by Outcast_Searcher » Fri 30 Mar 2012, 14:48:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', ' ')Personally, i find the "haves v have nots" approach repulsive and demeaning to our entire country, and lowers the standing morals and ethics of who we are as a society. In my book, the constitutionality of universal health care is meaningless. Let's define the kind of society we want to live in, and make that society happen.
....
The presence of laws and order are different from being civilized, btw.
Well, that all sounds real nice, if the universe were full of flowers and unicorns and we all got what we wanted, just because we want it, via magic.
Unfortunately, we don't live in that world, so society needs to make decisions and make PRIORITIES, since we don't have infinite resources.
How do you propose to PAY FOR the kind of society, when we "make that society happen"? What programs/services, etc. are you willing to give up, if you want to make free universal health care a reality?
Is "civilized" a code word for "all liberal programs one could dream up are present without limit", paid for by those who didn't earn the money? Whining loudly that one "NEEDS" things (supplied by others) doesn't imply adherence to reasonable civilized behavior, any more than (for example) GOP values like the rich paying no taxes, or having military spending without end.
Society needs to come up with some sort of compromise, realize that there is no such thing as something for nothing, and act accordingly. Neither the left nor the right seems to be able or willing to do that, and thus our worsening economic predicament.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.