Teacher fails entire class to prove why socialism never works

Here is an article that was published in 2013 that has some people mad.

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 will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

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. As the tests proceeded, 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.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED 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.

I don't know why anyone would be mad at that article, unless they are simply in denial.  Do you?

Obama might clearly be a Socialist

I like to participate in political discussions with various coworkers, and willing and appropriate patients, without letting them know my political affiliation. I usually sit and listen, and poke the discussion one way or another now and again.

The issue of socialism came up recently. A coworker of mine -- a self declared liberal -- said, "There's all this talk of Obama being a socialist. I don't believe any of it."

So I thought to myself, "Is Obama a socialist?"

Of course I have my opinions, but I don't want to state my non-expert opinion here. However, I picked up a book at the library last week called, "Catastrophe," by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann.

I didn't pick up the book to get more one sided bias, but with this specific question in mind. You know no liberal is going to admit to being a socialist any more than a bear is going to admit to not liking meat.

So, being a professional political analyzer, and former political advisor for various politicians, including Bill Clinton, I thought Dick Morris would be in a good position to diagnose the issue of "Is Obama a socialist."

First of all, we have to define socialism. Morris provides the definition here:

In modern geopolitics, the term 'socialist' refers broadly to the Social Democratic ideology followed by the left-leaning political parties of Western Europe, who want to expand the role of government in their countries. They want to establish a broader cradle-to-grave social welfare system and to widen the influence of public institutions."

From there, he goes on to describe how to determine if a nation is socialist, and whether Obama fits this bill:

"The best shorthand to determine where a nation is on the capitalist/socialist scale is to measure how much of it economy is in the public sector -- in other words, what percentage of its GDP comes from government spending. By this measure, the U.S. has ranked well to the right of almost every other major industrialized country in the world, with the sometime exception of Japan.

Pre Obama, he writes, "U.S. Government spending once accounted for 36.4% of our economy, it is now rising to 49% -- sending us soaring past Britain and Germany and nestling in right under France -- the model of a modern socialist democracy."

Morris adds, "So, when it comes to Barrack Obama's spending programs, 'socialist' is no political slur. It's a simple description."

Obama's justification of socialism

Obama's speech today was interesting. It was basically an attempt by him to justify the destruction of capitalism.

He said, "We are not out of the woods yet. We will have more job loss and more foreclosures, and more pain before it ends." Of course he doesn't say how long it will last.

If history is any indicator, it will last a long time. The last time the government increased by this much was in response to the stock market crash in 1929, and FDRs new deal failed to put an end to that depression for ten years.

Obama believes that the reason FDR's new deal failed was because he didn't' spend enough fast enough. Which is why, in his speech today, he said, (paraphrasing), "What is happening right now is people aren't spending money, so businesses are suffering. To get the economy rolling again someone has to spend money. So, if the people aren't going to do it, it is the role of the government to spend money in order to get the economy rolling again."

In that sentence, he basically justified the end of capitalism as we know it, because what he described is the opposite of capitalism: it's the growth of socialism. And it has failed every time it has been tried.

The first rung of the slippery slope has collapsed

Some people -- mainly republicans -- worry that all the bailouts and recovery plans have this country headed in a more European or even Chinese style socialistic government. I wonder if the first step has already collapsed.

I heard today that Obama has set a new mandate that any business receiving government money must not have it's top administrators receiving anything more than $500,000. He said "we must not reward incompetence."

He said we need to encourage responsibility and accountability. I actually agree with Obama here. If you are a company administrator running your business so bad that you need government assistance to keep running, then your bosses are not doing their job. They should not be rewarded with $1.5 million compensation packages.

I've always petitioned that I thought these businesses should not have received government assistance in he first place, I see no problem with loan to be paid back.

However, I also see the other side of this. You have businesses who are paying these massive wages and bonuses not without a reason. In major league baseball where the Yankees offered Mark Teixeira $25 million a year to play ball for the Yankees not because they want to part with all that money, but because that's a sound business practice if you want the top people for the job.

But, also as in baseball, if Mark Teixeira does not produce the stats needed to make the Yankees a productive organization, he will be canned and not rewarded with a new million dollar contract.

So, that said, if we are going to fall into a socialistic system where the government is going to get involved in rewarding failed businesses, the government is going to want a say in how they run their businesses. And, thus, the $500,000 cap makes sense.

In a sense, the first step in the slippery slope toward a more socialistic government has collapsed. What do you think?

Obama is wrong: YOU ARE NOT SELFISH

A few weeks ago we heard Obama saying that the American people need to "spread the wealth around." He said that we all need to do our duty to help the poor.

It seems to me though that the American dream is freedom. Thus, it should be up to each individual American to decide what to do with his or her well earned money, and not the government.

And there you have the basic difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe that people are smart and will make good decisions with their money. Liberals think people are stupid, and therefore will not make good decisions with their money.

Which is all the more reason I was appalled when I read the following quote by Obama, who basically said that anyone who doesn't approve of sharing their money with people who are poor selfish.

"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to Restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

You are not selfish if you do not trust the government to dole out your money. Besides, you worked hard for it, there is no reason that YOU shouldn't be the one to decide what to do with it.
Allow me to provide an example. Say I want to donate $5,000 to a charitable organization. I will give it to an organization that is my neighborhood, and to an organization I know and trust.

That way that organization gets the entire $5,000, and all of that $5,000 can be doled out by that organization to the people who need it most.

Now, say I HAVE to give that same $5,000 to the Fed. First of all, I will not give to any charity, because that $5,000 was all I had. After all, I don't make millions of dollars like the top 1% of earners. What I make is $150,000 year, which is not rich.

I have a small business, so I only have so much money to dole around. If the Fed takes more of my money, I am forced to NOT give to charity. Likewise, if the Fed takes even more of my money in taxes, there are two new people I wanted to hire AND WON'T. So, there are two poor people who will be without jobs.

So the fed has my $5,000. It gives it to a middle person, who takes a cut of that money. Then another middle person gets the money, and yet another, all of whom take a cut. Then a person sitting at a desk in Washington has to decide who needs that money.

Chances are, that person will have never met any of the people who will receive the money. So, chances are, some of that money will go to people who don't deserve it. This is called government waste. Some of the money is going to go to people who have been on the government dole for 20 years because they are afraid to get a job for fear they will lose their government check. Thus, because of the government, some people are trapped in poverty.

And, likewise, some of the people will be poor only because they didn't get hired by me because I couldn't afford to hire that person because my taxes went up.

So, finally a recipient gets my money, but by that time it's dwindled down to $500 or $1,000. A recipient gets this money, and there really isn't much he can do with it.

He would have been better off with the $5,000 I initially doled out. Besides, the charitable organization I would have selected would have made sure the money wasn't wasted, nor go to undeserving people.

Plus it's harder to steal money from the poor when you see the poor. It's easy to steal money from the Fed because most people never see those folks. They are mainly people sitting in an office thousands of miles away.

I can give an even better example. I grew up with five brothers. When we were 18 we all moved out of the home. With my older brother Bobby my mom gave him nothing. She decided he was on his own. Sure it was hard for Bobby, but it was for his own good.

Me, on the other hand, when I became 18, my mom developed a conscience. She thought I could use a helping hand. So she gave me some of her and dad's well earned money. In essence, she taxed herself. Not only did she give me money for gas and food, but she let me move back into her house when I failed to find a job.

My brother Bobby, while it was hard, he found a well paying job within a year. My mom no longer had to worry about him. Yet, it was hard to watch him struggle, but it was for his own good.

Me, on the other hand, I had no incentive to find a job. I sucked as much milk out of my mom as I could. I was a loser. I depended on her charity.

Conservative Republicans believe in the philosophy my mom had with my brother Bobby. Liberal Democrats (like Obama 2008) have the philosophy of my mom with me.

Now, eventually, my dad intervened and told me I had to get a job. He intervened, and told my mom to quit giving me money. He cut the cord so to speak. He removed the nipple from my mouth so I couldn't get any more milk.

Yes, it was hard for me at first. It was hard for my mom to watch me struggle. But she was proud when I found a good job. And I felt good and developed confidence as I succeeded for the first time on my own.

So, you tell me, was my mom selfish not to tax herself force her kids to become dependent on her, or was dad selfish to cut the cord.

My dad was not selfish. He was doing what was best for me. And that is something the government cannot do. Conservatism is all about helping people, but helping people in a way far more powerful than any charity the government can provide.

The best help, sometimes, is no help at all. The best help is to show people that they can make it on their own if they try. And, sometimes, the best way to show people that they can succeed on their own is to cut the cord.

By cutting the cord you are showing confidence in people. You are deciding that people are smart. That is the conservative believe, that people are smart. Conservatives believe (as McCain believes) that if you get the government out of the way people will prosper.

Liberals (like Obama) have little confidence in the people. They believe people will not succeed without the help of the government. They think people are stupid, incapable dunces, and have overconfidence in the ability of government.

And it's people of this liberal mindset who say things like, "It's my money. The government owes it to me." No, it's not your money. It's not your money because I am the one who worked my butt off to make that money. It's my money, and now you get it.

Look, taxes are needed. We need roads, we need government offices, we SHOULD try to take care of the needy and the poor who truly need assistance. But there is nothing SELFISH about wanting people to get off their butts and work. There is nothing selfish about forcing people to suffer a little and to provide for themselves.

I donate to charities as often as I can, and -- when government is out of the way, most kind hearted Americans donate their money too. But if the government is sucking money from them, they charitable donations decline.

Here's one other thing to note. During the 1980s -- when Ronald Reagan was president income taxes were at their lowest since the Fed started collecting in 1913 -- charitable donations were at an all time high.

As taxes have gone up, charitable donations have gone down. What this shows is that people are not stupid, as you increase their taxes, people stop donating money. Likewise, they stop spending money.

And what do you want most when you are in an economic slowdown -- YOU WANT PEOPLE TO SPEND MONEY. That's why taxes should be low, not high. The lower the taxes, the better off the economy.

Thus, Obama is wrong: YOU ARE NOT SELFISH WHEN YOU DECIDE YOU DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOUR WELL EARNED MONEY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Besides, who is this Obama anyway to decide for me that I'm selfish.

Robin Hood has failed for 500 plus years

So, a plummer says to Obama, "You're not going to raise my taxes, are you? I'm trying to run a business here?" Paraphrasing.

And Obama said, "I think when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

This plummer was on Neil Cavuto over on the Fox News Network. Neil asked, " Joe, did Obama win you over?"

The plummer said, "No, the answer actually scared me even more."

Cavuto said, "How so?"

The plummer said, "He said he wants to distribute wealth, and I mean that's kind of a socialist viewpoint. It's not the government to decide that I make a little too much and so I need to share it with other people. That's not the American dream."

He's a very smart plummer, that's what he is. He's been really reading up on his economics. I don't think Obama expected that. Here's a blue collar plummer, supposed to be a democrat, and he backs Obama against a wall.

This guy is upset that Obama thinks it is up to the government to decide that a "plummer" or any other American worker makes to much money and has to "share" the excess money with those poorer than he.

This is called Robin Hood, redistribution of wealth. It's socialism.

Obama says the most money a person can make before he will be taxed is $250,000. That's his cap. Once you make $250,000, you make enough money that you will be forced under an Obama administration to "share" your money with the poor.

It doesn't matter than you will not be able to get any richer. It does not matter that you may be forced to cut jobs because you need to pay those taxes, because most people won't be able to see those jobs because they aren't there.

Sure there will be unemployed people, but the more unemployed people there are the better off democrats and liberals are, because that means more victims. The more victims, the easier it is to sell our government programs that we want to initiate under the Obama administration.

So remember, if you make more than $250,000, you are going to have a tough time saving or making any extra, because Obama will take it from you.

And, case in point, there will be less of an incentive for people to go out and try to make that kind of money, because what will be the point -- Uncle Sam will just take it.

So who suffers. The people who will suffer the most are the poor because they will be out of a job AND out the money that Obama promised because it's not there. It's not there because redistribution plans do not work.

Think of it this way. The story of Robin hood is how old? It started in medieval times; about the 15th century. So that means the story of Robin Hood is about 500 years old.

People have been taking from the rich and giving to the poor for 500 years. So if Robin Hood politics was going to work, don't you think it would have worked, say, 500 years ago.

No. The truth is, Robin Hood politics (socialism) has been tried over and over and over again for 500 years. It's been tried ad nauseum. And today's liberal party continues to want to try it. It has NEVER worked.

Isn't it about time we gave up on Robin Hood politics? Why the hell do we keep trying it? Why don't we do something that takes some brains to think up, like supply side economics; like Reaganomics; like conservatism?

I'm so sick and tired of people wanting to try these feel good economic plans that never work. Yet, here we go again with Obama's Robin Hood plan. It's Robin Hood round 500,681. Why do we give Robin Hood so many mulligans?

I suppose we'll have to wait until it fails again for people to again see the light. And then conservatism will again come to save the day. And then people will forget again so Robin Hood politics can show his ugly head again.

That's life. It reminds me of ECCLESIASTES from the bible. He was the one who said that we humans never learn. "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh." And yet the new generation forgets all that the previous generation learned.

" What lies beyond the grave is outside the scope of human knowledge. When he is dead, man shall never return to see into whose hands his estate falls." He will never know that we are repeating his same errors.

Yet he is not here to set us free of our mistakes. The same mistakes our fathers already learned, tried to share with us, yet we forgoteth so we are doomed to repeateth.

Obama lets slip his Robin Hood plan

I've written before on this blog that the goal of liberalism is to create a socialistic government in the United States and end capitalism as we know it. There are liberal culprits not just in the democratic party, but on the republican side too.

But republicans at least try to be fair to the people who earned their money. Most democrats, on the other hand, make no secret of the fact that people who earn their money "owe it to the rest of the country to share the wealth."

Obama even went as far to say to one man that "It is your God-given duty to share your wealth."

He said it again the other day to an Ohio Plumber:

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard ... I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

You see, when Obama is caught off guard, his true beliefs slip out. When he is debating McCain, and when he is giving his prepared speeches, he sticks to his memorized talking points. But when he is caught off guard, his true liberal feelings are revealed

It's no secret that Obama wants to take the money of those who earned it and give it to the poor, who didn't earn it. That, if I am not mistaken from my many economics classes, is what we call Socialsim.

Robin Hood Economics is socialism. It does not work. It fails. It does not stimulate the economy. It traps the poor in poverty. It provides no incentive for the poor to work.

Heck, when you punish the achievers, the people who are winning in this country, you punish the poor. That's what conservatives have been saying all along and nobody listens until a liberal (remember Jimmy Carter) comes in and destroys the economy with Robin Hood policies.

Note: You cannot take from the rich and give to the poor and expect the economy to prosper. It has never happened and will never happen.

It's funny, because Obama said the other day that we are right now in the worst economic disaster since the Great depression.

John Rassmussen said earlier today that this is not the worst economic disaster since the Great depression. It is the worst economic disaster since Jimmy Carter.

And, as I wrote before, if Obama gets elected, the economy will only get worse, as Jimmy Carter's liberal policies made the economy worse.

The thought of socialism is scaring people

Rush Limbaugh made a good point on Friday's program, and that is that the stock market is crashing partly because investors are afraid of what might happen to the markets when the tax rate is 50%, corporate and capital gains taxes are increased.

Of course we all know this is what's going to have to happen in order for Obama to pay for all his socialist programs he says he's going to initiate.

Obama says he's going to cut taxes for 90% of Americans. But, at the same time, 40% of Americans don't pay taxes. So, that means that a large portion of Americans aren't going to get a tax break, they are going to receive subsidies. And subsidies is a payment from the government to the poor.

Still, while he says he's going to cut taxes, he keeps talking of all the programs he's going to start to help people, such as a nationalized health care system.

No, mind you, his health care proposal pales in comparison to Hillary's, but still his proposal calls for a socialistic program. And, to do what he wants to do, the money has to come from somewhere. He can't simply create all these programs and not fund them.

Well, even the No-Child-Left-Behind program isn't funded enough, according to Ted Kennedy. So you can only imagine all the money that will be spent by the government in an Obama administration.

And, while Obama chides that his tax and spend programs are what is needed to save the economy, McCain actually has what it takes to save the economy. McCain is talking capitalism, and how we need to keep taxes low to allow capitalism to prosper. He is talking economic growth.

Rush wrote, "McCain should just tell everybody that a vote for McCain could save the market."

On an opposing note, Rush writes that many in the Obama camp are happy that the economy is doing so bad:

There are a lot of people in Obama's orbit who love seeing the capitalist system teetering like this. This is a scary thing, folks. The Washington Post today has a story: "The End of Capitalism?" And it's not the first such story I have seen. The end of capitalism? Well, this is what Bill Ayers is all about. ACORN is all about the destruction of capitalism and the Democratic system of fair elections. There are a lot of people on Obama's side that are loving this. There are a lot of people on Obama's side loving that you're in pain, loving that you're anxious, loving this crisis, loving that you're suffering, loving it, 'cause they think two things. They think you deserve to suffer because this is such an unfair, inequitable country. It's not fair anybody has any more than anybody else, and so those who are suffering, good for them. I'm telling you, there's some people in Obama's camp that are doing cartwheels. Not publicly of course, they won't say this stuff publicly. The other reason they like it is that they think it's going to propel Obama over the top.

Rush left one thing out, though. He left out that Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist thug friends want capitalism to fail too. They love this.

Well, as I've written before, capitalism is not what is causing the current financial crisis. It is a failure of liberalism. It's socialism. And more socialism is scaring people. It's partly responsible why people are in such a panic. They fear the Messiah.