I agree that congress is overpaid (not from their salary but from their back end $). But a good salary, lots of PTO, and included healthcare from your employer is hardly socialism. Plenty of people in the US share those benefits.
the fact that its a thing that often happens in the US doesnt instantly make it not socialism. lawfully granted time off and lawful granted free healthcare, which congress has as all of the benefits of being in congress is written in law and only in the law and require a bill to pass through normal systems to remove, is a socialist thing. The idea of healthcare given by the government is literally termed "socalized healthcare" in the US.
They aren’t socialist.
But also, if you have great healthcare and lots of PTO and enough money to contract whatever services you need, you maybe don’t see why someone without those things may want to have access too.
are you seriously saying that you dont think socialized healthcare and legally protected annual leave is socialist policy?
if so then wtf does count as a socialist policy to you?
No, I’m not saying that. I’m agreeing that the fact that some people have good pto and healthcare access doesn’t make the things socialist AND pointing out that people who have good pto and healthcare access may not see the need to push policies that provide those benefits to everyone.
Though, does it count as socialist if only the governing class get the benefit and not the society?
Socialized doesn't mean socialist and I feel like my American friends are confused by this because their Republicans scream "socialist!" at everything even remotely leftist. But I mean c'mon, it's not like they're trying to abolish the free market altogether and have a centralized planned economy. That's what socialism is. Or, if we're talking Marxist theory, the middle step between capitalism and communism. Also no Sweden isn't socialist, they actually have more freedoms for businesses than the US, as in no nonsensical regulations and the like.
Americans are against "socialism", as practiced in other western democracies, democracies where the average lifespan significantly surpasses Americans, where their quality of life, happiness and level of TRUE democracy are always judged superior.
No, Americans are against "socialism", but have absolutely no problem with corporations, through tax breaks and offshoring profits, ducking their fair share of contributions to the country...until they hit a financial bump. Then these same corporations hold out their hands and let the American taxpayers bail them out. That's corporate socialism-they keep most of their profits when times are good, but count on taxpayer bailouts when they're not. Walmart, through lobbyists and bought politicians, keep their workers salaries so low, that American taxpayers have to subsidize them by foodstamps. The 1%ers are laughing up their sleeves at their success in fooling ordinary Americans to screw themselves, while further enriching those at the top.
Agreed 100%. People can't get a broken arm healed without burning through their savings or even getting into debt but Wall Street assholes who con their way into profits and consequently into a nationwide (if not worldwide) crisis will get bailed out AND get bonuses? No sir, nuh uh.
The "American dream" is now far more achievable in northern and central European countries than in the US, because they make sure there are fewer ways for the bad actors to game the system.
American here. I am 100% for socialized medicine. We have clear examples of how well it works in many other western countries.
Because of the rhetoric that turns socialized into socialist, how we use the words in the discussion is very important. So no, having great employer sponsored healthcare is not socialist nor is it an example of socialized medicine. But in this case, it is an example of how the leaders that push the case for keeping the private system don’t have to live the life of their median constituent. They are enjoying the type of healthcare and benefits that everyone could have if we had properly funded socialized care and regulations that forced employers to treat their employees like humans—but it is not socialist.
But also, if you have great healthcare and lots of PTO and enough money to contract whatever services you need, you maybe don’t see why someone without those things may want to have access too.
if so then wtf does count as a socialist policy to you?
Though, does it count as socialist if only the governing class get the benefit and not the society?
No, Americans are against "socialism", but have absolutely no problem with corporations, through tax breaks and offshoring profits, ducking their fair share of contributions to the country...until they hit a financial bump. Then these same corporations hold out their hands and let the American taxpayers bail them out. That's corporate socialism-they keep most of their profits when times are good, but count on taxpayer bailouts when they're not. Walmart, through lobbyists and bought politicians, keep their workers salaries so low, that American taxpayers have to subsidize them by foodstamps. The 1%ers are laughing up their sleeves at their success in fooling ordinary Americans to screw themselves, while further enriching those at the top.
The "American dream" is now far more achievable in northern and central European countries than in the US, because they make sure there are fewer ways for the bad actors to game the system.
Because of the rhetoric that turns socialized into socialist, how we use the words in the discussion is very important. So no, having great employer sponsored healthcare is not socialist nor is it an example of socialized medicine. But in this case, it is an example of how the leaders that push the case for keeping the private system don’t have to live the life of their median constituent. They are enjoying the type of healthcare and benefits that everyone could have if we had properly funded socialized care and regulations that forced employers to treat their employees like humans—but it is not socialist.