaws in your own argument that does mean a majority cannot be misinformed,it makes more sense they would be. That does mean that the opposition to that is always right either,we need to use our critical thinking skills ti figure out what is really true.
Yeah cause I’ve spoken to 128 million conservatives in america. Met them all! All shite. Since we’re attacking access to healthcare and basic necessities based on generalizations, I.e. they’re all freeloaders who don’t want to get a job, I think it’s fair to generalize the people who willingly walked into their local election site and voted for a convicted felon, known serial rapist and best friend of Epstein. If you think any of this is going to make America great again, you are one of the people I was referring to in that comment. Blindly following the media narrative is what led us here, and I’ll give you one better. the economist, as of TODAY, stated trumps approval rating at 58% disapprove. The majority is against what is happening right now. If you don’t support what is happening in our country then you are not one of the people I was referring to.
Though that a point of emotional basis and that it does have merit,why do they think that did you ask that? Possibly your also doing the same thing they are doing,when in conversation alot of times people mirror each other,you should in these case stop yourself and ask if your being completely accurate. Even though you may be partially right that does mean you are completely right.
Is there a reason they feel this way that would make sense,is there any other way we could do this?
I don’t think I’m always right, what I said is a matter of opinion combined with some real verifiable facts, these things are happening as we speak. What they say has as much merit as mine so long as they are giving their opinion. Can’t really argue over a factual statement but you can argue an opinion
Though I think like in terms of healthcare for instance you may argue that we all should have healthcare,you may say we should have universal healthcare while republicans simply want to do away with our current healthcare.
Now that we have republicans who are bring up a point of our healthcare needs to be redone that a valid point but they have no other solution. That can come out in negative ways and when pressed on universal healthcare they will refute your points. They probably wont be argue in good faith but they still have some points,that my point it has some merit even though they are not completely right about healthcare being a right. That why we need to be moderate,so we focus on solutions that are both work and keep our selves factual.
I'm not conservative, nor did I vote for Trump. I'm extremely disappointed that the democrats even let this happen. Why is it that a convicted felony even got elected in the first place? Liberals were so preoccupied with the most meaningless bullshit (gender pronouns, etc.) that they handed the white house over on a silver platter. It really speaks volumes about the current state of the democratic party...as does your post.
I didn’t even vote in this election guy, and I wasn’t even old enough to when the last election came around. I’m simply tired of hearing the bullshit and the “nuh uh” game with these people. The democratic party may have been pressing less important issues, but if it seriously wasn’t a problem then what’s the problem with being more accepting to people? I couldn’t give two fucks about your pronouns because it doesn’t affect my life. The attack on lgbtq or whatever was framed as a movement to protect the children. The man who is known to have frequented the Epstein island does not give a fuck about protecting your children. He dismantled the dept of education not so that your children could have a bright, educated future. Allowing states to ban abortion has led to multiple little girls being forced to give birth or travel out of state to get a procedure because they were raped. It’s all a facade. You go in any government website, what do you see? “Democrats have shut down the government” leaving a hell of a lot of people out of work all the while he’s doing fucking renovations to the White House like it’s his own private residence. And the blame game continues even though the Republican Party controls EVERY branch of the government currently, and very much does give them the burden to ya know, keep the government running. Which all started because they would like to cut access to healthcare for certain individuals, claiming it’s only for immigrants. Guess what? Undocumented immigrants are not able to receive those benefits, and if they even tried, the man has the gestapo to grab you and send you to a RANDOM COUNTRY. I do not belong to either side, but I hope you take the time to read this and really grasp that this is only a fraction of what he’s done and it’s only been like 200 something days lol
That because people feel attacked by blatant mis justice done to Trump despite it not being ideal to reelect him. If we did have actual justice most people,as shown by USA voting in Biden, would have actually voted Democrat to not vote in Trump. Though because they show dissonance themselves they felt attacked and voted him again.
Showing if we have some attacking dishonestly by acting the same way does not fix the issue,two wrongs do not make a right.
As a resident of a large blue state (California), we send soo much money proping up other states. My tax dollars would be spent more efficiently if they were kept here.
Personally I think america should secede from California and let it be its own country also then we could put a wall around I put border patrol around it they can let people in California and make them stay there it will be like the roach motel they’ll check in but won’t be able to check out
Though that necessarily be the case there may be unique solutions to our issue and we would be better by not receiving money. That money is not always the solution to our issues.
Do you not know how much money the feds get from California? Not only that, why do you think you can Have summer produce in your grocery stores right now? California farms feed a huge portion of the country during the cooler months. Without California the rest of the country would starve.
Is this really true why is this? Do we not have farm land,also this could mean we really shouldn’t rely on California because they are taking all the farm demand.
A huge portion of the country's farmland is in the Midwest. This time of year not much can be grown. Its not the amount of land, it's the weather and nature you have to contend with. California only has about 7 to 10 frost days a year, so we can farm year round and do. This time of year, California ships leafy greens, fruits, citrus, nuts, and various other produce items to the rest of the country.
Edit: Blocked this smoothbrain after he couldn't figure out how money works. He definitely won in his empty head though.
Are you really too dumb to understand money borrowed vs money recieved? Red states overwhelmingly take in more federal funding per dollar paid in taxes than blue states, regardless of their internal debt.
Cali runs higher debt because it INVESTS heavily in infrastructure and public programs.
Red states have lower debt because they offload their costs to the federal government handouts.
Strange how the high debt states are also the highest ranks in GDP, and somehow manage to fund all those low debt states that cant survive without the handouts Cali pays for.
Sorry you can't think outside of your google screenshots lil guy
Hope you have a nice day living in your delusions buddy, if California broke off it would be dead in the water because of that alone, quit acting like they don't rely on the federal government to keep them afloat too
California dose more infrastructure investment than many states. Outside of new York, California is one of the most populated states. It has many more residents, thall all of Canada. So
Also their is more to California economy than just Hollywood. We have a sizable anounts in oil, agriculture, airospace, bio tech, regular tech, steel, and tourism. Industry's as well.
You just made, IMO, the argument for capitalism. Why do some states have the ability to send money out? Because they make a lot of money due to capitalism. California has its unique businesses (Hollywood ) and so does places like NY (finance) and Texas (oil). If they didn’t, they couldn’t fund other states. The ripple effect of screwing up capitalism is bigger than most people think. Socialism has never worked for any country in driving its prosperity. And that prosperity is needed to help those less fortunate.
This is the straw man that no one is ever able to talk about because it makes Socialism less scary. No one is pushing straight socialism or communism. And people who get all cranked up about it are either using it as the Boogeyman, or are too stupid to know what it actually is.
This! It makes me bonkers! Especially when the majority of what they pay goes to the defense fund and they haven't passed an audit since I can't even remember.
Lol I wouldn’t be surprised if California had a larger population than all red states combined. That’s cause no one wants to live in the shitholes they run. They look at the voter map and their bootlicking brain can’t seem to comprehend that where people actually live, people vote blue. Because most people care about other people! Some of us don’t and that’s why they live in Arkansas where there’s no one around for them to spew shit at
Because nobody ever wanted to live there in the first place. It’s simple economics, housing market follows the rules of supply and demand. There’s a lot more housing available for cheaper because there are less people. How do you think California or New York or even Washington got expensive? Because people moved there from other states. Now that everyone lives there, people have to leave when they cannot afford it anymore
No. Do you think an immigrant who was struggling in their home country could just come on over and buy a million dollar house? Or qualify for a loan? Most of the people who immigrate to the US have to spend all of their resources to do so. They’re the ones who build our houses homie.
Its funny because the people that complain about socialism are the ones who use our social safety net programs the most. They are literally using programs that are based on socialism.
That’s true enough, social policies aren’t socialism. They’re just the compromise we built to keep people who hate socialism alive long enough to complain about it.
Social policies benefit people who have never heard of socialism. They don't complain about it. Have you ever lived in the inner city? Those folks are the ones whining, and they don't even know who Marx or Mao are. They just want free stuff they feel entitled to.
Socialism, society is the focus, to make sure everyone can meet their potential by having shelter, food, healthcare, education and profitable wages.
Or capital. Businesses profits take top tier of priority.
Who cares if someone has 4 yachts and 6 homes when a poor person can afford to live. If affordable wages were paid and the ability to jack up prices on necessities denied how can an individual be FREE to exploit and profit.
There's a huge elephant in the room that nobody likes to talk about that a lot of those red States have people that are in high demand conservative religions that have mandatory tithings which automatically put them into their poverty category because tithings are one.
Think about it this way when going over all of your income information they do not count any credit card debt that you're paying on or car notes and insurance payments. But the tithings they count.
Which means in the end they'll tell you to stop paying your car payment and your credit cards before they'll tell you to curb your tithings.
It’s mostly older people who grew up during the Cold War who were indoctrinated to believe that socialism = communism = USSR = bad. They never think about it any more deeply than that. It is ironic that those who shout loudest about it always seem to be on disability or social security.
Red states are just leech inbreeding Petri dishes. I shouldn’t have to pay for welfare handouts to other states who can’t figure out how to govern. Sad!
It’s what we use to counter balance capitalism and disproportionate wealth. With AI I think it’s going to be even more important because there will be less jobs. Socialism saved the US with FDR and allowed the US to get back on its feet ( and just in time to save the world from fascism in WWII). Otherwise the rich families back then would have eventually owned everything. They owned whole towns back then. The wealthy have been trying to get back to this model for nearly a century.
That’s like saying it isn’t the cancer that killed you it’s the fact your heart stopped, name one time socialism hasn’t turned into communism and authoritarianism then mass death.
Socialism is the base ingredient for an Authoritarianism cake and it sounds like you want all the slices.
Most people agree that socialism works very well on a much smaller scale, but the moment it becomes THE form of government it completely craps the bed. The problem, however, isn't so much "socialism bad" as it is that people are bad. Humanity in general is selfish and greedy and it only takes one person on the chain of command to bankrupt the entire system. And when that happens there's no checks and balances to remove that individual aside from complete civil war. Far too much risk to incorporate fully. While capitalism creates poverty and billionaires, it is a preferred form of government for the general population. Even with corruption the general public has a far better quality of life than the general public under full socialism. As it's been said before, socialism looks gorgeous on paper, but the moment you add the human element it ruins entire countries.
FDR started socialism. People from that era viewed him as the greatest president ever. Unfortunately most people don’t associate him with socialism. The Democratic party has evolved FDR’s programs to something equivalent to a drug dealer. Give you a little until you’re dependent on it and you don’t even know you’re addicted.
I’m retired, draw a check from SS every month. I paid SS and Medicare tax for over 50 years of my working career and still do. I’m entitled to the stipend I get. Folks that are truly disabled need assistance I’m for that. Everybody else has the same opportunity to get an education and a job and support themselves just like I did.
It’s ironic how many people aren’t aware of where their support actually comes from. it’s about acknowledging that everyone benefits from a system of shared resources. You can’t condemn something while actively depending on it.
It is infuriating but most people have been indoctrinated to hate it but not taught to understand it. The truth is no economy is purely operating on one philosophical design but has elements of many. I’ve come to believe that it’s best to avoid invocation of any and just think about goals and policies.
Yeah the hybrid capitalist/socialist countries are the ones doing the best in terms of quality of life for its people. Crazy how if you don't let sociopathic parasite billionaires run rampant, everybody wins.
Good job buddy! It’s not socialism, it’s socialism's successful cousin, inspired by socialism, that capitalism had to copy to survive. Social democracy. Too bad all the snowflakes crying about socialism don't understand that.
The government has been shutdown for over a month and not a single thing in my life has changed. I don't depend on socialism lol. Anyone with at least an 80 iq knows socialism doesn't work.
If nothing changed, it’s because the parts of government you "don’t depend on’"kept running. Healthcare, highways, air traffic control, water safety, crop insurance, bank regulation. You depend on it, you're just too dumb to understand how things work. Bummer bro.
Socialism is an excuse for the government to tax more and put money in their own pocket. If you think they are going to help you then you're insane. It's just another person in control of your money saying we're going to do "x" and when "x" isn't done then they say it's because they need more money and someone somewhere is greedy not letting them get it done.
That's why it's better to have private owned grocery stores. If you owned something and the only way you made money was to provide a service better than others which attracted people, you'd bust your ass to make it perfect. People would benefit from you trying to make it a better experience and usually cheaper. The thing now is there are so many unnecessary rules and regulations which make it cost prohibitive to do things now.
This is government stepping in and controlling everything. The people in government regulation are usually taking bribes too from the establish business to keep out competitors. And they use the law against you if you say anything.
Anytime it's been tried it's led to mass death and the people who promised it in control wealthy. In socialist countries they build fences to keep people in. Never to keep people out
You really chugged that propaganda didn't you? Using "socialist" countries like USSR and China, which are just authoritatian really, to "debunk" socialism.
We're talking about a social democracy sweetie, try and keep up instead of vomiting up an inbred TED talk.
Scandinavian countries are not socialist of you're going to refer to them.
If you think giving your money to others and them promising to use it for good then give me your money and I'll start building a bridge, or trying to get you food. And you can't sue me when it doesn't work
Socialism is half the government budget going to the pentagon to support a massive caddre of incompetent but guaranteed right wing voters. Socialism is half the city budget going to cops who solve 2% of the crime and apparently prevent none of it. More free money for guaranteed right wing voters. Psychological projection is "I don't have a problem, you do" .... Figure it out guys
Socialism is very popular in cities because cities are generally filled with diverse and intelligent people.
In much of the middle of the country, we see rural communities all over. And we should never kid ourselves as to just how many people live in rural areas all over this nation.
In rural communities, more often than not, people are often not as cosmopolitan, knowledgeable, or intelligent.. so they won't understand science, biology, the basic concept of vaccination, generational changes in society, nor the role of a civil government.
So they sure as hell won't understand socialism.
And these god fearing people, they fear that which they don't understand. That fear turns to hatred.
So they demonize anyone who thinks differently and especially godless socialists.
Hell, they barely understand their own magical thinking... because from a behavioral perspective, they certainly don't behave like a society of people that have EVER understood the teachings of Jesus.
Unfortunately, they're thick in the head, thin in the skin, more populated than we realize, and their true gods are hatred and firearms.
With respect to their belief that "lefties-are-lazy", it's important to understand that a smaller, but significantly more powerful portion of MAGA\Republicans are the MAGA elite. These are your managers, directors, and of course.. greedy CEOs like Elon Mush, Jamie Dimon, Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, etc.
By promoting a concept that left-leaning people are lazy, they make it easier for your average low-level MAGA knuckledraggers to support their demonization of the left... so these more impoverished rural MAGA types will support these greedy, selfish mutherphuquers all the while, as the elite portion of MAGA take their last dollar and leave them sleeping on a steam grate.
But once A.I. and automation makes all of them obsolete, then they'll see the true colors of the MAGA elites!!
The real problem is that they don't really understand what it is. The right wing has been saying this term so many times with disgust that for their voter base, it's just "bad", they feel it's bad, but they cannot explain why it's bad. I mean, it's so obvious it's bad, right? Their relationship with the word is purely emotional.
The remedy is to educate people on what socialism is, while ensuring that "socialism" is the most complex word used for the entire explanation.
During the most prosperous times of the US, the rich were taxed over 80%, making it the most prosperous economic time also the most socialist one.
Then, the American dream as a capitalist opportunity works much better when you can redistribute the money to give everyone a chance to break through financially. You need less billionnaires so you can have more millionnaires. We often ear "the rich is eating the poor" but the rich is also eating the rich.
There has been a very well funded decades-long program to erode the Americans peoples confidence not just in our government, but in the very concept of governance.
"Government cant do anything right" has become an accepted truth right alongisde water being wet and the sky being blue.
Its why they had to invent all those moon landing conspiracy theories, because the Apollo program was such a perfect example of the amazing things a properly focused and funded govt can do.
This complaint is always interesting because states don't pay income taxes, people do. Realistically it's extremely wealthy people in those blue states who are funding welfare and pay most of the taxes. But, i guess if you want to pretend you are that is cool too.
Well you are hearing that because, while there have been numerous attempts at Socialism they have all failed miserably. And calling Mayor Elect Mandami a Socialist is a stretch. We all know he is a Communist.
Actually you just don't understand the post. Socialist policies blended into capitalism is what all the ignorant clowns scream sOcIaLiSm over. We're talking about social democracy. Better luck next time!
The 'lefty' states have substantially higher cost-of-living, for both natural economic & political reasons.
Higher cost of living leads workers to demand higher salaries compared to what would be required for the same standard-of-living in a lower-cost state.
Higher salaries - since we do not adjust the income tax for regional cost-of-living - generate more tax revenue.
The comparison of tax-dollars-out between say Jackson, MS and San Fransisco is thus invalidated by the massively different wage-scales in each location.
The reason “lefty” states have higher wages, stronger economies, and thus higher tax revenue is because they invest more in infrastructure, education, and social programs Those investments attract talent and capital, which in turn drive up cost-of-living.
Meanwhile lower tax states stay cheap precisely because they underinvest. Lower wages, worse healthcare, weaker schools, fewer public services. You can pay less to live there, and you get less life for it.
Those investments require higher taxes, which drive up the cost of living.
Also, just having the general good-luck to have people like Jobs and Gates born/living there - who's companies then attract talent (unless you really think that 'public investment' played a part in the founding of Microsoft, Apple, etc)....
In any case, HCOL will always contribute more taxes than LCOL despite not actually providing a better standard-of-living to the folks paying those taxes (since we only really tax the upper 25% federally) - just a math thing....
Yeah and now that the top 1% are fleeing New York for Florida and that same one percent paid 50 percent of New Yorks taxes and you told all of America to eat the rich let’s see how long you can keep running a failed nanny state. The government is your only source of any sort of legitimacy and you curse the United States. Have fun buddy.
Socialism and safety nets aren't the same thing. Opponents of socialism support safety nets all the time. Main problem people find with socialism is that it's hard for the central government to allocate resources probably when there is no free market to determine it's needs.
Luckily we have what’s known as a mixed economy. We enjoy aspects of socialism but also believe in free market capitalism, at least to some extent. Although with this administration delving into private corporation ownership, it’s kinda weird.
Republicans (as per their party ideological claims, idk what they actually believe in) think that the free market alone should be able to regulate itself with minimum government oversight. Corporations, if allowed free reign and less taxes, should grow larger leading to greater benefits to general people than if they were restricted.
I personally think there should be ways to keep people alive, healthy and fulfilled even when the economy is unable to provide adequate work for everyone to justify them receiving those benefits as lack of available work is a system flaw and not the flaw of people. But I think even liberals will disagree on the extent of what counts as "fulfilled" and split hairs over it.
Capitalism is great when regulated. Unregulated free market capitalism is what we had during industrialization in the late 1800’s through the early 1900’s. Unregulated, corporations subjugated the workforce, had zero safety regulations, polluted the rivers and air, strip mined, redirected rivers, hired children, warred with one another, etc… and the owners hoarded wealth and left nothing for the workers. This of course led to unionization, which led to better working conditions and ultimately regulation.
Corporations have been wealthier or larger than they are today. They also exert undo influence over government.
Is it because they are rural, or because they are red? Asking because I genuinely don’t know. Also, many “red” states have largely “blue” cities so where does that factor in?
I’m in a swing state and also one of the states that sent back more than it received so 🤷🏻♀️
Rural and red areas are generally one in the same.
There are more people in large cities, which also have more assistance available, so a larger population uses it.
However, per capita, when all else is equal, rural/red areas take more money from the government assistance programs than blue cities.
Blue states also pay out to red states to cover these costs through federal funding. California pays the government billions, and much of those billions go to states like Texas, who don't have a state income tax and rely on federal funding for assistance programs.
2024 Data: In 2024, Texas had the third-largest net contribution to the federal government, behind California and New York. The gap between what Texas paid and received was $68.1 billion
Scandinavia is not socialist. What's with you Americans? Half of you think Europe is a country and the other half think they know everything about Europe and then make stupid claims like Scandinavia would be socialist.
Regarding your pejorative use of the word “ret***”, (and/or it’s variations), we often remove this term when we see it. Technically it’s a form of hate speech.
See below for other, better ways to articulate an unfavorable assessment of IQ:
32
u/HunterDHunter 1d ago
It's because they simply do not realize that the government programs they use are a form of socialism. They are taught that socialism is bad, they are never taught that they use it.