Why do you feel socialism is bad?

[Vasian]

As the late Adrian Rogers said, “you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
This man is truly a genius!

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before,
but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Excellent!!!

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Hello there! I’m a supporter of the United States becoming a socialist democracy, and having systems such as socialized health care.

Looking over this forum, most (if not all) of the members are strongly anti-socialist. Why?

Note: I do understand that abortion is evil if not done for (both physical and mental) medicinal reasons. If abortion is not funded, at all, would you be in favor of it?

Socialism has a few problems:

1. It reduces the individual’s sense of responsibility by creating the opportunity for some to live off the largesse of the state.
2. It weakens the individual’s sense of charity by creating the perception that there is no longer a need to be charitable.
3. It fosters a sense of entitlement among individuals who benefit from the state’s social programs.
4. It creates a sense of resentment among those who are better situated than others, because it is from their plenty and without their consent that the state funds programs for the less fortunate.
5. It destroys the long-lived American value of hard work, since there is no longer a reason for it due to the fact that those who work hard are penalized and those who do not are rewarded.
6. It places the government in greater control of the citizenry, which runs counter to the purpose of government as described in our Constitution.
7. It runs the risk of excessive government intervention and decreased personal liberty that could lead to totalitarian control.
8. The increased government intervention in the lives of the people will lead to bloated, inefficient government that has too much focus on domestic issues at the expense of security.
9. It opens the door for the government to interfere in the lives of the people through bureaucratic programs such as nationalized health care, in which the freedom of the individual to make personal healthcare choices is cast aside and (at worst) opens up opportunities for the value of the individual to be disregarded (i.e., the so-called “death panels” that ration care.
10. It puts the government in charge of programs that typically work better when left to the free market, since the government a) tends to bloat costs and ruin quality, and b) has no incentive to improve quality and lower cost since there is no competition.

Added to all of this is the fact that the Church has clearly spoken on the issue, saying that socialism is an inappropriate form of government:

A system that “subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production” is contrary to human dignity.205 Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."206

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

Note that this is not an endorsement of unfettered capitalism; rather, it is a specific condemnation of socialism as “contrary to human dignity”.

2428 In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work.214

Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community.

2429 Everyone has the right of economic initiative; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor. He should seek to observe regulations issued by legitimate authority for the sake of the common good.215

Here we find statements to the effect that, while man has a duty to contribute to the “abundance that will benefit all”, he also has a right to “harvest the just fruits of his labor” since that labor entitles him to “draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family” as well as contributing to the good of the community. Socialism a) reduces his freedom to do this and b) mandates his contributions instead of encouraging them out of charity.

In short, we can say that socialism reduces freedom, devalues the individual, and runs contrary to the Church’s teachings. Isn’t that enough?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Vasian]

Im confused…Im just trying to figure out why you list yourself as “Catholic”, yet have disagree with Holy Mother Church on such an important and NON-NEGOTIABLE issue

The Church needs to ask that publicly of Speaker Pelosi, the most public face of Catholicism in the United States.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Hello there! I’m a supporter of the United States becoming a socialist democracy, and having systems such as socialized health care.

Looking over this forum, most (if not all) of the members are strongly anti-socialist. Why?

Note: I do understand that abortion is evil if not done for (both physical and mental) medicinal reasons. If abortion is not funded, at all, would you be in favor of it?

Socialism destroys individual charity.

Socialism restricts individual freedom.

Citizens of socialist nations in Europe give less than half of what their American counterparts give to charity.

The larger the government gets, the smaller the individual gets.

Socialists move nations away from God. Socialism goes hand in hand with secularism.

Socialism substitutes government for religion.

Socialism creates poverty and destroys wealth.

Socialism prevents individuals from choosing the life they desire.

Under socialism, most transactions are mandated by governemnt. Under capitalism, individual transactions are chosen by individuals.

 

[michaeldaniels]

I agree…The Church should excommunicate her and other politicians like her for causing such great scandal

The Church needs to ask that publicly of Speaker Pelosi, the most public face of Catholicism in the United States.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Looking over this forum, most (if not all) of the members are strongly anti-socialist. Why?

Great thread. Thanks for starting it.

 

[cecilia97]

I’m jumping in here and I don’t know if I’m following things correctly but does there seem to be 2 ends of a spectrum: on one side, people are on their own and if they choose to give to charities, that’s their business but, if not, the needy are on their own. Everyone is on their own. Survival of the fittest. Nobody gets any help?? Then, on the other end of the spectrum, the government controls everything about everyone’s life. This end of the spectrum is called socialism? (if I’m wrong, please correct me).

I was under the impression the socialism and communism were very similar if not the same. Weren’t the nazis considered socialists? Doesn’t white supremecy go hand in hand with socialism?

Our current system does not have to be survival of the fittest. Nothing forces us to give to charities right now, yet many people do.

As far as I can tell, socialism does not raise the poor to the level of the rich. It merely brings the rich down to the level of the poor.

Give people a chance at an education, some ASSISTANCE, not handouts, and those willing to work hard will thrive.

 

[timcfc]

Karl Marx wrote something along the lines of “from each according to ability and to each according to their needs”. There is just one problem with that philosophy - human ‘needs’ can be a bottomless pit of acquisitiveness. Look up the synonyms of that word and see where socialism can lead human nature. Britain embarked on a socialist experiment before Margaret Thatcher came along to clean up the resultant mess. Did you know that under that socialist experiment, a family could show they needed a TV for their kids education and so apply for and be given a free TV. The greed of the trade unions knew no bounds. They hijacked the running of many businesses. A great example was their insistence that unprofitable coal mines in the north of England remain open and operating to make sure unemployment did not occur. Who picked up the tab? Why, the public purse, of course. Britain was a divided society back then, as people resented the giving of handouts to those who did not earn them…

The big problem i have is that you say Margaret Thatcher came and cleaned up the mess.Well in Scotland she didnt clean up a mess,she made a complete mess of the whole country,poverty and unemployment was rife. As long as the south east of England prospered Maggie didnt really care for anyone else.
Britain is very different to the US,we have a healthcare system,that is not perfect but is far better than 30 million Americans having none.
On a Catholic forum i find it very hard to read that fellow Catholics do not believe in Socialised medicine.By reading the bible you will see that Jesus would want ALL his people to have access to healthcare not just those who could afford it.

Jesus spoke remarkably often about wealth and poverty. To the poor he said, “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God,” (Luke’s version). To the rich he said, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth,” and “go, sell what you have, and give to the poor.” When the rich turned away from him because they couldn’t follow his command he observed, “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

For Jesus, helping the poor and the outcast is not optional: it is the essence of what it means to love God. In the parable of the last judgement he welcomes the righteous into heaven saying, “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” When the righteous answered that they didn’t recall doing any of these things, he said, “as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”

 

[fultonfish]

As the late Adrian Rogers said, “you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
This man is truly a genius!

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before,
but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

This is really excellent!!!

 

[fultonfish]

Socialism succeeds because of corruption; there are two-tier rewards: the socialist bosses and party members and politically favored few get the upscale cars and health care and the nice vacations. The rest get the Trabants and the clinics with long lines.

 

[humblelurker]

On a Catholic forum i find it very hard to read that fellow Catholics do not believe in Socialised medicine.

timcfc,

So you don’t agree with the Catholic Church concerning socialism?

Jesus never indorsed the political movement of socialism.
Local problems should be taken care of by local people (we personally feed the hungry). When Blessed Teresa of Calcutta saw people dumped on the streets to die did she say, “Let’s get the government to take care of this.” When Christ comes in glory does he say, “When I was hungry you let the government feed me.” No. Are you familiar with the works of mercy? Every one of us is individually called to individually show mercy to those around us and in our communities. This is our stewardship of time, talent, and treasure that we freely give in our lives. Socialism takes away free will and lets an all encompassing welfare state take care of things instead of us personally doing it. The fault is not in our social-political systems but in us. This is our judgment for how we use our free will in our lives.

 

[exoflare]

By reading the bible you will see that Jesus would want ALL his people to have access to healthcare not just those who could afford it.

Can you find the part in the Bible where Jesus tells us to put our healthcare in the hands of a corrupt, bloated government bureaucracy?

 

[dmelosi]

Britain is very different to the US,we have a healthcare system,that is not perfect but is far better than 30 million Americans having none.

There is not a person in the U.S. that is turned away from healthcare when they must have it.

A friend of mine had a major heart attack. The surgery he had, the recovery and all of the medicine is currently paid for by the Government. He did not go without and did not have to pay back a dime.

I do agree as most do that there is the need of health care reform, just not government controlled and not government funded abortions.

 

[jjdrury81]

I am a Democratic Socialist in the vain of Bernie Sanders.

Minority yes. Alone, no.

 

[timcfc]

timcfc,

So you don’t agree with the Catholic Church concerning socialism?

Jesus never indorsed the political movement of socialism.
Local problems should be taken care of by local people (we personally feed the hungry). When Blessed Teresa of Calcutta saw people dumped on the streets to die did she say, “Let’s get the government to take care of this.” When Christ comes in glory does he say, “When I was hungry you let the government feed me.” No. Are you familiar with the works of mercy? Every one of us is individually called to individually show mercy to those around us and in our communities. This is our stewardship of time, talent, and treasure that we freely give in our lives. Socialism takes away free will and lets an all encompassing welfare state take care of things instead of us personally doing it. The fault is not in our social-political systems but in us. This is our judgment for how we use our free will in our lives.

Well in that case should the communities not be looking after the people who cannot afford healthcare? The problem with your argument is that in the US only the people who can afford it can have healthcare,this is wrong.Everyone should be entitled to be looked after when they are sick,also is it not true that 60% of all bankruptcies in the US happen because normal working people cannot pay their health insurance. This is from CNN
One out of three Americans under 65 were without health insurance at some point during 2007 and 2008, according to a report released Wednesday.

With respect to health care reform, “the cost of doing nothing is too high,” says Families USA.
The study, commissioned by the consumer health advocacy group Families USA, found 86.7 million Americans were uninsured at one point during the past two years.

Among the report’s key findings:

• Nearly three out of four uninsured Americans were without health insurance for at least six months.

• Almost two-thirds were uninsured for nine months or more.

• Four out of five of the uninsured were in working families.

• People without health insurance are less likely to have a usual doctor and often go without screenings or preventative care.

As far as im aware,the Catholic church in the US supports a change in healthcare but it must be without abortion,i agree with this.

There is not a person in the U.S. that is turned away from healthcare when they must have it.
A friend of mine had a major heart attack. The surgery he had, the recovery and all of the medicine is currently paid for by the Government. He did not go without and did not have to pay back a dime.

I do agree as most do that there is the need of health care reform, just not government controlled and not government funded abortions.

Actually you are wrong.The number of uninsured Americans reached 47 million in 2006, and it continues to rise. For many of the uninsured, the lack of health insurance has dire consequences. The uninsured face medical debt, often go without necessary care, and even die prematurely.

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine released a groundbreaking report, Care without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late, which estimated that 18,000 adults nationwide died in 2000 because they did not have health insurance. Subsequently, The Urban Institute estimated that 22,000 adults died in 2006 because they did not have health insurance.

Again i cant understand on a Catholic forum people saying that healthcare coverage should not be for all. Of course i agree that abortion should never be part of it,but when your fellow man is dying because he/she cannot afford healthcare,why would you be against it?

 

[dmelosi]

Well in that case should the communities not be looking after the people who cannot afford healthcare? The problem with your argument is that in the US only the people who can afford it can have healthcare,this is wrong.Everyone should be entitled to be looked after when they are sick,also is it not true that 60% of all bankruptcies in the US happen because normal working people cannot pay their health insurance. This is from CNN

Please check factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_the_percentage_of_total_personal.html
and
american.com/archive/2009/august/the-medical-bankruptcy-myth

An argument becomes a huge problem when you are not certain of your facts.

One out of three Americans under 65 were without health insurance at some point during 2007 and 2008, according to a report released Wednesday.

With respect to health care reform, “the cost of doing nothing is too high,” says Families USA.
The study, commissioned by the consumer health advocacy group Families USA, found 86.7 million Americans were uninsured at one point during the past two years.

Among the report’s key findings:

• Nearly three out of four uninsured Americans were without health insurance for at least six months.

• Almost two-thirds were uninsured for nine months or more.

• Four out of five of the uninsured were in working families.

• People without health insurance are less likely to have a usual doctor and often go without screenings or preventative care.

As far as im aware,the Catholic church in the US supports a change in healthcare but it must be without abortion,i agree with this.

Actually you are wrong.The number of uninsured Americans reached 47 million in 2006, and it continues to rise. For many of the uninsured, the lack of health insurance has dire consequences. The uninsured face medical debt, often go without necessary care, and even die prematurely.

I am not sure what you say I am wrong about.

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine released a groundbreaking report, Care without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late, which estimated that 18,000 adults nationwide died in 2000 because they did not have health insurance. Subsequently, The Urban Institute estimated that 22,000 adults died in 2006 because they did not have health insurance.

Again i cant understand on a Catholic forum people saying that healthcare coverage should not be for all. Of course i agree that abortion should never be part of it,but when your fellow man is dying because he/she cannot afford healthcare,why would you be against it?

There is no one who said they would wish not to help a dying man, and what you say is simply not true, where are you reading this?

 

[TenBobNote]

The big problem i have is that you say Margaret Thatcher came and cleaned up the mess.Well in Scotland she didnt clean up a mess,she made a complete mess of the whole country,poverty and unemployment was rife. As long as the south east of England prospered Maggie didnt really care for anyone else.
Britain is very different to the US,we have a healthcare system,that is not perfect but is far better than 30 million Americans having none.
On a Catholic forum i find it very hard to read that fellow Catholics do not believe in Socialised medicine.By reading the bible you will see that Jesus would want ALL his people to have access to healthcare not just those who could afford it.

Jesus spoke remarkably often about wealth and poverty. To the poor he said, “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God,” (Luke’s version). To the rich he said, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth,” and “go, sell what you have, and give to the poor.” When the rich turned away from him because they couldn’t follow his command he observed, “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

For Jesus, helping the poor and the outcast is not optional: it is the essence of what it means to love God. In the parable of the last judgement he welcomes the righteous into heaven saying, “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” When the righteous answered that they didn’t recall doing any of these things, he said, “as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”

What is your rebuttal to 95% of the comments in this subject matter? Jesus preached how to preform acts of mercy not to cheapen them, make them government owned, and mandated. Works of love and mercy are done by the generosity of a neighbor with their own free will.
I for one am glad that the majority of the participants in this discussion see the other side to the glamorized propaganda of big government.
Health care is already majorly influenced by the government in the US. It is no wonder why costs are so high and so many are uninsured. Yet a sector of health care where government is not involved is lasik eye surgery, the costs have reduced significantly and the treatment is excellent.

 

[fish90]

Well in that case should the communities not be looking after the people who cannot afford healthcare? The problem with your argument is that in the US only the people who can afford it can have healthcare,this is wrong.Everyone should be entitled to be looked after when they are sick,also is it not true that 60% of all bankruptcies in the US happen because normal working people cannot pay their health insurance. This is from CNN
One out of three Americans under 65 were without health insurance at some point during 2007 and 2008, according to a report released Wednesday.

With respect to health care reform, “the cost of doing nothing is too high,” says Families USA.
The study, commissioned by the consumer health advocacy group Families USA, found 86.7 million Americans were uninsured at one point during the past two years.

Among the report’s key findings:

• Nearly three out of four uninsured Americans were without health insurance for at least six months.

• Almost two-thirds were uninsured for nine months or more.

• Four out of five of the uninsured were in working families.

• People without health insurance are less likely to have a usual doctor and often go without screenings or preventative care.

As far as im aware,the Catholic church in the US supports a change in healthcare but it must be without abortion,i agree with this.

Actually you are wrong.The number of uninsured Americans reached 47 million in 2006, and it continues to rise. For many of the uninsured, the lack of health insurance has dire consequences. The uninsured face medical debt, often go without necessary care, and even die prematurely.

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine released a groundbreaking report, Care without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late, which estimated that 18,000 adults nationwide died in 2000 because they did not have health insurance. Subsequently, The Urban Institute estimated that 22,000 adults died in 2006 because they did not have health insurance.

Again i cant understand on a Catholic forum people saying that healthcare coverage should not be for all. Of course i agree that abortion should never be part of it,but when your fellow man is dying because he/she cannot afford healthcare,why would you be against it?

Americans certainly do want health care for all. Socialized health care is what we want to avoid. The only problem today is cost not quality or accessibility. The answer to lowering cost while keeping quality and accessibility high is through the free market.

By the way, I would have a fit if women in this country were denied life saving breast cancer medicine like in the U.K (of course, before the government answered its people’s cries)

Are you also aware that the current bill insures 30 million out of the contested 50 million? Also, the bishops in this country have advocated for universal access to health care not socialized health care. I started a whole thread on this issue. Please read:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=365152

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

 

[wabrams]

Actually you are wrong.The number of uninsured Americans reached 47 million in 2006, and it continues to rise. For many of the uninsured, the lack of health insurance has dire consequences. The uninsured face medical debt, often go without necessary care, and even die prematurely.

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine released a groundbreaking report, Care without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late, which estimated that 18,000 adults nationwide died in 2000 because they did not have health insurance. Subsequently, The Urban Institute estimated that 22,000 adults died in 2006 because they did not have health insurance.

Again i cant understand on a Catholic forum people saying that healthcare coverage should not be for all. Of course i agree that abortion should never be part of it,but when your fellow man is dying because he/she cannot afford healthcare,why would you be against it?

There is a difference between health insurance and health care. No one in the US is denied healthcare; to do so is illegal.

With regards to those 18k, did they die b/c they didn’t have insurance or they died while not having insurance?

No one has said anyone should be denied health care.

 

[timcfc]

Americans certainly do want health care for all. Socialized health care is what we want to avoid. The only problem today is cost not quality or accessibility. The answer to lowering cost while keeping quality and accessibility high is through the free market.

By the way, I would have a fit if women in this country were denied life saving breast cancer medicine like in the U.K (of course, before the government answered its people’s cries)
Are you also aware that the current bill insures 30 million out of the contested 50 million? Also, the bishops in this country have advocated for universal access to health care not socialized health care. I started a whole thread on this issue. Please read:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=365152

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

Nobody is denied healthcare in the UK,if a woman is found to have breast cancer she would be treated immediately. Our NHS is a remarkable service,yes its has some faults,but the level of care is excellent. I will read your thread.

Merry Christmas to you!!