Unamerican Secret Trial presided by Democrat Adam Schiff

[Maximus1]

Again, I am not talking socialism. This is one industry whose business model is in complete conflict with the nation’s need.
This claim of socialism has been " old faithful" for over a century. The system we have, a combination of Capitalism and socialistic programs coincides with the only time and place a superpower has existed.
It I and has been our system.
It I and has been the most successful in human history.
Love of neighbor is not everyone’s priority. I get that is a right we have in a secular world, but at 20% of the economy, it is an issue of much deeper implication than social justice.
Excluding social justice from the mix, it is integral to our defense. To our competitiveness. Here the data is striking.
We pay more, get less. With middle of the road results and inferior patient satisfaction.
Comparative world health organization stats show this.
Making insurance a worthiness luxury hurts the economy and our competitiveness. If the fixed cost of every product and service we see is inflated, we must take from elsewhere. For 30 years it has been working people.
Small government is infinitely more controllable for the super wealthy.

 

[Maximus1]

Medicare is a program. How can it be authoritarian. Government’s are authoritarian.
The draft, income taxes, estate taxes, and many other things are compulsory, but within our Constitutional Republic framework.

 

[HarryStotle]

Another American who doesn’t know what socialism or Authoritarianism is.
Or
Our own history.
Would you have joined Saint Peter in that early Christian community in the book of Acts? Not with those posts. America’s status as superpower is coextensive with it’s economy that had a combination of Capitalism and socialism. …

I see. So modern progressive socialism under leaders like Sanders, the Democratic candidates for president, the DNC, the UN, the globalist elites and global warming alarmists is the moral equivalent of the early Church under Saint Peter?

So, apparently, Saint Peter would have been all for abortion on demand, population control, forced wealth distribution, decimating the well-being of huge swaths of the human population for the sake of putting even more wealth in the hands of venture capitalists and global bankers, transgender rights, gay marriage, the manipulation of science to further political ends, placing pedophile bishops and cardinals in control of large dioceses and archdioceses, etc., etc.,

Whether or not America’s rise is wholly or in part due to socialist policies is a debatable question, as is the question of whether the implementation of socialist policies has benefited or harmed America as a nation. It could very well be argued that the Democratic Party’s role in America’s history is tainted through and through with malignancy since virtually all of the really horrid policies implemented in America are Democratic Party in origin. The germane question is how much better off the USA would be now if there had been no socialist policies implemented period.

And please don’t confuse the legitimate role of government as the people acting on behalf of the people with socialism as if in every possible instance of people working with each other is, by definition, socialism.

If that is the case, then you may as well throw out the word government and replace it with “socialistment.”

This is the definition of socialism…

socialism​

so·cial·ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \

Definition of socialism​

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

What you appear to be missing is that the members of the early Church were freely sharing their own private property with the community. Free exchange.

Socialism – to the extent to which a state is socialist – is, by definition, unfree in that no private property is permitted. All property – the means of production and the distribution of goods – is controlled by the State.

I would still argue that although socialist policies have been part of American historical governance, the extent to which this occurred has been harmful or, at best, benign because State control was limited by Constitutional safeguards.

 

[HarryStotle]

Small government is infinitely more controllable for the super wealthy.

Not if the super-wealthy are in control of a large centralized global government precisely because they have the assets, wealth and connections to dominate that form of government.

Once implemented, the people will have no other resort to plead their case. They will be totally at the mercy of the elites in power.

You have that much trust in the benevolence of the wealthy and powerful in total control of the State, do you?

The Church doesn’t…

2431 The responsibility of the state . "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs NOT TO the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."

 

[Maximus1]

I am sorry, all of the “globalist elites” stuff might mean something to you. Like Pizzagate and Bigfoot might. But they are meaningless outside of modern indoctrination methods and don’t interest me. It’s like debating strands of smoke.
My preference is Biden. But you think you can make a point with Bernie, fine.
Bernie, Saint Peter, Trump. Ok!
"…To the community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had EVERYTHING IN COMMON.
There was NO NEEDY PERSON among them for those who owned property, or houses, would sell them, bring the proceeds for the sale and put them at the feet of the Apostles and they WERE DISTRIBUTED TO EACH ACCORDING TO NEEDS.
ACTS 4:32,34.
Again, Bernie is not my first choice, so I have no reason to do anything but just admit the truth.
BERNIE ENVISIONS St Peter’s Jeruselem Community reality infinitely more than Trump. Guilty.
Bernie seeks of one heart and mind. Trump has worked tirelessly for the self benefit of division.
So I guess that point is made. It is no wonder that Pope Francis might want to meet Bernie. The latest I the line of Peter meeting a politician who promoted a lot of the structure of that first Jeruselem Community.
On the issue of Capitalism and socialism in the 20th Century, let’s get some facts strait.
Of necessity, we must recognize : That the combination of the two ( Capitalism and socialism) was coextensive with superpower status. Before the combination, no superpower status.
On the other hand your vision of a Nation of strait Laissez -Faire Capitalism NEVER EXISTED. It is a fiction, argued as a reality. Your belief has no real world examples while mine has the only real world example.
Your opinion is 100% conjecture while my pointing to America in the 20th century is substantial and real.
As long as we can agree we can indulge your fiction vs my reality. Of course with fiction( which is evidenced by your Pizzagate type terms) you are not bound by anything but the imagination.
One more thing. Trump is the ultimate Elite! Take my word for it, Mara Lago is nice. They serve a great shrimp cocktail. He dabbles in pro wrestling( WWF hall of fame) but he does not think his blood is the same temperature as you or I. He values no one as you can see with the people around him go 3 years.
Not his fault he was born into it. But it is amazing how he has flim flamed so many to imagine him OTHERWIZE.
He is a bully with a sadistic streak. He is a perpetual victim , and yet powerful and never looses at the same time.
I don’t know how people don’t feel embarrased but I have to remember, he is good at it.
To me, he is identical to Tom Sawyer’s characters THE KING AND DUKE. The victimhood, Royalty status, grifter, flim flam artist, illustrates an author who met someone just like Trump.

 

[Woodyl57]

"…To the community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had EVERYTHING IN COMMON.

This only works when done freely. Bernie doesn’t envision this, that’s garbage. Redistribution is giving freely.

 

[HarryStotle]

I am sorry, all of the “globalist elites” stuff might mean something to you. Like Pizzagate and Bigfoot might. But they are meaningless outside of modern indoctrination methods and don’t interest me. It’s like debating strands of smoke.
My preference is Biden.

If you are willing to give control of all of your wealth – following the early Church example – to Joe Biden, you are free to do so.

Me? I would suppose he and his family have accrued a sufficient fortune from their dealings in Ukraine and China. I wouldn’t trust them with even a tithe, let alone all of my possessions.

Now show me a person living today who is as trustworthy and holy as Jesus or Saint Peter and is going on about starting a community, I would seriously consider joining and investing 100% of all I own in that community.

None of the current leaders in the modern world engender that level of confidence in their goals and objectives.

Feel free, if you have a mind, to turn over YOUR mind, body, heart, soul and possessions to Joe Biden, the DNC or any other socialist enterprise if YOU wish.

As for me, God alone warrants that kind of complete investment. Not even the Church asks that of its members today, probably because the level of sanctity within it today is nowhere near what it was circa 60 AD; and that is wisely admitted by the teachings of the magisterium that only suggests 10% if that is prudentially possible.

I am quite happy with my 100% conjectured opinion, and I will refrain from wholesale purchase of your “substantial and real” truths.

 

[Maximus1]

I didn’t discuss Biden and Acts. Biden is not a socialist.
Bernie happens to be authentic. Like his politics or not.

 

[Maximus1]

Giving freely is similar to loving enemies. It is fundemental in Christianity yet people look at you like you have two heads outside of church if you suggest it.
You are right about people which tells me that the Church has a long way to go.

 

[HarryStotle]

I am sorry, all of the “globalist elites” stuff might mean something to you. Like Pizzagate and Bigfoot might. But they are meaningless outside of modern indoctrination methods and don’t interest me.

You may want to consider how the media, entertainment industry, and academia is controlled by large corporate interests and powerful individuals who lean very far left politically.

These same corporate industries have been for decades employing all kinds of experts in psychology, sociology and physiology to find effective persuasive techniques to market everything from ideas to widgets to loyalty to hype.

Whether or not anyone is indoctrinated and to what, precisely, is an open question. Whether or not YOU are immune from indoctrination merely because you find the entire possibility meaningless and of no interest might give you pause for thought.

Ascribing to me “Pizzagate type terms” is interesting. While asking me to “take your word for it” on serious issues is quite ironic.

Now asking me to believe Trump is truly “the ultimate elite” while he raises the hackles of virtually all of the monied and connected elites in the world is surely asking me to believe in the wildest fiction of all. It is far more likely that the wide array of the powers aligned against Trump are the elites while he is seriously threatening to collapse their influence, than it is likely that he is working with the elites as the ultimate one implementing some nefarious plot to enslave us all. That sounds even more conspiratorial than Pizzagate or the WWF, however. I am a skeptic by nature and am quite willing to entertain serious evidence. Care to provide a shred of it, ranting notwithstanding?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

If you are willing to give control of all of your wealth – following the early Church example – to Joe Biden, you are free to do so.

Control of wealth is indeed a powerful motivator. What people here are missing is that this kind of strong socialism (which isn’t what Sanders advocates) wouldn’t introduce some new era where people are completely “under someone’s thumb” it would simply change whose thumb they’re under.

Complete freedom is the last thing you would want if you have an organized religion to run. Total freedom is also a very, very bad thing for you if you have a firm to run, so this chapter is about the question of employees and the nature of the firm and other institutions.[1]

Benedict’s instruction manual aims explicitly at removing any hint of freedom in the monks under the principles of: stabilitate sua et conversatione morum suorum et oboedientia — “stability, demeanor compatible with norms and customs, and obedience”. And of course monks are put through a probation period of one year to see if they are effectively obedient.

In short, every organization wants a certain number of people associated with it to be deprived of a certain share of their freedom. How do you own these people? First, by conditioning and psychological manipulation; second by tweaking them to have some skin in the game, forcing them to have something significant to lose if they were to disobey authority –something hard to do with gyrovague beggars who flouted their scorn of material possessions.

 

[HarryStotle]

Control of wealth is indeed a powerful motivator. What people here are missing is that this kind of strong socialism (which isn’t what Sanders advocates) wouldn’t introduce some new era where people are completely “under someone’s thumb” it would simply change whose thumb they’re under.

That is fine as far as it goes. However, the crop of thumbs vying to subdue “the people” these days isn’t exactly creme de la creme.

Besides, there are options that mean sincerely implementing smaller sized thumbs even if what you say about changing thumbs is true.

The Green New Deal is one gigantic burdensome thumb that will surely level the playing field, as well as flatten everyone on it, except the wielders of the thumb.

 

[JonNC]

Again, I am not talking socialism. This is one industry whose business model is in complete conflict with the nation’s need.

Then pass a constitutional amendment.
I disagree with the premise. I believe free markets is the best way to deal with healthcare. Government stinks at it, quite frankly, not to mention we don’t have $3.5 trillion a year for it.

This claim of socialism has been " old faithful" for over a century. The system we have, a combination of Capitalism and socialistic programs coincides with the only time and place a superpower has existed.

It is the progressives who are proclaiming socialism. But socialism is a despicable economic system.
The United States is not socialist, at least not yet.

We pay more, get less. With middle of the road results and inferior patient satisfaction.

And that is because of the government’s interference in healthcare. While not socialist yet, every step that government takes to interfere in the right to healthcare, including Medicare and Medicaid, and dictating what must be covered in private insurance, forces prices up, availability down, and encourages the practice of hiding prices.

Making insurance a worthiness luxury hurts the economy and our competitiveness. If the fixed cost of every product and service we see is inflated, we must take from elsewhere. For 30 years it has been working people.

Again, mainly caused by government interference.

Small government is infinitely more controllable for the super wealthy.

And large government becomes authoritarian. Always.

 

[JonNC]

Medicare is a program. How can it be authoritarian. Government’s are authoritarian.
The draft, income taxes, estate taxes, and many other things are compulsory, but within our Constitutional Republic framework.

It is a government program. That’s how.
I would question the draft, but there is nothing wrong with taxation if the money is spent on the enumerated powers for exclusively in Article 1 Section 8.

 

[JonNC]

If you are willing to give control of all of your wealth – following the early Church example – to Joe Biden, you are free to do so.

No. Progressives are willing to give control of all of your wealth to government.

 

[Woodyl57]

That is my point. We can discuss socialism versus capitalism, etc. but real giving has been from the heart. Not forced not taxed, etc. The Church has concern itself with not just the physical needs of the poor, but the spiritual needs of the rich and poor.

The political discuss is different. That is all I am saying.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

No. Progressives are willing to give control of all of your wealth to government.

I like to imagine an alternate reality where America has socialized medicine and is debating getting rid of it. The consevratives would be crying “Progressives are willing to sell your health for their own wealth.”

 

[JonNC]

I like to imagine an alternate reality where America has socialized medicine and is debating getting rid of it. The consevratives would be crying “Progressives are willing to sell your health for their own wealth .”

Not real conservatives, who believe in individual rights, including the right to healthcare without government interference.
And as bad as the idea of government dictated healthcare is, the abuse of it is sure to follow.
Example: Consider the phony “research” that says firearms are a public health issue. “Want healthcare for you and your children? Give up your firearms.”

 

[Maximus1]

There is no such thing as risk management without government interference.
By design insurance companies only want to cover what has no risk or very minimal risk.
By design the public’s need for risk management starts low, when risk is low and demand increases as risk rises.
Private insurance companies seek to sell what you don’t need . They seek to avoid covering risks the individual authentically has and insureds need and demand. The consumers demand and insurers business model are hopelessly incongruent.
So the industry is highly regulated.
They must offer ( XYZ) OR cannot exclude X.
Often they must sell what they don’t want to, in order to be permitted to sell more lucrative insurance. Like life.
The idea of insurance without regulation makes no sense.
Then you have the law of the bill( My name)
If the bill is incurred, the bill must be paid.
Someone pays it. You begin to look at all medical expenses in the aggregate. Because if an insurance pool does not pick it up, another pool does. Does the hospital eat it. Does government offer relief, do property taxes pay it.
The idea of offering no frills policies " to reduce premiums" is irresponsible.
The bill is inevitable and must be paid.
Your tactics hide the problem. Not resolve. Guess what. The bill is incurred and must be paid. Costs rise, premiums for other pools rise, or a facility closes. The bill gets paid any way. No escape. You have to play for that. Healthy work forces. Can’t Persue happiness sick.
You increase costs with bad societal risk management. You Increase health related problems, which causes tapping other pools where now those premiums or funding sources are overtaxed.
The rugged individualist model does not work with health care. Everybody is in the same boat. Like it or not, once we decide we cannot summarily execute sick people unable to pay, your state and local government entity must have an integrated plan. Or the bill ends up paid by the persons who can. Directly or indirectly. It is irrational to imagine these ideas of let the market take care of it.

 

[Maximus1]

Why do we want to pay more for crap? An " I’m free" premium for the privilege of inferior.