Let's watch the MAGA's heads explode explaining this one:

[Baitball Blogger]

From erictastic on Facebook:

If socialist policies are as bad as conservatives in the US want you to think, why is the recruitment drive for our military about pointing out all the socialist benefits military members and their families can get if they join; free healthcare, free college, free housing, universal childcare, guaranteed lifetime pension, etc.

[The Wizard]

1. And if the get Social Security

return every dollar.

[paleotn]

3. No Medicare.

Can't afford private insurance? Well, sucks be to them.

[paleotn]

2. Seriously! They get a paycheck. Bigger paycheck if they're being shot at.

What more do they want at taxpayer expense? Bunch of takers!!

[IronLionZion]

4. MAGA will cancel those military benefits "to save tax dollars"

[dave99]

11. Reagan Bush 1, Bush 2, Trump, Trum0 have ALREADY destroyed what we give back to active and veterans

FUCKING Republicans !!!!!

Each AND every Republican DESERVES to sit on a 10 foot steel rod.

[James48]

5. Seriously.

The military is the largest socialist organization in the nation.

We dressed alike. Ate food cooked by the government. Slept in buildings or tents owned by the government. Went to the government doctor. Got government benefits to go to school, too.

24 months mandatory service ought to be a thng- just so everyone gets to experience what socialism is really like.

[LiberalArkie]

7. Maybe start building public hospitals again. Work at the hospital for 4 years and your medical education

and insurance is paid for as long as you work there.

[dave99]

12. Like Switzerland. Where all the DARK money hides.

[PatSeg]

6. Oh snap

Doesn't get much more socialist than that!

[Iggo]

8. That's why they started calling us communists again. They can no longer defend their hatred of socialism.

[SouthBayDem]

9. Technically the term for this is "company town"

because the workers got specific benefits in lieu of money. Similar to categorical grants vs block grants.

[relayerbob]

10. You assume they care or even comprehend

[Jacson6]

13. As a VET I never got anything free.

I had to work 13 hr days,, go on deployments for 30 days and I paid $2,400 into a scholarship program that gave me $12k to go to college. It was very nice to have those benefits, but it wasn't free socialism.

[Baitball Blogger]

16. I was raised on a military base, which also had housing for civilians.

What we paid in rent was a joke. Next to nothing. The commissary was cheap and there was lots of merchandise to select from.

With what he made, my dad managed to put four kids through college, a fifth through trade school. Granted, our childhood was whatever did not cost any money. My dad didn't even pay for my younger brother's football gear because he decided that we were not an athletic family. So, extra-curricular activities were triaged.

Bottomline, we lived a life overseas on a US military base, and because of the sacrifices that were made, we got the educations that would trampoline us into a "normal" life once we returned to the U.S.

Such an opportunity would never have been possible in a private job in the U.S. There were perks that were near impossible to find Stateside. You have just accepted that you earned them, but the point is that it was a major incentive and it shows that conservatives aren't above using socialistic options when they want to reach an objective.

[reACTIONary]

14. The military is a job....

.... it's an important job and it's a hard job, and it often requires sacrifice. Even the ultimate sacrifice. Like many jobs, it comes with benefits, and, given the nature of the job, very good benefits.

A job with benefits is not socialism.

[Baitball Blogger]

17. The difference is that those benefits are being paid by taxpayers.

We don't begrudge them to our military or civilians. We just want conservatives to recognize that they are not above using socialist incentives when it suits them.

BTW, I was raised on a US military base as a civilian. Everything was paid for by the taxpayer. Everything about the experience made it easier to reach out and form a community identity. It's surprising how much class distinctions get in the way.

[reACTIONary]

18. I don't think paying people to do a job, and giving them benefits...

.... is socialism. No matter what the specifics of the benefits or who it is who pays for them.

What would you say is the difference is between benefits and "socialist" benefits as an incentive?

And what is it that socialist incentives are supposed to incentivise? An incentive is a reward for doing something that you would otherwise not be inclined to do. Socialism provides "benefits" with no binding obligation to do anything in return. At least that is my understanding. What is your understanding?

[Baitball Blogger]

20. The light bulb will go on any minute.

In a private business, perks can be offered and no one will think twice, because all the money is coming from the corporation.

On the other hand, the only reason people get perturbed about the terms communism and socialism is because these are forms of government, which determine how taxpayer money is spent. The Republicans are upset because a socialist country will mandate certain benefits to the public, so the Right has demonized those programs. Yet, those same programs are used as incentives for civilians to work for the military or to serve in the military. Bottomline, they aren't opposed to using socialist benefits for their own purposes.

In fact, if they wanted to be truly pure about it, maybe they should do away with the perks and raise everyone's salary in the military?

[Renew Deal]

15. Same for ICE

Socializations with socialist benefits.

[reACTIONary]

19. What would you say is the difference is ....

... between job benefits and "socialist" job benefits?

[Baitball Blogger]

21. One is based on capitalism and involves private capital; and the other is a government policy paid by taxpayers.

[reACTIONary]

24. Would you say paying government employees a wage...

... is paying them a "socialist wage"? I'm not sure why paying anybody, in kind or in money, by anyone, government or private employers, in exchange for doing useful work in a market economy can be considered "socialist".

I can see why, in a market economy, means tested redistribution, that is, welfare, might sort of be called socialist. But in my opinion, it is better described as welfare statism, or maybe social democracy. Not socialism. It just ain't.

Early in his career, as a leader of the socialist Liberty Union Party in Vermont Bernie Sanders directly stated: "I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries." He frequently argued that the oil, energy, telephone, electric, and drug industries should be transferred to public control to serve the public good rather than billionaire profits.

That's socialism.

Now days he disavows this: "I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal."

That AIN'T socialism.

[PCB66]

22. It is not free

It is compensation for services rendered.

[Baitball Blogger]

23. What has already been said: We don't begrudge the perks,

but we want the conservatives to recognize that they're using socialist benefits as incentives.

If they are so against socialism, maybe they should do away with the taxpayer paid benefits and just raise salaries in the military? Less maintenance and paperwork to worry about.

I am just being a wee bit facetious.

[LogDog75]

25. I'm retired AF and I have fun with my fellow retirees when they complain about socialism

I've been doing this for years and when I start listing everything the government provides them while in the military, as well as in retirement, you can see the blank look in their eye because their brains don't know how to process this information.

Their response, almost every time, is they earned it. Then I ask them why they're so opposed to socialism and they have that blank look in their eyes again. I will then explain to them socialism isn't a boogeyman to be afraid of. It simple provides a strong social safety net for people so they won't have to go hungry, won't have to go homeless, won't have to go broke paying for medical care, etc.. It doesn't prevent you from attaining your goals or lower your standard of living. In fact, it improves both. It doesn't mean the government is going to control or run industries or businesses or determine what gets produced.

Socialism and communism are the boogeyman words so scare the easily gullible and those who don't thin much; basically, every republican.