Servicemen: Evaluate the following statement on Socialism... (I want to hear your opinions)?

I'm a servicewoman, am I allowed to answer with all the boys?

There's a difference between working for your money and taking hand-outs. And PS, we pay taxes too.

This is a complete fallacy.

Here is why. Just because the military get medical, housing and substance benefits does not make them socialists or hypocrites. If a person worked for an oil company that provided them with housing, sustenance and medical benefits, they would not be socialists by this author's definition. It just so happens in this case that the employer is the government. Even take the mercenary example he used. The mercenary company could very well provide those same benefits. Does that make the mercenaries socialists then?

It is just circumstance that the employer happens to be the government and the government has to compete for volunteers against the civilian market, so they provide benefits.

Also, job security. I guess the author never thought about budget cuts. Front page of this week's Army Times newspaper is talking about 140,000 military personnel being cut.

Overall, as I said in the beginning, this is a fallacy and the author thinks they are being clever. It is also curious that he would attack the military on this subject when the military does not make national policy and represents less then 1% of the US population. That makes this pretty petty.

The previous answerer ignores the difference between private and public jobs. Military pay and benefits are derived from what Fox News labels (rightfully so) wealth redistribution. The military is a public institution, so they have "public healthcare" derived from taxes, while private workers pay into an insurance policy dually with their private employer. There is no similarity.

Is the military a socialist institution? Hell no. True Socialists would not stand for such a monopoly of force. However, the statement brings up a great point. The military functions as a huge public works project. Taxpayers pay into it, and society at large benefits through research and development, education, industry, and much more.

And if we were truly interested in capitalism, we would hire a private army, but of course, capitalism is beyond the grasp of most Americans who will gladly pay it lip service. Government itself is contrary to pure capitalism. Compared to the idea of capitalism, the United States is in bed with Marx and Engels.

I think the military is a great fixture in our society and has contributed more than we will ever know, but I can't understand why so many military supporters are so ardently opposed to the very FUNCTION of the military itself.

I am in favor of certain "socialist" policies, like free education, but I don't agree with this statement at all.

The military is a job, as much as people dont want to admit it, it's a job, and calling a job a socialist program is just ridiculous.

When your company offers health insurance it isn't called socialism, the military offers much more it also demands a lot more then the average job.

The term "socialist" does not actually apply to anything you mentioned. As a matter of fact, almost everything that people call "socialist" today has very little similarity to actual socialism.

What garbage.

They work for their living for the U.S. government. It isn't free, it's not for everyone, it's for a specific job.

The person who made this quote has no idea what Socialism is.

Socialism is a contemptible and ethically bankrupt ideology that has failed everywhere it has been tried, hundreds of times.

Enough of it. It's over.

Go away.

the word "socialism" is overused in this statement.

every sentence?

eesh!

why not place an exclamation point at the end, too?

really?

was it necessary?