Curator's note: This is a variation of this RW FWD: already in the archive.
Simple Fact Of Socialism!
Simple Fact Of Socialism!
Subject: The Simple Fact Of Socialism!
This teacher is truly a genius!
As the late Adrian Rogers said, "you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
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.
Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)
Remember, there is a mid-term election in 2010!
Posts
11 comments:
The simple fact is that socialism provides help to
those who need. it.
As all of the citizens in a nation are helped, than
the engine of capitalism can succeed in providing
a higher standard of living for everyone. This
was proven in decisive manner by the liberal
policies of the Roosevelt administration.
Right wing thinking regarding socialism is based
on two assumptions which have repeatedly been
demonstrated to be wrong.
1) By helping people, you take away their will to
be successful. False. Everyone has been helped
at one time or another. I'm pretty sure most of
you are successful.
2) By helping people, your piece of the pie gets
smaller. This is also false. Your piece of the pie
only gets smaller if your are one of the elite 10%.
They already have 9 out of 10 pieces of pie, the
pigs.
Current RW thinking is espoused by the elite
in order to keep ALL of the pie. We call this
'greed'. Pretty it up all you want; that's all it is.
These e-mails simply pander to our baser
instincts.
"Obama's socialism" -- what a crock. He's the most business-friendly Democratic President in many a long decade. Ron Paul seems to be the only Republican who dares admit this anymore.
If Obama was a socialist, wouldn't we have gotten a health care bill that actually gave us some meaningful federal regulations or insurance?
Some food for thought: Household income in the United States
There's been a lot of whining about 47% of Americans paying no income tax. As of a few years ago, that meant your entire household lived on $42,000 or less a year.
28.22% of Americans made less than $25,000 a year, usually in two-person families.
Do we really believe, as the Republicans do, that we should blame the almost 40 million Americans living in poverty for being poor?
As an aside, I think we should all
use the word 'proablably' whenever
possible.
Q: Does MRWD.net provide a public
service?
A: Proablably.
I see the point this teacher was trying to make. And so learning from this experiment, I will abandon my three-year-old daughter on the side of the road. Because as we all know, I'm just acting as a crutch for her, and she'll never learn to be independent if I don't force her to start thinking for herself.
In all seriousness, what I find amusing is that we will never have true socialism in this country. Rather, the thing that the right seems to define as "socialism" is anything that lessens the burden of propping up the rich on the backs of the poor and working classes. Nothing short of the caste system itself is considered to be capitalism.
In what universe would an entire class of college students insist that Obama's economic policies are socialist?
Oh. In the Right Wing Imaginary Universe.
Never mind.
Prior comments pretty much sum up the craven stupidity and bald faced lie of this crap.
Pooped out by a rightwing think tank to send off to credulous tea partiers to brainwash them to vote against their own self-interest.
I guess one can label certain initiatives as "socialism," such as some type of health care reform. But the "deal" with a lot of what's called "socialism" these days by the rightwing think tanks is that - one way or the other - citizens have to pay for those who cannot or will not pay for stuff themsevles.
Either citizens cannot afford health care insurance, or they are "off the grid" and won't buy it. But when such citizens get ill, they use the ER (as instructed by GW Bush), and then what? The rest of us (except the top 1 percent) pay for it in one way or the other via a range of costs and fees; ER care is not the best way of handling most of the general health care problems brought there; it ends up costing more to provide these citizens with basic health care than if we had some sort of "socialized" system with good regulations of the health care industry.
But no! Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big MedDevices, etc, do NOT want to be regulated, so they bought off Congress and probably the so-called demon head socialist himself, BHO, and we end up with a piece of junk legislation... in part thanks to the idiocy of teabaggers everywhere shrieking about non-existent death panels and the like.
What a bunch of dumb bunnies. I've tried to be kind-hearted to and about rightwingers in the past, but with the election of BHO, the idiocy and stupidity level has reached a new level. They're stooges who are being manipulated by the obscenely wealthy who laugh all the way to their off-shore accounts and could care less about teabaggers or any of the rest of serfs.
Rightwing fantasies like this one are just that: a FANTASY that has NO basis in any kind of reality. So stupid on so many levels.
"No one would get an A and no one would fail", and yet in the end, everyone failed? Sure.
Even if this were true, which of course it is not, what this would demonstrate is problems with collectivism or pure Communism, not Socialism. A closer analogy would be the people who got the best grades would have some of their score given to the students who did less well. If you got 97 and it was reduced to 94, then you might be encouraged to study even harder to get 97 net. Similarly, if your 60 became a 65, then you might study harder to raise your grade since the hole wasn't as big.
Of course, the biggest problem with this analogy is that grades are strictly a merit thing on an objective scale: more points = better grade. Income, not so much. Some people work hard and get a lot of money; some work very hard and get very little. Some work not at all and get a lot, etc... In the GOP world, if you are rich it is because you worked for it. If you're poor, you're lazy.
I think the "40% of Americans pay no taxes" thing is a huge sign that anti-tax Republicans are arguing in bad faith. Because if they really were anti-tax, people not paying taxes would make them happy.
But they're actually just pro-rich people.
I'd love to see the tea bag crowd follow their own logic by suing to have the right to
decline to participate in health insurance, social security, medicare and all the taxes included and
simultaneously allow hospitals to refuse them treatment without insurance or 100% payment in advance.
To do anything else would be to expect hospital emergency rooms to run on a socialist system. They could call it "The Right to Die a Capitalist."
My partner's mother sent me a variant of this one a while back. My riposte: let's imagine a classroom that runs on laissez-faire principles. Everyone gets the grade they deserve, based on the work they did. Simple, right? And every semester your points are added up and divided by the number of credits you took, and that's your GPA. Neat.
So, upon starting their first 12 credits as freshmen, students arrive with 100 credits already factored into their GPA. These credits are determined by the grades of their parents or guardians; some students have 3.7s, others have 1.4s.
The 1.4s work themselves to death, but if they gets straight As through their entire undergraduate studies, they can work up to a B-.
The 3.7s slack off, party, and occasionally let off steam by beating up and/or raping the 1.4s. They pull straight Cs for 120 straight credit hours and end up with...wait for it...a B-.
Oh, one more thing: the 1.4s are more frequent targets for violence, are ineligible for any campus tutoring services, and are summarily expelled if their GPA ever, for any reason, drops below 1.4.
And, of course, 1.4 and 3.7 aren't the limits of that inherited GPA. Many legacies start with 100 credits of 5.2. Some of the others come in with an inherited -1.0.
Capitalism and meritocracy, folks. Different concepts, not antithetical, but one doesn't naturally cause the other to come into being.
Post a Comment