C
Crocus
Guest
I am sorry and apologize for any smirch against your ethics. It was certainly unintended.
Socialism and Catholicism
- Thread starter NoelFitz
- Start date
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Apology accepted. Please think about this more comprehensively.HarryStotle:
I am sorry and apologize for any smirch against your ethics. It was certainly unintended.
C
Crocus
Guest
I have thought about it, comprehensively, in depth and breadth. When one of us gets sick, we all look after them. It is pretty simple to conclude that universal means we look after everyone. Anything else is just playing favourite$.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The problem with a centralized system where power over every aspect of society, including health care, is in the hands of a ruling elite is that vigilance becomes futile very quickly, which is why power ought to be distributed as widely as possible and freedoms of speech and assembly should be inalienable.
A
AlNg
Guest
I don’t see how you arrived at the statistic of 95-99% ? What data is there that supports your statistics?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Who is “we” and how is that “looking after” accomplished?HarryStotle:
I have thought about it, comprehensively, in depth and breadth. When one of us gets sick, we all look after them. It is pretty simple to conclude that universal means we look after everyone. Anything else is just playing favourite$.
To offload responsibility of looking after everyone onto everyone (universal “we”) becomes ideological and an abstraction very easily, and often an excuse for pretending that a fictitious “system” will do the “looking after.”
In reality, in the day to day world, the opposite is the truth. The “looking after” filters down to particular actions by individuals moment to moment. At that level there are no pretensions of “universality.”
H
HarryStotle
Guest
What were the chances of abortion to save the life of a mother devolving to abortion on demand?HarryStotle:
I don’t see how you arrived at the statistic of 95-99% ? What data is there that supports your statistics?
Not 100%? Okay, I will settle for 95-99%
Ditto with euthanasia devolving from terminally ill patients in great untreatable pain to anyone the system can convince to terminate their lives.
I would guess the same kind of odds exist for socialist policies devolving into socialism. The timeline might be longer, but the odds I would guess are roughly the same.
Once you have a plurality close to a majority of actual voters dependent upon the State you have virtual certainty of socialism taking hold in time. The only variable would be the resources in the system capable of staving off full-blown control. As long as the system can be fed by external resources, the devolution can be mitigated for a time.
A
AlNg
Guest
Universal health care is not fictitious as it is in place in a few countries. It is a system whereby everyone has access to health care at low out of pocket cost since most of the cost is covered by the government. You don’t have to be an atheistic communist to be in favor of universal health care. Further, under some plans you have a choice of the government sponsored low cost healthcare, or a higher cost private arrangement with a doctor.
The capitalist system now in place in the US has certain disadvantages which seem to linger on and appear difficult to resolve without serious reform. Homeless people are all over the place in this area desperately begging for a bit to eat. The wars are costing American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Why are the capitalist Americans so concerned about women in Afghanistan being required to wear kerchiefs but not so much about the homeless and hungry who are sleeping on the streets? According to the President Eisenhower there is a problem with the military industrial complex? What is meant by that except that there is a monetary profit to be had by waging wars. More and more money spent for weapons which oftentimes end up killing innocent children?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
No, ALL of the cost is covered by the taxpayers. The government has no hidden assets that it can turn to – well, except the counterfeit manufacture of money.HarryStotle:
Universal health care is not fictitious as it is in place in a few countries. It is a system whereby everyone has access to health care at out of pocket cost since most of the cost is covered by the government.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Do you have anything except empty rhetoric to back up this guess of yours?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
And most seem to congregate in the states that are more socialist in practice.
A
AlNg
Guest
True. But should taxes be used to develop horrific weapons that can kill everyone on the earth 20 times over and have been used in the amounts of hundreds of billions of dollars on wars which don’t seem to end, or would it be better to help the sick, the poor, the hungry and the homeless who are begging for a crumb or a piece of bread?
A
AlNg
Guest
There are no communist states in the USA. America has a capitalist system, not a communist one. If the states were socialist they would be taking care of the homeless and feeding them instead of having their taxpayers pouring huge amounts of money into the US Treasury. True, some of the federal tax money does go for good purposes, but a large percentage, in the amount of hundreds of billions of dollars, goes to the military industrial complex and is wasted in wars. Why do you oppose spending a small amount of this money to protect and subsidize the health and well being of everyone including the miserable homeless who have to sleep in misery and hunger in the streets of America?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Sounds like a rhetorical question.HarryStotle:
True. But should taxes be used to develop horrific weapons that can kill everyone on the earth 20 times over and have been used in the amounts of hundreds of billions of dollars on wars which don’t seem to end, or would it be better to help the sick, the poor, the hungry and the homeless who are begging for a crumb or a piece of bread?
It might be necessary to spend money on defence or weaponry to protect those people you cherish so that they don’t wind up victims of horrific weapons from the other side. It is a complicated question and not easy to answer – certainly not with simplistic solutions such as disarm completely and leave your nation open to conquest, or to become a nanny state to care for every need of every citizen.
A
AlNg
Guest
You mean like in Vietnam? Please advise us how the money spent burning children with Napalm in Vietnam protected the people who you cherish.
JoeFreedom
New member
Where does said government get said money? It certainly isn’t from money trees. I’ll tell you… extremely high taxes.
JoeFreedom
New member
This. Precisely this.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Have you looked into the actual amounts the US spends on military vs social welfare?
You might want to do that.
Military budget…
Welfare programs…
So $576 billion (military) vs $1.102 trillion (social security).
Last edited:
JoeFreedom
New member
Simply because lots of money is spent on nuclear weapons does not make spending money on universal healthcare a good option even if said weapon money were shifted to said healthcare.
A
AlNg
Guest
I don’t see why it was a good idea to spend money to burn children in Vietnam with Napalm but not spend a bit to help out the homeless living on the American streets in hunger and in misery. Being burned by Napalm is very painful as it is a sticky jelly that sticks to your skin while it burns you alive. Why spend money on these horrible weapons which have killed children instead of spending a bit to help out the poor, starving homeless Americans and those in need of decent health care but cannot afford it?
Last edited:
- Status