An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently 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.
Could not be any simpler than that.
AMEN!
Posts
Interesting. A quick search of snopes.com indicates that this is a word-for-word replica of a legend that's been passed around via email for up to 15 years now. Weird.
ReplyDeleteI said it was how it works. Never said it was exact. The fact is..the more you give people...they less they try to succeed. Prove me wrong.
ReplyDeleteObviously I have no way to prove you wrong. I can think of several examples off the top of my head of situations where your argument is completely unfounded, but I won't waste my time or yours, because I will never change your mind. And that's fine; I have no problem with the fact that we disagree.
ReplyDeleteTo me, passing along a story as if you wrote it or as if you heard it first-hand (from a professor at a "local college?") completely overshadows your whole point. If you think giving people more will make them less likely to try to succeed, just say that. Copying and pasting an urban legend that many of us have received in our email inbox seems pretty shady to me.
Anyone can write a fictional account to back up their opinions, however rational or irrational they might be. The fact is that neither you nor I know if any part of this story is true.
It was posted as an example of socialism, which is the agenda of our President whether you want to admit it or not.
ReplyDeleteHe has admitted socialsists in his administration. Look it up.
I am not for any form of socialism. Obamacare is a clear example of socialism. And now to see that it is likely illegals will be covered...well...I am glad you want your moneny spent that way..I don't.
You and I agree on one thing. I will never change your mind, nor you mine.
I suspect that most Obama supporters will see the light when Obama care and Cap and Trade passes. Right...no new income taxes...just huge taxes on everything we have to buy.
"The fact is..the more you give people...they less they try to succeed. Prove me wrong."
ReplyDeleteOoh. I can't prove you wrong, but I'll give you some examples:
Roads. When was the last time you heard someone say, "Nah...I don't need a job. I got free roads"?
Public school. Or would you prefer we stopped the public school hand-outs and made everyone earn it? Here's an example of giving people something that's explicit purpose and result is to help them (or their children) achieve success in life.
National defense. What do you do to earn it? Pay taxes, just like anything else the government gives you "for free". Do you try less hard because we have the best army in the world?
Unemployment. Here's something to think about. You're thinking about risking just about everything you own to start a business. Are you more likely to do it knowing that the government will help your family stay afloat if you fail? Or are you more likely to do it knowing that you'll lose everything if you don't succeed? You could make the same argument for publicly available health care (although it's not free).
I could go on. The point is, governments are formed to handle big problems that people can't handle on their own. You could make an argument that many of the services that the government provides are socialist in some respect. But not every service that the government provides in return for tax money is automatically socialist or bad. Some of the services it provides actually help people, despite the fact that they're "getting them for free".
Roads have nothing to do with getting people to take responsibility for themselves. Clearly, taxes do support roads. I have no problem with that.
ReplyDeletePublic school is not free....we pay school taxes. Not only for our own children...but for all the ones here illegally too. Our school had to scrap a lot things to support ESOL. Way to go.
National defense is moot under Obama. We are sitting ducks. He is sucking up to the most rogue leaders in the world and cutting defense.
Unemployment? Self employed people don't get that. They only get it from employers who pay for the insurance.
Yes, we have to have food stamps...etc. They should be a temporary measure to help people get back on their feet during hard times. I never said that was bad. What is bad is parents raise children with little or no supervision, fail to ensure their kids get a good education, fail to teach them to take responsiblity for their own lives...so they stay on the system and keep having more children. Sorry, but I have a problem with that.
I am for freedom...little government, big people. You are not born with the guarantee of anyting than the right to pursue health, happiness and liberty. People need to grasp that. People just think they are entitled to everything. Now we have illegals here demanding everything.
Take a look at California. Bankrupt. If they would send the illegals home...it would probably solve their problems. Most do not pay taxes...they work under the table..yet they eat up American resources. This is a fact. It happens right here in my state too. Kids now only get PE every third day because they had to add more ESOL classes.
There are many socialst nations...and people in America are free to go to them. This is America....and I will vote...and educate people till the day I die to keep our constitution in tact.
Oh....and I seriously doubt that Obama will serve 8 years. He is a one termer. The polls are showing that already.
"You are not born with the guarantee of anyting than the right to pursue health, happiness and liberty."
ReplyDeleteAnd, if you are born in America, roads to drive on. And the right (actually, obligation) to attend school. And firefighters and police officers to protect you. And an army to protect you. And bridges. And sewers. And a whole host of other things that every American benefits from, no matter what their financial situation is.
I would argue that "Obamacare" is less socialist than anything I named above, because all he's offering is another insurance plan that you have to pay for. He's just guaranteeing that it's available for you. All of those other things I mentioned are "free". And while there are a lot of concerns I have about the health care plan (more people in the system could lead to longer wait times, whether it is a financially attainable program, etc), I'm willing to listen to the arguments and make a judgement based off of them.
Saying, SOCIALISM! is not an argument. It's a way of avoiding having to listen to arguments. You're trying to paint the issue as black and white so you can just write it off without thinking about it. Well the issue is not black and white. Socialism may not be a term you like and may not be an ideology you agree with, but I listed seven socialist programs above that every American family takes advantage of every single day. Socialism is present any time the government takes the money we pay in taxes and provides a service for everybody. There are places where it is appropriate.
You can throw out a theoretical situation in which socialism isn't appropriate (like rewarding people for hard work in a classroom) and try to use it to write off every socialist-sounding situation. But that's dishonest and lazy. I can come up with a real life scenario in which capitalism is not appropriate, but I wouldn't try to use it to write off capitalism altogether. For instance, many years ago fire stations were privately owned companies. You had to have a contract with the fire station or they wouldn't put out your fire if you had one. I would argue that the socialist approach of having government-run fire stations that put out everyone's fires is a heck of a lot more appropriate than forcing people to pay for it or not have the protection. I would hope that you agree with that.
If you have an issue with our immigration policy, I respect that. That's an issue about which I have conflicting thoughts. Let's dig up some facts and some theories about solutions and have an honest debate. But the fact that you have non-citizens using America's programs doesn't make the programs wrong or more socialist than they would have been if they were only for American citizens. I would encourage you to drop the "socialist" rhetoric and have an honest conversation about these issues.
Oh because you do not agree with me you say I am being dishonest. You can encourage me all day long to drop the socialist from my point of view....and you will never get very far.
ReplyDeleteA very liberal action on your part.
Obamacare? It is not an option. You will be fined a percentage of your income if you do not carry the insurance they require you to have. How is that for freedom? Government committes deciding what care you get? Yea...that is freedom. No more hip replacements for seniors who have a remaining life EXPECTANCY of five years. Umm....what if they live another 20 years? Oh wait...and in a wheel chair all that time because they were denied treatment.
ReplyDeleteThe country will go bankrupt....mark my words.
See you int he breadline.
How the "war on poverty" is going. It started with the democrats in the 60's. How has that war been going? Over 40 years later we are still fighting it. By continually upping the entitlements, we now have the largest entitlement population in our history. While the intent was to lift people up, the reality is that people got entitlements like food stamps, like welfare, and their neighbors saw it and said "I want a piece of that action." The only time this segment of our population does anything is if it will get them something more for nothing. This segment also has the highest teenage pregnancies and single parent households. Why? Because there is no incentive for them to assume personal responsibility. Failure to get out of poverty is due more to their lack of personal responsibility than to our inadequate attempts to lift them up.
ReplyDeleteI am at a loss as how you use roads as an example. Clearly, we must pay taxes for items such as roads, bridges....etc. How you compare these to healthcare is beyond me. I am against Socialism...where things are given to people that they should provide for themsevles. You cannot take from the rich to SUPPORT the poor. If you do...the rich will eventually cease to provide jobs.
ReplyDeleteA very good example:
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
I think the big difference between your point of view and mine is in your definition of socialism: where things are given to the people that they should provide for themselves. You're making the argument that people should be responsible for providing their healthcare. I'm making the argument that people should just have access to healthcare. Healthcare shouldn't be available only to those who have good jobs or a lot of money. It should be there for everyone.
ReplyDelete"...the right to pursue health, happiness, and liberty." If you can't get an insurance carrier to insure you and you can't afford insane medical costs, where is your right to pursue health? Our system makes it impossible for a lot of people who either can't afford the high premiums, have "preexisting conditions", etc.
The reason I used roads as an example is because my definition of socialism isn't the same as yours. When I talk about a socialist program, I'm talking about one in which the government takes in tax money and distributes it in an "equitable" way. In a way that doesn't take into account the amount of money they collected from certain people.
So for instance, Bill Gates paid way more taxes last year than the janitor who cleans his office, but the government grants them use of the same roads. All of society benefits in an equal way from the government's program. It's socialism.
It's all in where you draw the line. You could argue that the poor didn't pay their share for the roads and have no right to use them. But you wouldn't think to make that argument because it is so obvious to all of us that the benefit the roads provide to everyone outweighs any inequity in who paid for them. They're critical to our day-to-day functioning.
Likewise, if we didn't take taxes from everyone and provide school access to everyone, regardless of whether they could afford it, our country's future would suffer. If we let people's houses burn down who couldn't afford to buy firefighter protection, the entire neighborhood would be harmed by a smoldering hole where the neighbor's house would be.
My argument on health care would be this: if some guy down the street can't work because he's sick, that's bad for me. That is needlessly lost time that he could be using to support the economy. There is a ripple effect, even if he's a low-paid laborer of some sort. Some work isn't getting done.
By using tax money to help ensure that everyone can get preventative health care, we can lower the number of serious illnesses. We can introduce more efficiency into the system. It has a benefit to all of us.
Is it socialism? Under my definition, sure it is. Under yours, it is if you believe that people aren't entitled to health care. If you feel like health isn't a basic right and that people should have to earn access to the doctors and medication that can treat their families, then it's not only socialism but an entitlement program. I have health insurance. My family is protected. But I don't feel like my success should get me health care that the less fortunate can't get. My belief is that we all deserve to be healthy.
Then reform medicaid and medicare and leave the rest alone. There is no need to mandate to insurance companies what they can charge, who they will cover...and there is certainly no need to make it law that even small business must provide health care coverage. It will put small business out of business. Then to make it LAW that everyone carries federally approved insurance or they are fined.
ReplyDeleteI can chose my own damn heatlh care....I do not need big goddamn brother to do it for me.
Nor do I need to be told what kind of car I will have to drive in the future. Nor do I need the damn smart meter my company just put on my house...which in the future...yes...will be used to limit the amount of electricity we can use and/or fine me for using it at a certain time...and what about all the people they just pushed electric cars on? Huh?
There are plenty of countries you can go to where the government tells you what to do in your personal life. Why don't you try Cuba....they are a shining example of government intervention into the personal lives of their citizens.
And let me add...I do not currently have a job or health insurance...nor am I on any form of public assistance. So I am not the rich soul complaining about giving to the poor. At the moment, I am poor. I also know that if we had a tragedy tomorrow....we would rececive medical treatment.
ReplyDeleteActually, a smart meter put on a home by an electric company is an example of capitalism, not socialism. Supply and demand--they have a lot more demand at peak hours, and since people need that electricity they're going to make them pay more for it. Don't get mad at the government for that. Get mad at the CEO.
ReplyDeleteYou have regulations all backward. Regulations are aimed at protecting consumers and making sure everything runs properly. You can argue they're a drag on businesses, but the goals are to protect consumers.
Capitalism is great for producing wealth, but it has some real flaws. A CEO of a drug company is under a lot of pressure to bring in the money. He would gladly put out a less-than-fully-tested new drug if he thought the rewards of higher profits outweighed the chance that the drug would be found to have serious side-effects. What stops him from doing that? Government regulations.
Your car company would love to cut costs on safety features and leave you less safe in the case of an accident. What stops them? Government regulations.
Your insurance company would love to drop you from their coverage as soon as they found out you had cancer. Cancer is expensive for them. What stops them from dropping the sick people? Government regulation.
Not all regulations are bad. On the contrary, without them we normal, not-rich people would be up a creek. Companies looking to make the most of capitalism would be taking advantage of people left and right. Most regulations that get put in place do so in response to some outrage perpetuated on the public by a corporation (Enron cooking its books and destroying people's retirement funds, for example).
The government does have the right to enforce what is right, because the government is us. By the people, for the people.
I'm sorry to hear about your employment/health insurance situation. I hope you find something soon. But note that if you had a tragedy tomorrow, you would receive medical treatment because there is a government regulation that says an emergency room has to treat everyone, regardless of their insurance status.
And also note that the costs of that ER visit would be paid for by people who do have health insurance, in the form of higher premiums. As someone who has health insurance, I don't have any problem paying more to ensure that you are cared for during your time of need. I think those of us who are fortunate in life should help lift up those who have been less so, or who are currently having a downturn. But I would rather that payment was watched over by the government than by a private insurance company that is going to take a little off of the top.
I'm going to go ahead and stop posting anonymously here, because I want you to know that even though I'm a "liberal" and have different views on these things, I'm still a husband and a father who wants the best for his family and his country. We're all looking for the same things in the end. No need to demonize each other or suggest that we have other interests at heart than the good of our society.
Well, if you think Obama is a capitalist...then just remember he campaigned promising we would get smart meters. True to his word, I have one now. He is the one who wants to limit the use of electricity. I believe I have a link to him saying that on another post.
ReplyDeleteAnd no...if we had an emergency room visit...you would not pay for it...I would. I am paying for one now. My emergency room visit is not your problem. Nor is yours mine. We need to be responsible for ourselves. There should be a safety net to use as a temporary measure...but temporary is the keyword. All through times there have been different levels of economnic class...and there will always be.
But feel free to pay my hospital bill if you really want to...lol.
I will agree with you....everyone wants the same things for their families. Just some want it given to them....and others work for it.
I have four unisured children....and still I do not want Obamacare. I will eventually find a job...and get back on my feet. This is the first time I have been in this situation..and I understand others have been there before. It is tough. But...I am not looking for handouts...I am looking for work.
"Anonymous":
ReplyDeleteThe story is simply an example of how a socialist agenda may help some, but hurt others. Actually, socialism eventually hurts the collective by making everyone equally impoverished and no one successful.
I can't help but notice that none of your comments actually challenged the merits of the case against socialism, but rather questioned whether the example given was authentic or not. Typical liberal talking point. Typical, but not surprising.
Tammy, good for you for standing your ground. SOME of us will never accept that it's okay to agree to disagree. I've been there, been on food stamps and couldn't wait to get back on my feet. I've also had neighbors that have come into the welfare office I used to work at in MS with knives demanding their "aid" when it ran out after receiving it for years and years!
ReplyDeleteThe government has been slowly making some of us lazy. Why work hard when it can be given to us?
I agree, you do not have a right to a job, but you do have the right to get up off your ass and get one.