Have republicans tried to change the public perception of the social safety net into it all being socialism?

I came across an interesting opinion yesterday that was really quite clarifying.

The definition of socialism is this "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."

However in recent years republicans have tried to shift the definition of socialism to mean anything or any program that involves getting money from the government in general. That includes the funding of education or science or healthcare, etc. It pretty much includes the entirety of the social safety net. If this is the definition of socialism that people think of then it should be no surprise that more people are supporting it as an ideology.

Furthermore I wouldn't be surprised if that was a long term strategy, get people thinking differently about socialism so it seems like people like the original definition of it and then use the fear of the old definition of socialism from people on the right to get united behind whatever candidate they are currently pushing.

Nope. It's quite the opposite. Liberals want to believe any kind of redistribution is socialism.

It's not conservatives who call the Scandinavian countries socialist. I've lost count how many times I've typed "Denmark is not a socialist country" on this board.

I'm not really referring to anything that's happening in other countries, but I suppose you don't see monetary support from the government such as healthcare and education as socialism?

Yeah, this is crystal clear, imo. They've used it to great effect for decades.

It appears to now be painting them into a corner via generational shifts, but that could easily change with time.

A government safety net is a form of socialism - it’s the very definition of it.

The Dems are being slammed by conservatives because they have fringe candidates who want to push more socialism in areas such as healthcare, education, and a living wage if you don’t want to work. That’s the dangers of socialism.

Yes. Fox News, Trump's Campaign, and other places (Breitbart, Dailycaller, etc.) are trying to paint a false picture that Democrats and their policies are classic Socialists. Even ones who aren't Democratic Socialists (which is different from Socliasm). This is pure fear mongering and actual "fake news".

This is semi-BS. All I see on Fox or Breitbart is how policies Democrats call for (including Healthcare) are Socialist and will destroy America, even though they are only asking for policies from Scandinavian countries or stronger forms of what we already have. That being said, yes the other side gets it wrong too. I'm the one who has to say those countries aren't Socialist.

In total, this is a semantics issue for liberals but conservatives don't like the policy either way.

This is usually how it goes,

Neither of those ideas are fringe, and poll extremely high. Many non socialist countries have those and many of those countries are better places to live than USA.

@zaryia: Who are the people from that meme? I swear it's a show I've seen before, but I can't seem to put my finger on it.

Edit. Googled it. American Chopper. Yeah, never seen it.

@zaryia: ‘if you don’t want to work’

You conveniently left this part out which is extremely fringe.

As far as what ‘many countries have’, their education and healthcare pale in comparison to the US who excel at both on a global scale. Just look at the mortality rates of cancer in the UK comparatively. Not to mention wait times to see a doctor in Canada.

If you're referring to a UBI then you should know that that's never been considered a living wage. More like it's enough to survive on for a while, which is something unemployment doesn't actually do in it's current form (don't know about the past). Outside of that I don't know how you expect people to make a wage if they aren't working.

I left it out because it's a false narrative.

These are lies.

Healthcare:

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-amenable-mortality-measured-by-healthcare-access-and-quality-index-2016

Education:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/

Many of those countries above USA have some form of "Free" Healthcare. It doesn't turn you into a Mad Max post apocalyptic world. That's fear mongering by the GOP to trick their low educated voters.

What exactly are the dangers of socialism?

"Socialism" is a four-letter word to conservatives. It's taboo, verboten.

As I've said many times, it's not so much socialism (emphasis on the -ism) that we need outright, but socialist (emphasis on the -ist) programs to help supplement things. Some of the most critical and best-functioning parts of this government and country are run in a socialist fashion or because of socialist policies. Fire departments? Yup. Public libraries? Yup. National parks? Yup. The list goes on.

@zaryia said:

...

@vl4d_l3nin said:

...

..

OMFG that is great hahaha

@zaryia: ACO and the " Democratic Socialist " want free housing. That is not fake news that's a fact. Free education( through college) free housing and free healthcare. Stop acting like healthcare and public school is all they ask for.

@zaryia said:

OK that's pretty funny. I almost had a spit take with that one.

The flipside to that is when there is discussion on funding these programs, that's when American liberals become very dishonest. Taxing and regulating the shit out of businesses and a small group of people (ultra rich, 1%, tippy tops etc.) isn't how the welfare systems are funded in Scandinavian countries.

I don't understand how those who advocate for adopting a nordic/social democracy model are apparently not just socialists but communists according to Republicans. While at the same time, when it's pointed out how successful some of these countries are it's 'not true socialism'. Lol what?

I'm assuming that they mean free housing for the homeless, correct?

How are they funded?

@Serraph105: "Housing is a right" that's her claim. So would it be just for homeless? Even if it was do you have any idea how expensive that would be?

@blackhairedhero: What studies we do have show that housing the homeless is less expensive than not doing so. So I'm going to say it would save us money.

@zaryia said:

This is usually how it goes,

Partly the reason why I have almost given up on discussing this.

@Serraph105: please link those studies.

Also for them to pass legislation on this it's going to need to be a bit more detailed then ( homeless get a free house). It would usually start with a minimum income. Which sounds very expensive for everyone else.

You know we do have shelter already for the homeless?

Glad to now that I'm back at a desktop.

This is what Utah achieved with the practice of housing the homeless.

https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how

@LJS9502_basic: Yes we do.. but how does " housing as a right work? Do they own them? Or they like subsidized apartments?

I'm going to go ahead and add a few more links on various information for this topic.

This has three studies in the link.

First A 2017 RAND Corporation analysis of the Housing for Health program in LA County concluded that the county saved about 20 percent by putting people with complex mental health issues in supportive housing rather than relying on law enforcement and emergency room visits.

Second A 2015 randomized control trial of a housing-first approach across several Canadian cities saw essentially no change in money spent (Canada’s structurally lower health care costs are likely a factor here) but gains in quality of life and community functioning.

Third - A separate randomized trial study in Toronto found that housing first was effective in combatting alcohol abuse disorders.

I went ahead and looked for cost factors in that third link and found this

"Operating from a harm reduction philosophy, the Housing First approach posits that providing housing to homeless individuals with mental illness first provides the foundation, stability and safety necessary for consumers to move towards recovery(Tsemberis et al., 2004). Several research studies have supported its designation as an “evidence-based practice,” showing consistently positive outcomes on residential stability, reductions in cost of public services, and improved quality of life"

This is on page three of the report.

So, do you have any information that claims that this will cost the people a ton of money? So far you haven't given any sources to that claim.

@Serraph105: Depends on how the Bill's passed and what it covers. For one... good luck at getting the rest of the country to work like the state of Utah. ( which has a extremely high mormon population). Those people will build a house for you for nothing if they feel you're struggling.

The rest of your links don't answer the question. We have these programs already. And In Utah they collected $50 a month or 30% of your salary. So are these like rental homes for temporary residents? Is their a program used to get them out of them? Or do we just keep putting more homes up and they can live in them forever? Do you have to have a drug or alcohol problem? Or is it based strictly off income? These are all questions that need to be asked.

So what you're saying is that you don't have sources for your claim (or question if you prefer) that it will cost lots of money. I've posted four separate instances where this has been done and it found it either saved money or was neutral in terms of cost.

@Serraph105: You have limited it to homeless. That's not what she said. You didn't provide any links that back up her claim.

@blackhairedhero: So.... You're freaking out about a program that you can't define in even the broadest terms.

You didn't ask me to post links that back up AOC's claim, you asked me to post links to my claim which was that housing the homeless saves money.

@mattbbpl: No but it's odd that you and the rest of the left are all for it when you can't seem to define it either.

@Serraph105: I'm more worried about the legislation that she actually wants to pass.

If you want help out drug addicts in government housing to reduce other cost and help them get back on their feet that's fine. But do I get it as well if I have a degree in gender studies and simply can't afford one? These are details I want to know.

@blackhairedhero: So you're just going to continue to not acknowledge the evidence I posted towards housing the homeless likely saving us money? That's not actually surprising. It's that sort of behavior that has really curbed my need to even bother with backing my claims with sources in the first place. Why should I go to the effort when it doesn't matter and isn't acknowledged?

So you're more okay with helping drug addicts than people who chased a dream as a young person based on what they were told would be useful and worked through college to do that thing? The person who proved themselves to be an albeit misguided, hard worker, is less worthy of support? A person could become a drug addict via similar misguided advice, but still. I'm really confused by that logic.

That said, for a fiscally conservative person, shouldn't it come down to the cost of a person being homeless vs the cost of constructing and maintaining cheap housing?

@Serraph105: That's just it. You provided data that the showed the cost of cheap housing is cheaper then to have drug addicts living on the street. You didn't provide that data for normal people. They can get low cost apartments in bad parts of town like they do now. Not sure how building them a house is cheaper?

@blackhairedhero: Living on the street often gets people to turn to drugs and have a higher level of health problems than those who have shelter due to being exposed to the elements. This is pretty common knowledge, right?

@Serraph105: Iow cost apartments is not living on the street. You want to buy everyone a house because it will reduce their chance of being a drug addict?

Most functioning adults have other options. Get a part time job a roommate etc. Its not own a home or be homeless.

Could you provide a link on information about AOC's plan? I provided you with information when you asked for it and you have ignored my previous request for info your claim. If you want to start a debate on what she supports that's fine, but we need some sort of base to start on and agree on what we are talking about. For all I know she's not talking about people in the situation you just claimed.

I haven't seen her plans on this and I can't promise you that I will take her side on it, but currently we're debating a generalization of what you say AOC says she supports as opposed to anything she's actually written up. So, please post a link to anything she has written up legislatively on housing being a right and we can go from there.

@blackhairedhero: "No but it's odd that you and the rest of the left are all for it when you can't seem to define it either."

You're the one who brought it up, ya goof. Serraph and I just pointed out that you had neither a definition of the program nor any idea of it's costs. You were just shouting, roughly paraphrased, "SOCIALISM!".

@mattbbpl: I brought it up in response to another poster. Keep up or don't quote me.

@Serraph105: She hasn't provided information other then she wants free education ( including college) and free housing and free healthcare. She didn't say who would be excluded or included or how we'd pay for it. Yet when the right says that's socialism( which that's what it sounds like) the left's response is for us to explain the details? That's her job. She keeps saying we need it so explain to us how we get where people like me( upper middle class) aren't paying for it all.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/16/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-40-trillion-cnntv/index.html

Her proposal's are expected to cost around 40 trillion dollars.

I wanted to know what details you were specifically upset about. I hadn't heard of it before, but since you had brought it up I assumed you knew the details that you were upset about. Now it turns out that you are upset about something that isn't actually written up or created yet. How am I supposed to talk about that or debate you on something that doesn't yet exist? If it's not something that she has written up or made into legislation then she won't be trying to get it passed because it's non-existent, so why are you so upset about something that doesn't exist? Why are you trying to debate me on the merits of something that doesn't exist in any meaningful way?

@Serraph105: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/16/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-40-trillion-cnntv/index.html

Her proposal's are expected to cost 40 trillion dollars and her raising taxes on the rich will cover about 2 trillion of that. So how is the other 38 trillion covered? That's the problem. Her proposal's are expensive and she has no idea how to cover them.

How was this cost evaluated and calculated if the people who did so didn't have a written plan to evaluate?

@zaryia said:

Yes. Fox News, Trump's Campaign, and other places (Breitbart, Dailycaller, etc.) are trying to paint a false picture that Democrats and their policies are classic Socialists. Even ones who aren't Democratic Socialists (which is different from Socliasm). This is pure fear mongering and actual "fake news".

@vl4d_l3nin said:

Nope. It's quite the opposite. Liberals want to believe any kind of redistribution is socialism.

This is semi-BS. All I see on Fox or Breitbart is how policies Democrats call for (including Healthcare) are Socialist and will destroy America, even though they are only asking for policies from Scandinavian countries or stronger forms of what we already have. That being said, yes the other side gets it wrong too. I'm the one who has to say those countries aren't Socialist.

In total, this is a semantics issue for liberals but conservatives don't like the policy either way.

This is usually how it goes,

Haha. Love it!

In Scandinvia, at least in Sweden. We call our model a Mixed Economy (Blandekonomi) which combines elements of planned economy and capitalism.

@Serraph105: They probably estimate the cost of what would it would be to provide those services for our people.

@HoolaHoopMan: Depends on what country. Denmark seems to be the one liberals use the most.

Denmark has a flat corporate tax of 22%, pretty much the same as American corporate taxes under the Trump cuts. They have some of the fewest regulations in the western world, and employers don't pay a dime into social security.

Meanwhile, the average income tax on Danes is 55%. I don't know what the top rate is, but the average yearly income ($42,000) is taxed at 45%, which is the lowest it's been in decades. They pay 8% into social security, and have a national sales tax at 25%. Try selling that tax plan in America.

Thought I should point out that the discussion should always be framed in terms of what you get for what you pay...not just one side of the equation.

Take the example raised by the poster above me. In Denmark you get happiness. So perhaps selling that tax plan is not as hard as the poster wants you to believe.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-01-20/why-danes-happily-pay-high-rates-of-taxes

So taxes. I guess I don't really get your original comment then.

'The flipside to that is when there is discussion on funding these programs, that's when American liberals become very dishonest.'

Pretty much everyone here is in agreement that it would be paid for in taxes. No one is saying that it wouldn't be a hard sell, in fact it is, hence the topic at hand and demonizing such notions as 'socialism'.