![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:31 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
W hile r esponding to a comment in Splinter I said that Medicare and Social Security are socialist programs. We all pay into it and all enjoy the benefits of it at some point...much like how universal healthcare would be.
And I got this response
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:37 |
|
Master Splinter has answered you in a Zen koan, apparently.
MasterMario is now StudentMario.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:41 |
|
This does not explain anything to me still...does this mean I need to change my name to “Grasshopper Mario”
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:42 |
|
While responding to a comment in Splinter...
I think I’ve found your problem.
Also, never worry about a comment from someone who just arrived and set up an account to contradict you. A comment from someone who is a regular and has established a reputation for level-headed conversations may be worth responding to.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:42 |
|
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Well, there’s your problem.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:44 |
|
Please do.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:44 |
|
Never leave Oppo...it’s like a reverse Mufasa to Simba speech
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:45 |
|
Someone made an account specifically to say I’m a conservative asshat with no empathy because I’m in favour of gas taxes... So yeah.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:46 |
|
Eh, I explore other places but I tread very carefully and don’t feed the trolls.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:47 |
|
Wasn’t planning on responding...just trying to understand mental gymnastics
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:47 |
|
It’s not true socialism until a Che kist has a gun in your face
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:47 |
|
He may be talking about how the purest definition of socialism is “social ownership and workers’ self-management of the means of production .”
While s afety net programs, like Medicare, police, fire fighters, and roads, certainly have that social aspect to them, they don’t really fit in to the base definition of socialism.
As an aside, I read an article recently (somewhere in the GMG, I think), that made a very convincing point about a fundamental flaw of of the traditional economic -i sm’s: that they focus on production but neglect service. The article gave a great example: whatever -ism in place determines who gets the money when a glass is made and sold to a restaurant , but it is only made and sold once. W hat about the hands that fill it and wash it dozens of times ?
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:48 |
|
Socialist: Programs that I have to contribute to but don’t want
Not Socialist: Programs that I personally benefit from
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:48 |
|
It’s mental gymnastics. There’s no gain in trying to understand the delusional deplorables.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:48 |
|
True Socialism ™ - Like socialism but with guns
...in your face
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:48 |
|
what does she think they are?
ive found american commenters act rather oddly if any idea they like could be seen as socialist
(please excuse the generalization...i couldnt think of a better way to put that)
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:49 |
|
Wait, you got called a conservative for being IN FAVOUR of taxes? Say what now?
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:50 |
|
I mean that’s basically what my comment was calling out
https://splinternews.com/1830441106
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:51 |
|
That user name is as confusing as his response.
He either has CF or a bad sense of humor.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:56 |
|
Well. Here in Mexico it’s the thought of the left and the far-left that gas taxes are fucking horrible. I think we need gas taxes and a carbon tax because corporations are abusing of (some) lax policies around the enviroment. Obrador is planning to build up our oil industry again instead of focusing on renuables, and he also wants to relinquish power from our consumer protection agency: so we’re probably gonna have twenty dieselgates by 2024. Also, more people die in Mexico because of pollution that they do from violent crime and drug traffic
ing.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:57 |
|
No excuse needed. I’m American and you’re 100% correct.
“Socialism” is a dirty word here. And anything that’s ingrained in our society (like Social Security and Medicare) CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE SOCIALIST.
Even though they are.
As an added bonus, a lot of the people who are so dead set against health care for all ARE ON FUCKING MEDICARE. Which is, ummmm, health care for all (old people).
![]() 11/14/2018 at 14:59 |
|
LOL your power of suggestion is strong today
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:01 |
|
I’d say call me Obi Wan, but it was his idea.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:02 |
|
It makes more sense than you might think . Consumption taxes on things everybody needs to buy (gas, groceries, etc.) are often viewed as disproportionately hard on the working poor—it’s not like a rich person necessarily drives more than a poor person, or buys more milk, or whatever, and in the U.S. (and Mexico) lots of people have to drive a certain amount just to get to work and run daily errands. Thus, favoring effectively flat consumption taxes like a gas tax over progressive income taxes or taxes on capital (like estate and capital gains taxes) is a fundamentally conservative position.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:02 |
|
Ah, but the concept of Medicare is different. It’s like social security. They were both sold on the idea that you pay into the program during your working years and you reap the benefits when you reach a certain age. Most people don’t realize that it isn’t like a savings account. The money going into the programs right now are paying for the persons using the program right now.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:02 |
|
Also, when I call students in my lab “Grasshopper” no one ever gets the reference. So, I was tickled just to read this one.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:13 |
|
oh right... my bad
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:16 |
|
I have found that most Americans (especially Republicans) have no concept as to what socialism really is.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:16 |
|
Sure, it works a little differently - but it’s still a socialist program to provide health care for retired people.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:18 |
|
Yes, that’s how it’s typically viewed here....
Exceeeeeeeeep less than half of all
Mexicans own cars.... you could make a compelling argument that the richer Mexicans would pay the gas tax!
The thing here is that people don’t get to see how damaging our fuel subsidies are to public transportation infrastructure, which is what we really need.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:19 |
|
I was agreeing with you...probably worded that a bit poorly though
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:20 |
|
There’s an argument to be made that gas taxes are regressive - poor people are affected more by them than rich people are.
That’s probably where the person was coming from - but what you’re talking about is using taxes to affect people’s behavior. Which could be beneficial for all, if they have reasonable alternatives to driving (public transport).
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:24 |
|
lol
and now i no longer feel alone :p
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:24 |
|
I guess I wasn’t clear. The way most people think about the program is more like a bank than a socialist program. “I’m saving up my for my future care by paying into the system now.”
That’s not how it works, but that’s how people think about it. It’s the conceptual difference that makes it acceptable.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:26 |
|
Well, in Mexico City we have plenty, I think that urban areas at least should have a gas tax. Plus, I do see it as an excise tax... like the tax on coca cola or ciggarrettes (both should be way higher by the way)
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:27 |
|
i trample all over the place :)
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:27 |
|
Ah - sorry. I thought that might be what you were saying, but wasn’t sure.
I think you’re right - and I also think there’s a big chunk of older people who don’t care about universal healthcare because “I got mine and I don’t want to pay more taxes for everyone else to get it”.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:28 |
|
You’ll bound to step in some shit every now and then LOL
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:31 |
|
Like a Ponzi scheme!
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:33 |
|
shit happens - forest gump
tbh.. ive gotten pretty adept at avoiding the worst shit storms...
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:37 |
|
Yeah, especially if you take the money and invest it in public transport, you can shift behavior and not actually be regressive. The devil is in the details.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:43 |
|
I’ve found that we Americans sometimes have a hard time grasping the difference between socialist and Socialist .
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:45 |
|
socialist =/= Socialist, and a lot of people don’t seem to understand that.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:53 |
|
eh tbh.. you lost me there too
![]() 11/14/2018 at 15:56 |
|
...“I got mine and I don’t want to pay more taxes for everyone else to get it”.
That’s the same reasoning people use when they talk about paying for public schools. Of course, we see the same bias in the other direction too. My wife worked in the school system on the construction side. Her boss was upset about providing a couple of
buses to shuttle kids between
a couple of the private schools. My wife pointed out that all of the private school parents pay their taxes just like all of the public school parents. Those parents are effectively
subsidizing
the public school programs by paying for them without using them. If he really wanted to make it fair, he could just write a refund check to each parent who sends their children to private schools. He never spoke of it in front of her again.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 16:07 |
|
Preaching to the choir - my district just (again!) rejected an investment into the 50+ year old high schools. I swear that lawn signs were 10 to 1 in favor of the tax (this despite being in a mostly Republican area), but it failed. We have top ranked schools, but they won’t be that way forever...
![]() 11/14/2018 at 16:09 |
|
Socialist, akin to Communist, vs socialist, a concept of collective ownership/welfare.
You can have a socialist program and not be a Socialist. Either way, I feel like the term is getting waaaaay over-used lately, and always as an attack against Dems, as though a Republican would never in a million years apply for welfare, or social security, or rely on public services of any kind...
![]() 11/14/2018 at 16:37 |
|
Social security is more like a Ponzi scheme than socialism...
![]() 11/14/2018 at 16:40 |
|
because those people have fooled themselves into believing they’re “only getting their money back.”
as though all that money they paid into SS and Medicare was just sitting in a vault waiting for them to retire. they don’t realize the money they paid in was spent on the people who were old back then, and it’s my money they are going to be getting when they start collecting those benefits.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 16:56 |
|
Based on their comment history, looks like alt-righter pretending to be progressive or some angry independent who doesn’t understand socialism. I stopped commenting there as much , as most commenters there seem to be there to argue in bad faith.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 16:57 |
|
(especially Republicans)
And baby boomer Democrats who still think Russians are communist.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 17:14 |
|
Being triggered by that term is definitely an older generation thing – probably from decades of having it bashed in to their heads that communism and socialism = BAD and anti- American. Of course current political climate with the Rs trying to label anything and everything, even programs enacted by that party and to this day supported by their administration, that the dems want to help strengthen as SOCIALISM.
Just count the number of old people at Trump rallies screaming against socialism, and then let’s find stats on how many of them are on SS, medicare, and/or other forms of government assistance.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 17:33 |
|
Yes and no, it is in the fact that new “customers” pay the “earnings” of the old “customers”, but it’s set up to be like that and no one is running off with the profits
![]() 11/14/2018 at 17:46 |
|
School funding isn’t always the problem (not saying it isn’t in your area).
Louisiana’s public schools were ranked dead last in performance but now it seems New Mexico has taken that spot .
There are 22 states that spend less money per child than Louisiana and 27 states that have smaller total budgets.
W hen you look at average teacher starting salary versus the cost of living by state , Louisiana ranks 4th - nearly the highest starting salary for teachers when the cost of living is factore d in (Wyoming is 1st, Illinois is 8th, Hawaii is 51st). I built my own spreadsheet for comparing those numbers. If you’re really interested, maybe I can post it somewhere.
If anything, Louisiana is pro ving that throwing money into the schools doesn’t always solve the problem.
Some would say that is because of the students’ home life. The argument is that poor kids do poorly because they don’t get the same support that middle-income kids do at home. Being ranked 45th in median household income and 43rd in per-capita income, there are at least five states where the poor are worse off than the poor in Louisiana, yet the public schools in those states still outperform Louisiana .
So, our teachers are paid well and our school spending is in the middle of the pack, yet our schools still perform poorly. I’m not sure what the correct solution is at this point, but at least in Louisiana, I don’t think it has anything to do with the budget .
![]() 11/14/2018 at 18:18 |
|
You’re right - school funding isn’t always the problem. In my case, the two high schools in the district are ranked 3rd and 10th in the state of Illinois, once you take out the magnet schools (which pick their students).
It’s a well off area, and one of the big attractions is the great schools. However, the schools are old now, and need some investment in infrastructure - now that it failed, they’re talking about cutting extracurricular activities, increasing class sizes, etc. And this is an area that doesn’t really have to pick and choose things like that.
Those who voted against it are nitpicking on why they did it, but I think the bottom line is that most just don’t want their taxes to go up, and needed to find an excuse to vote no.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 20:33 |
|
Ouch. Many of the Louisiana schools are old too. Baton Rouge High, still in operation, was built in 1926. They’ve done renovations, but many of the old schools just don’t function well as schools in a modern education system. It sucks when people forget that these kids are our future (all hyperbole aside). Good luck. I hope that some of the locals come to their senses.
![]() 11/14/2018 at 23:10 |
|
Yes, that is all true, but in my experience any mention of taxes will get people to call you a communist and vice versa, whether or not the argument makes any sense.
![]() 11/15/2018 at 00:57 |
|
Right, except they’ve been paying people more than they can afford to, when they needed to be saving some of that money to cover boomer retirements. Now they are going to have to raise social security taxes, cut benefits, or pay out of general funds (which would require raising other taxes, or cutting other programs). Probably a combination.
Of course Social Security isn’t that badly off. We can balance it by modify (or just removing) the cap on social security taxed income and/or a later retirement date. The real bear is Medicare, which pays out vastly more than it takes in (I think I read that average lifetime contribution is ~$ 80,000 while average lifetime benefit is ~$500,000). There’s just no way to make that work, and healthcare services in this country also continue to grow at an unsustainable rate. There’s no way to fix that without radical changes.
![]() 11/15/2018 at 07:10 |
|
They’re certainly programs that are compatible with socialist ideals , but they don’t constitute public ownership of the means of production, so they’re not actually socialist IMO - having them isn’t socialism, but a socialist system can have them too.
However, a hospital or medical practice being run by a government would be far more socialist, and that would make things like Veterans Affairs practices socialist . (I’m not sure how to make Social Security more socialist, to be honest. )
![]() 11/15/2018 at 07:55 |
|
One way or another things can’t just stay the same. It’s just a matter of how long politicians will kick the can down the road. I think universal healthcare is inevitable...no matter what politicians say they want to do (like cutting benefits) they won’t because they’ll lose the next election if they do.
![]() 11/15/2018 at 08:08 |
|
I think most people these days when they talk about socialism don’t necessarily means socialism by the strict definition (I know I didn’t) rather they mean it to be a government with a broad safety net and support system for its citizens. How many people call any country with universal healthcare a socialist country?
Either way the policies are much more a socialist construct than a capitalist one.
![]() 11/15/2018 at 08:30 |
|
If I were to try to explain a Ponzi scheme to my 5 year old, using the first half of your sentence would be about as good as I could come up with.