Publicly funded supermarkets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

Do you know what a commissary is?

Are you seriously equating a benefit that people EARN by working with a handout?

DP: Every job and every government decides what benefits to provide to its people. There’s nothing sacred about having a job or having a relative with a job that limits where and how you purchase groceries, and using ALL CAPS doesn’t change that. Fun story: I once went to a commissary as a guest. The person who had the ID card that got us admitted was under a year old. She EARNed the benefit by being born. See how that can work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

I’m convinced that so many Service Members struggle when they leave because the cradle-to-grave socialism of the military takes away a lot of day-to-day anxieties. Of course, those anxieties are replaced by other ones - seeing active combat, year-long deployments, etc.

But when socialism works well (see: U.S. military life), people often flounder when they are removed from that structure and tossed into the cold reality of the U.S. civilian economy and society.

The former Service Members I know are doing well and living in multi million dollar homes. They have high school degrees.

Such incredible BS. Listen troll, you’re on a DC board and you can’t throw a stone here without hitting a Colonel. We are military. We live and work with military. We’re not falling for your crap.

Not a troll. Enlisted retired Army rangers. They made smart real estate investments and did private contracting gigs post retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

I’m convinced that so many Service Members struggle when they leave because the cradle-to-grave socialism of the military takes away a lot of day-to-day anxieties. Of course, those anxieties are replaced by other ones - seeing active combat, year-long deployments, etc.

But when socialism works well (see: U.S. military life), people often flounder when they are removed from that structure and tossed into the cold reality of the U.S. civilian economy and society.

It doesn't work well in the military though. It's a wasteful, outdated, insanely expensive system. It should be eliminated but for areas where there is essentially no market.

[Anonymous]

I’ve had a number of military renters and they are either extremely responsible and independent/hands on to repair things themselves or they call for light bulbs to be changed as if they live on base and want minor cracks in the driveway fixed. But either way, they are meticulous.

So for some I agree, the socialism they’re used to is a shock when they’re out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

I’m convinced that so many Service Members struggle when they leave because the cradle-to-grave socialism of the military takes away a lot of day-to-day anxieties. Of course, those anxieties are replaced by other ones - seeing active combat, year-long deployments, etc.

But when socialism works well (see: U.S. military life), people often flounder when they are removed from that structure and tossed into the cold reality of the U.S. civilian economy and society.

People flounder when trapped in a capitalist economy, you say?

No, people flounder when they have been infantilized and dependent on others and now have to grow up and live independently.

Even our national parks know this; don’t feed the wildlife, they stop learning to forage for their own food

That belief only works if capitalist society provides people the means to live independently. Ever tried supporting a family of four on Walmart wages? They deliberately underpay their workers, knowing that SNAP benefits will make up the difference. The government is subsidizing these large corporations.

Seems like the corporations should learn how to forage for themselves.

If you are a Walmart shelf stocker trying to feed a family of four, it isn’t capitalism that put you in this situation, but a series of poor choices.

And for the record, Walmart pays very well for people who move up the ladder, like $75k - 130k for middle managers. Upwards of $300,000 for super store managers.

Trying to live of minimum wage with a family is hard, because it isn’t meant to be a career but an entrance into employment.

This narrative that cashier and service jobs were “never meant to support families” is a recent invention. Back in the mid‑20th century, those jobs did support families. With union protections, employer benefits, and a lower cost of living, a grocery store cashier could modestly raise a household, even on a single income. Wages stretched further, and housing and healthcare weren’t yet out of reach.

What changed after the 1980s was deliberate: jobs that once sustained families were hollowed out into low‑wage, part‑time positions stripped of benefits. Deindustrialization from outsourcing, aggressive union‑busting, and wage stagnation all played a role. Meanwhile, the minimum wage flatlined, failing to keep pace with inflation or productivity growth. The same cashier job that once covered rent, healthcare, and childcare now barely covers groceries.

By the 1990s and 2000s, the right wing responded not by fixing the damage but by reframing it. They began calling these roles “entry‑level jobs for teenagers,” insisting they were never meant to support families. That rhetoric erases decades of reality: from the 1940s through the 1970s, millions of families did rely on those jobs, and companies still profited and prospered while paying their workers higher wages.

The truth is simple: this isn’t about workers “expecting too much.” It’s about corporate greed and political choices that eroded the working class. Wages were suppressed, costs soared, and the rich got richer while ordinary Americans were told to settle for less.

This is nothing more than an orchestrated GOP erosion of the working class. They grind American workers down while the rich get richer.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Commissary, anyone?

I’m convinced that so many Service Members struggle when they leave because the cradle-to-grave socialism of the military takes away a lot of day-to-day anxieties. Of course, those anxieties are replaced by other ones - seeing active combat, year-long deployments, etc.

But when socialism works well (see: U.S. military life), people often flounder when they are removed from that structure and tossed into the cold reality of the U.S. civilian economy and society.

People flounder when trapped in a capitalist economy, you say?

No, people flounder when they have been infantilized and dependent on others and now have to grow up and live independently.

Even our national parks know this; don’t feed the wildlife, they stop learning to forage for their own food

That belief only works if capitalist society provides people the means to live independently. Ever tried supporting a family of four on Walmart wages? They deliberately underpay their workers, knowing that SNAP benefits will make up the difference. The government is subsidizing these large corporations.

Seems like the corporations should learn how to forage for themselves.

If you are a Walmart shelf stocker trying to feed a family of four, it isn’t capitalism that put you in this situation, but a series of poor choices.

And for the record, Walmart pays very well for people who move up the ladder, like $75k - 130k for middle managers. Upwards of $300,000 for super store managers.

Trying to live of minimum wage with a family is hard, because it isn’t meant to be a career but an entrance into employment.

This narrative that cashier and service jobs were “never meant to support families” is a recent invention. Back in the mid‑20th century, those jobs did support families. With union protections, employer benefits, and a lower cost of living, a grocery store cashier could modestly raise a household, even on a single income. Wages stretched further, and housing and healthcare weren’t yet out of reach.

What changed after the 1980s was deliberate: jobs that once sustained families were hollowed out into low‑wage, part‑time positions stripped of benefits. Deindustrialization from outsourcing, aggressive union‑busting, and wage stagnation all played a role. Meanwhile, the minimum wage flatlined, failing to keep pace with inflation or productivity growth. The same cashier job that once covered rent, healthcare, and childcare now barely covers groceries.

By the 1990s and 2000s, the right wing responded not by fixing the damage but by reframing it. They began calling these roles “entry‑level jobs for teenagers,” insisting they were never meant to support families. That rhetoric erases decades of reality: from the 1940s through the 1970s, millions of families did rely on those jobs, and companies still profited and prospered while paying their workers higher wages.

The truth is simple: this isn’t about workers “expecting too much.” It’s about corporate greed and political choices that eroded the working class. Wages were suppressed, costs soared, and the rich got richer while ordinary Americans were told to settle for less.

This is nothing more than an orchestrated GOP erosion of the working class. They grind American workers down while the rich get richer.

Well said!